Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

I meant what is your next question based on my answer - was trying to keep the flow moving.

So your question would then be - why do i believe my choice to sin as an agent of free will is my responsibility and not that of Adam’s

Well, you just gave the answer in your verse. Adam sinned and now sin was a reality in the world - the first sin was committed and now it was no longer just an option, but sin now existed as a cold hard fact. So Adam’s choice allowed sin to enter God’s creation. The penalty for anyone who choses to sin is death. Death was only a concept, now it had become a reality - the first animals were killed to provide covering for Adam and Eve.

and the balance of the verse proves my point - Death now comes to all men, because all men sin. I chose to sin, death is my punishment just as it was for Adam. Christ is the Perfect man without sin and thus his death was true sacrifice because he never had to die.

And so you prove my statement is accurate - I chose to sin

162

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
dmaddox:

You trying to get your hands dirty in here so that you can go back to the Kingdom Hall and say look what I did. Sorry H, m has one upped you and in my mind has seversal seats ahead of you to be one of the 144k. Keep trying though.[/quote]

That whole paragraph made zero sense, like literally, nothing in it made sense. It sounded like you were insulting me, but that, at this point, is just a guess. Do you not want to answer the question?

[/quote]
No.[/quote]

That is awesome, thanks![/quote]

I do not like questions with hidden agendas, as yours clearly has.[/quote]

If you are afraid of me have a reasoning point with my line of questioning, then that is your right. Not everything is asked in one question. Some times things require reaching a common denominator, or common ground to establish a particular train of thought. An added benefit, it can more easily pinpoint logical disconnects in discussions, to help prevent them from degenerating into the textual equivalent of plugging your ears and screaming “la la la I’m not listening”.[/quote]

In fairness it is also a way of leading someone to a certain answer\conclusion that you want so you can establish your point with out allowing a differing view. Thus forcing that person to come to the same conclusion you have.

Not saying that is your motive, but I usually refuse to follow baited questions because of that simple fact.[/quote]

That is very true. That can be the case, lawyers do it all the time. What my intentions are, are to take it one point at a time instead of one IDEA at a time, so that if we run across points in the discussion that differ, we can address those one at a time, isolated from emotional involvement of the idea.

If at any point in a discussion if the other person doesn’t agree they can state it, and then from there we can see if our difference on that one point can be reconciled before moving on. At least then we know where each other stands.

163

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I meant what is your next question based on my answer - was trying to keep the flow moving.

So your question would then be - why do i believe my choice to sin as an agent of free will is my responsibility and not that of Adam’s

Well, you just gave the answer in your verse. Adam sinned and now sin was a reality in the world - the first sin was committed and now it was no longer just an option, but sin now existed as a cold hard fact. So Adam’s choice allowed sin to enter God’s creation. The penalty for anyone who choses to sin is death. Death was only a concept, now it had become a reality - the first animals were killed to provide covering for Adam and Eve.

and the balance of the verse proves my point - Death now comes to all men, because all men sin. I chose to sin, death is my punishment just as it was for Adam. Christ is the Perfect man without sin and thus his death was true sacrifice because he never had to die.

And so you prove my statement is accurate - I chose to sin[/quote]

Thank you! OK, do you feel you could go through life w/o sinning? Do you think that choice is physically possible?

164

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I meant what is your next question based on my answer - was trying to keep the flow moving.

So your question would then be - why do i believe my choice to sin as an agent of free will is my responsibility and not that of Adam’s

Well, you just gave the answer in your verse. Adam sinned and now sin was a reality in the world - the first sin was committed and now it was no longer just an option, but sin now existed as a cold hard fact. So Adam’s choice allowed sin to enter God’s creation. The penalty for anyone who choses to sin is death. Death was only a concept, now it had become a reality - the first animals were killed to provide covering for Adam and Eve.

and the balance of the verse proves my point - Death now comes to all men, because all men sin. I chose to sin, death is my punishment just as it was for Adam. Christ is the Perfect man without sin and thus his death was true sacrifice because he never had to die.

