I have a question for those who are Christians.

Post Reply New Topic

Consider this additionally to that equation - all of the perversions, aberations, and general inclementries that evil creates are used by God back against evil itself. The evil we endure is not only a bit like getting a flu shot (ie. one that does as advertised) but we're experiencing the mistakes of the angels and getting a crash-course on how to build our eternal 'to do' and 'not to do' lists including all the complexities of why for each list.

So much of this seems to hearken back to the notion that we have a prephysical stream of data which holds our current mix of 'essence'. A modern day example is how a person with a certain food aversion (not allergy, just doesn't like it) has a heart transplant, the donor liked that food, and after the transplant the recipient likes that food. There's no brain in a heart, liver, kidney, etc.. but the suggestion is that the data is stored off-site anyway in a nonlocal manner.

From that perspective when we look for 'sin' in those born disabled or like the man who had palsey for nearly 40 years who was by the pool who Jesus healed and said in effect 'Sin no more, lest you be worse off', its doubtful that this man was out partying, looting, and causing chaos as a toddler (regardless of what his mom might claim about his terrible two's) but I think the very reason why it makes no logical sense to us is that we're looking for the problem or the sin so to speak in the wrong place. What becomes even more cogent in that regard - there's a lot more to the concept of 'sin' than action taken in one's life.

The question I have to ask myself as well these days - what made the serpent's deception or the knowledge of good and evil so powerful that even a multiple murderer is only adding so much to their original sin or the most virtuous person alive can barely take a chisel to the debt that was handed off to them by Adam and Eve? That's something that I really want to do more research on.

How I see it.

Only God has the moral goodness to always chose good over bad.
Man does not, even when we want to do good, sometimes we can give in to bad, weak flesh that we are. hence, we are not gods.

The original lie the Devil said, "you can be like God, knowing good and bad", and we chose that lie, chose to be gods that we are not.

Any subsequent sin, however bad, like multiple murdering, would never have happened if we didn't even know how to sin, so all sin is just a result of that original sin, and even though we might not personally become a mass murderer, and might be the "most virtuous person alive", the sin is still in us, to be passed down to our children who could themselves be a mass murderer.

Another aspect of the events in Eden, doesn't just concern Mans rejection of Gods sovereignty
over us, but the challenge Satan gave God in front of all the Heavenly Host, when he tried to steal the creation and in effect claim man would be better off without Gods sovereignty.

In a way, mankind is suffering in order to prove a point amongst the gods, but God almighty does promise to undo all the damage and return us to happiness when his sovereignty, (let thy Kingdom come), returns over us.

But if Adam and Eve did not know how to sin, then how could they have disobeyed God and eaten of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil in the first place?

I like to think so.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Good question,
Maybe the sin comes from Satan in this case, in that, if nobody had put it into Adam and Eves mind to disobey God, it wouldnt have occurred to them.

Eve was decieved, though Adam wasnt, it is thought that he deliberatly joined Eve in disobeying as he didnt want to be seperated from her.

The tree of knowledge was the only demonstration of Adam and Eve having free will, a choice, they chose the wrong way, maybe only as they actualy did it, did it become a sin?rather than a choice? They had free will, it wouldnt be free will if they had no oppurtunity to exercise it, though they didnt know sin, I wouldnt think that would prevent them from being able to make a choice if presented to them.

I sometimes wonder if they were set up for a fall, if God knows all, he would have known the issue Satan was going to raise, its quite convienient that the events occurred before they had any children, imagine what it would be like if they had some children first, and those children didnt follow their parents example by eating from the tree.
Would we now have a world with perfect immortals living amongst us?, obviously that wouldnt work out, so either they would have to live on seperate planets, or the test of Adam and Eve had to occur first.

what kind of creates a universe just to test people and mess with there heads and play play mind games with his creations.
why not just create a good world and leave it at that.

that would be like if parents go out and buy some crack or heroin and pressure there children into using it just to make them prove there respect for there parents.so that if they are kids that dont use drugs its by there own free will and not just because were never tempted.

i dont involved with religion one way or another because even if god exists god by most peoples description doesnt sound all that great

Well it was a good world, and will be again.