And so you prove my statement is accurate - I chose to sin[/quote]

Thank you! OK, do you feel you could go through life w/o sinning? Do you think that choice is physically possible?[/quote]

If you’re born with original sin, isn’t it impossible?

165

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
dmaddox:

You trying to get your hands dirty in here so that you can go back to the Kingdom Hall and say look what I did. Sorry H, m has one upped you and in my mind has seversal seats ahead of you to be one of the 144k. Keep trying though.[/quote]

That whole paragraph made zero sense, like literally, nothing in it made sense. It sounded like you were insulting me, but that, at this point, is just a guess. Do you not want to answer the question?

[/quote]
No.[/quote]

That is awesome, thanks![/quote]

I do not like questions with hidden agendas, as yours clearly has.[/quote]

If you are afraid of me have a reasoning point with my line of questioning, then that is your right. Not everything is asked in one question. Some times things require reaching a common denominator, or common ground to establish a particular train of thought. An added benefit, it can more easily pinpoint logical disconnects in discussions, to help prevent them from degenerating into the textual equivalent of plugging your ears and screaming “la la la I’m not listening”.[/quote]

In fairness it is also a way of leading someone to a certain answer\conclusion that you want so you can establish your point with out allowing a differing view. Thus forcing that person to come to the same conclusion you have.

Not saying that is your motive, but I usually refuse to follow baited questions because of that simple fact.[/quote]

That is very true. That can be the case, lawyers do it all the time. What my intentions are, are to take it one point at a time instead of one IDEA at a time, so that if we run across points in the discussion that differ, we can address those one at a time, isolated from emotional involvement of the idea.

If at any point in a discussion if the other person doesn’t agree they can state it, and then from there we can see if our difference on that one point can be reconciled before moving on. At least then we know where each other stands.[/quote]

I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but I understand D’s choice not to want to “follow the rabbit down the hole”.

166

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

Thank you! OK, do you feel you could go through life w/o sinning? Do you think that choice is physically possible?[/quote]

yes - it is a possibility, because Christ proved it was possible. But the Bible is very clear that we all do eventually choose to sin. (for all have sinned) Some sin the first time they are presented with the choice, some go for many decisions before they come to the choice that they fail to make correctly, but we all have the potential for living sinlessly. That is why our condemnation is individual, just as our salvation must be effected individually - because our choice to sin was made as an individual.

167

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
God’s plan from before creation was that sin should enter the world. A thing he rendered certain while remaining free from responsibility for it. He did this to facilitate His desire to display the full glory of His full nature. Holy and Just, loving and merciful. Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. God is incapable of error because he himself is the measure of all. There is no standard external to himself by which he can be measured.

Despite the protestations of our friends here, God is indeed, by his own declaration, incomprehensible to his finite creation beyond that which he chooses to reveal of himself. It cannot be otherwise because among the things God cannot do, and yes there are some, duplicating Himself would be included as He everywhere announces there is only one God. God also cannot sin or lie (or make a rock so big that he can’t lift it).

God is the only innately eternal being without beginning or end. Existing everywhere and nowhere simultaneously as he fills the immensity of space on one hand and having created both time and space exists in complete independence of either on the other.

Despite the known laws of thermodynamics He created everything other than Himself from absolutely nothing with man alone being in His image in the sense of possessing deliberating intelligence and moral agency, but while unlike God, man has a beginning, like God he does not have an end.

God governs the affairs of His universe to the atom, His foreknowledge and predestination being 2 sides of the same coin as God cannot be certain of a future that fails to come to pass and cannot fail to be in absolute eternal contemporaneous possession of all possible and actual objects of knowledge past present and future. To us that is, as there are no such things as past present and future to Him.

He can induce the King of Assyria to attack His people Israel as judgment, specifically declaring that Assyria’s king had not purposed this of himself, and then destroy that King for so doing all without fault, sin or error on His part.

He can everywhere insist that He is one and only one and also call 3 distinct persons Himself all sharing His incommunicable attributes. He can be born as a man, of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Ghost in one person and pray as the Son to His Father. The sacrifice of even a sinless creature for sin would only atone for the sins of one other creature. Christ’s very Godhood is what makes him qualified to atone for the sins of many, having no sin himself despite being born of a sinful woman.

I could go on for days and yes, just like the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, every single syllable I’ve just typed is deduced by good and necessary consequence of the accurately translated Bible assumed alone and in it’s entirety to be the infallible Word of Almighty God. As far as the heavens are above the Earth, so are God’s ways above man’s ways.

“Then God said: Let there be light and there was light.” I don’t understand that either.

Any god the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society can fit in the pages of it’s books and magazines is no god at all.

168

I’ve been reading John Henry Newman’s work lately - in one of his works in particular, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he set out to show that much of Catholic doctrine, dogma, teachings - being “extra-Biblical” - aren’t genuinely Christian.

He was, at the time, a fairly standard low-Church anglican (having been also evangelical and a Calvinist, who believed that the Trinity was a hoax and the Pope the anti-Christ.)

By the time he - surely one of the most genuinely brilliant minds in the 19th century Anglo world - was done with the book, he had been recieved into the Roman Catholic Church.

Just some food for thought. :slight_smile:

169

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
God’s plan from before creation was that sin should enter the world. A thing he rendered certain while remaining free from responsibility for it. He did this to facilitate His desire to display the full glory of His full nature. Holy and Just, loving and merciful. Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. God is incapable of error because he himself is the measure of all. There is no standard external to himself by which he can be measured.

Despite the protestations of our friends here, God is indeed, by his own declaration, incomprehensible to his finite creation beyond that which he chooses to reveal of himself. It cannot be otherwise because among the things God cannot do, and yes there are some, duplicating Himself would be included as He everywhere announces there is only one God. God also cannot sin or lie (or make a rock so big that he can’t lift it).

God is the only innately eternal being without beginning or end. Existing everywhere and nowhere simultaneously as he fills the immensity of space on one hand and having created both time and space exists in complete independence of either on the other.

Despite the known laws of thermodynamics He created everything other than Himself from absolutely nothing with man alone being in His image in the sense of possessing deliberating intelligence and moral agency, but while unlike God, man has a beginning, like God he does not have an end.

God governs the affairs of His universe to the atom, His foreknowledge and predestination being 2 sides of the same coin as God cannot be certain of a future that fails to come to pass and cannot fail to be in absolute eternal contemporaneous possession of all possible and actual objects of knowledge past present and future. To us that is, as there are no such things as past present and future to Him.

He can induce the King of Assyria to attack His people Israel as judgment, specifically declaring that Assyria’s king had not purposed this of himself, and then destroy that King for so doing all without fault, sin or error on His part.

He can everywhere insist that He is one and only one and also call 3 distinct persons Himself all sharing His incommunicable attributes. He can be born as a man, of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Ghost in one person and pray as the Son to His Father. The sacrifice of even a sinless creature for sin would only atone for the sins of one other creature. Christ’s very Godhood is what makes him qualified to atone for the sins of many, having no sin himself despite being born of a sinful woman.

I could go on for days and yes, just like the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, every single syllable I’ve just typed is deduced by good and necessary consequence of the accurately translated Bible assumed alone and in it’s entirety to be the infallible Word of Almighty God. As far as the heavens are above the Earth, so are God’s ways above man’s ways.

“Then God said: Let there be light and there was light.” I don’t understand that either.

Any god the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society can fit in the pages of it’s books and magazines is no god at all.[/quote]

Please do not take this as offense, Tiribulus, but when I see posters respond with a response like that, it just makes me doubt more. In that reply, there are a lot of assumptions which you believe, but I do not. That response did not answer my original questions, but rather sounded like a sermon at church.

Please do not take this offensively. It’s just something I noticed religious types do when I ask questions.

170

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
What mistake? [/quote]

It was to make up for the mistake of the creation of original sin and it being passed down from person to person. Since God created everything, he also created original sin. The fact that he had to come down in the first place to fix it means that it was a mistake.
[/quote]
God created the possibility for sin, he himself did not commit it. Original sin simply means that sin is in the world and it got there by the freewill of man.
He’s not fixing his mistake, he’s fixing ours.

171

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I meant what is your next question based on my answer - was trying to keep the flow moving.

So your question would then be - why do i believe my choice to sin as an agent of free will is my responsibility and not that of Adam’s

Well, you just gave the answer in your verse. Adam sinned and now sin was a reality in the world - the first sin was committed and now it was no longer just an option, but sin now existed as a cold hard fact. So Adam’s choice allowed sin to enter God’s creation. The penalty for anyone who choses to sin is death. Death was only a concept, now it had become a reality - the first animals were killed to provide covering for Adam and Eve.

and the balance of the verse proves my point - Death now comes to all men, because all men sin. I chose to sin, death is my punishment just as it was for Adam. Christ is the Perfect man without sin and thus his death was true sacrifice because he never had to die.

And so you prove my statement is accurate - I chose to sin[/quote]

Thank you! OK, do you feel you could go through life w/o sinning? Do you think that choice is physically possible?[/quote]

It’s possible, but highly unlikely.

172

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
What mistake? [/quote]

It was to make up for the mistake of the creation of original sin and it being passed down from person to person. Since God created everything, he also created original sin. The fact that he had to come down in the first place to fix it means that it was a mistake.
[/quote]
God created the possibility for sin, he himself did not commit it. Original sin simply means that sin is in the world and it got there by the freewill of man.
He’s not fixing his mistake, he’s fixing ours. [/quote]

I understand that he did not commit it, but he basically set it up for us to fail, didn’t he? Like me putting a gun next to a kid that’s being bullied and telling someone to tell him it’s okay to use it. I understand what you mean, but I think the contexts that it was allowed to come into existence is a flaw on Gods part.

173

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Please do not take this as offense, Tiribulus, but when I see posters respond with a response like that, it just makes me doubt more. In that reply, there are a lot of assumptions which you believe, but I do not. That response did not answer my original questions, but rather sounded like a sermon at church.

Please do not take this offensively. It’s just something I noticed religious types do when I ask questions.
[/quote]

Have you read Alvin Plantinga’s logical response to the problem of evil\sin in the world?

Most people agree it is a logical response to Epicurus problem of evil argument.

174

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Please do not take this as offense, Tiribulus, but when I see posters respond with a response like that, it just makes me doubt more. In that reply, there are a lot of assumptions which you believe, but I do not. That response did not answer my original questions, but rather sounded like a sermon at church.

Please do not take this offensively. It’s just something I noticed religious types do when I ask questions.
[/quote]

Have you read Alvin Plantinga’s logical response to the problem of evil\sin in the world?

Most people agree it is a logical response to Epicurus problem of evil argument.

[/quote]

I have not, but will investigate it tonight. Thanks!

175

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
What mistake? [/quote]

It was to make up for the mistake of the creation of original sin and it being passed down from person to person. Since God created everything, he also created original sin. The fact that he had to come down in the first place to fix it means that it was a mistake.
[/quote]
God created the possibility for sin, he himself did not commit it. Original sin simply means that sin is in the world and it got there by the freewill of man.
He’s not fixing his mistake, he’s fixing ours. [/quote]

I understand that he did not commit it, but he basically set it up for us to fail, didn’t he? Like me putting a gun next to a kid that’s being bullied and telling someone to tell him it’s okay to use it. I understand what you mean, but I think the contexts that it was allowed to come into existence is a flaw on Gods part.[/quote]

I see what you are trying to do, but Adam and Eve had a perfect life with no bullies, nothing that would force them to eat the fruit. It was their choice to do so. It was not the created fruit that caused the sin, but the act of disobedience of Adam and Eve that cause the sin.

176

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
What mistake? [/quote]

It was to make up for the mistake of the creation of original sin and it being passed down from person to person. Since God created everything, he also created original sin. The fact that he had to come down in the first place to fix it means that it was a mistake.
[/quote]
God created the possibility for sin, he himself did not commit it. Original sin simply means that sin is in the world and it got there by the freewill of man.
He’s not fixing his mistake, he’s fixing ours. [/quote]

I understand that he did not commit it, but he basically set it up for us to fail, didn’t he? Like me putting a gun next to a kid that’s being bullied and telling someone to tell him it’s okay to use it. I understand what you mean, but I think the contexts that it was allowed to come into existence is a flaw on Gods part.[/quote]

I see what you are trying to do, but Adam and Eve had a perfect life with no bullies, nothing that would force them to eat the fruit. It was their choice to do so. It was not the created fruit that caused the sin, but the act of disobedience of Adam and Eve that cause the sin.[/quote]

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.

177

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.

178

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]

Okay, maybe God didn’t put the desire in them. But then why did he create the snake that would tempt him? God created everything, didn’t he? Why create something he knew would tempt them (and succeed)?

See, this is the big problem I’m noticing. God is involved in the fall of Adam and Eve. To fix their sin that he himself had a hand in causing, he sent himself down to earth, and sacrificed himself, to himself, to fix the mistake. And I’m not even sure you can call it a sacrifice because he didn’t end up dead. He rose and, depending on how you interpret it, rose to power in heaven as either ruler or someone close to God.

This really makes sense to everyone?

179

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
So it is more logical to sacrifice an angel to himslef so that he could correct sin? I would say the first is more logical.

I believe that God loves us so much he was willing to take the punishment of sin upon himself. Sending an angel, servant whatever the JWs call Jesus does not show Love, but shows that their Jehovah is not man enough to take the pain on himself.

My faith is that Jesus/God called us friends. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. God is Love, God is our friend and not an angel. Faith, Hope, & Love but the greatest of these is Love. He does not say Works he says Love.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think either is very logical. If God is infinitely powerful & wise, why did he make the mistake in the first place? Wouldn’t that mean he isn’t perfect? And in correcting it, why would he require a human sacrifice? Couldn’t he have taken sin upon himself in a more “godly” way? (Such as speaking to everyone at once, explaining the mistake). But then again, God speaking to everyone at once has never occurred in recorded history, verifiable by multiple accounts without vested interests.

Just being honest.
[/quote]
What mistake? [/quote]

It was to make up for the mistake of the creation of original sin and it being passed down from person to person. Since God created everything, he also created original sin. The fact that he had to come down in the first place to fix it means that it was a mistake.
[/quote]
God created the possibility for sin, he himself did not commit it. Original sin simply means that sin is in the world and it got there by the freewill of man.
He’s not fixing his mistake, he’s fixing ours. [/quote]

I understand that he did not commit it, but he basically set it up for us to fail, didn’t he? Like me putting a gun next to a kid that’s being bullied and telling someone to tell him it’s okay to use it. I understand what you mean, but I think the contexts that it was allowed to come into existence is a flaw on Gods part.[/quote]

I see what you are trying to do, but Adam and Eve had a perfect life with no bullies, nothing that would force them to eat the fruit. It was their choice to do so. It was not the created fruit that caused the sin, but the act of disobedience of Adam and Eve that cause the sin.[/quote]

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

In my previous post I meant to say, “say” and not do in the very first sentence so sorry if it came across harsh.

God created us in his image. God wanted us to walk and talk with him daily. He wanted a relationship. He did not want to rule over us with a strong arm. We fear him because he is God not because he can kill us even though he has the ability to.

Can you imagine walking with God in the garden? Him answering all our questions and teaching us about everything. Him helping us out with whatever proplem we have? I can not wait for this. I love my God, and want to spend time with him. I see this in my daughter. She wants to spend her time with me. She will crawl up into my lap and wants me to hug on her. I am very relationship oriented if you all have not seen that already. It is not about the knowledge but the fellowship and love that I like being around. This is what God offers at true love that he purchased for us on the Cross. We screwed up and not God.

In the old testament who was the first to break the covenant, Israel or God? Man broke the covenant and God continued to bring them back over and over again into fellowship with him.

180

This question is one I spent months as a young Christian giving myself headaches over. It’s Genesis 3 actually, but no biggie.

From whence arose the sin of man? Or sin at all for that matter? Somewhere along the way in years since I developed, by the grace of God I’m sure, satisfaction in the fact that God himself understands and this question, along with a very long list of others will have to remain not fully answered to me in this life. And maybe the next.