 As for the parent analogy, whilst you might tell your children how and why to behave in a certain way, how far would a good parent go to ensure a child/young adult never errs?, tie them up and put a gag in their mouths so they can never say or do anything wrong, or give them guidance and let them have freedom to live their lives as a free person would, choosing As for the parent analogy, whilst you might tell your children how and why to behave in a certain way, how far would a good parent go to ensure a child/young adult never errs?, tie them up and put a gag in their mouths so they can never say or do anything wrong, or give them guidance and let them have freedom to live their lives as a free person would, choosing to obey and respect you, or reject you which is what we did to God.

But if that's the case, then they were already capable of sin before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I never really got the whole "original sin" thing. It seems to me that Paul was just comparing and contrasting Jesus and Adam.

I don't think that eating the fruit of knowledge is really the first sin. God presented righteousness and sin as a choice and warned of the consequences of choosing knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't logically follow that choosing evil is necessary given the choice, since Adam and Eve could have rejected the fruit of that knowledge. God apparently desired to create a companion-creature that existed roughly on the same intellectual plane as Himself, i.e. possessing creative power and the ability to act autonomously. Adam and Eve cannot be shown to possess these divine qualities if they lack some vehicle for expressing it, and thus for creation to be complete they must be given a choice. A loving God does not give a creature the capacity for choice and then eliminate the choice. The creature himself must choose whether he desires the alternative or he must freely (of his own choosing) ask God to remove the choice in order to submit to total obedience to God.

The first sin couldn't have been eating the fruit. Satan's temptation was that by eating the fruit that Adam and Eve would be like God. Satan is suggesting that sooehow God's creation is imperfect or incomplete, that God possesses knowledge that He has withheld from Adam and Eve, and that by taking the fruit Adam and Eve can become co-equals with God. By allowing themselves to seriously believe that they could improve on God's perfection, they sought to place themselves ABOVE God--which is impossible and is also the same sin for which Satan fell from heaven. It is Adam and Eve's arrogance for which they died, not eating some stinking fruit, and it is the same "I don't need God" arrogance that all of mankind is guilty of that places us in desperate need for salvation.

As a corollary to that, I think maybe the second sin was Adam and Eve choosing to hand over the keys to the kingdom to Satan's authority rather than God's authority. See, I'm not totally convinced that Adam and Eve were the first humans as per Genesis 1. I think that Adam and Eve were specially created by God as rulers and authorities over the earth, including earlier human beings, and thus were charged by God with an awesome responsibility to God's creation. Side-by-side, Adam and Eve were the human representatives of God on earth. I believe Eden was a literal garden, but I also think at the same time it functioned as a sort of capital city. With Adam and Eve as rulers over all creation, they effectively were rulers over Satan as well. Rather than expelling the serpent for its blasphemy, they gave the serpent power by doing what Satan said. In effect, Adam and Eve abdicated their throne in Eden by crowning Satan ruler of the earth.

While Satan does continue to hold that power, I believe that power is limited by man's continuing ability to realize his own power and authority over Satan. We are born into an inherited sin nature rather than a righteous nature. We aren't that much different from Adam and Eve at the beginning. I think Satan defeated himself in a sense because for someone who knows God to reject God means there is no chance for redemption. Adam and Eve chose humility over arrogance when they submitted to God's will. The upside for us is that we can choose a state of grace from never having first known it, and we have a lifetime to come to an acceptance of God's salvation through Christ. Once we can learn to reassert the power God has given us over Satan, we are no longer compelled to live entirely under the authority of sin.

BTW, I just wanted to mention that I'm reading the following book ATM:
http://www.amazon.com/Made-Image-God-Un ... age+of+god

Despite some clash in reviews its remarkably good. There are a few details that I'm not sure I agree with the author on (ie. such as whether the God of the OT was the Father or the Son) but either way they stay tangential and even considering them they don't trip up his arguments.

The book is really about constructing a metaphysic of the bible - ie. parsing the difference of function in soul and spirit, talking about how the three-in-one identity of the godhead works, breaking down how original sin works (one of my questions earlier), how reparation via Christ and the Holy Spirit works, and I think he's even starting to hint at how we can have a good sorting tool for the 'feel' of everything from knowing God's influence, being able to parse the difference between spiritual/religious good vs. utilitarian/humanist good, etc..

So far its not only amazingly cogent and logical but its even shaping up with a lot of the findings I had about my own source of reality when I'd examine myself via more shamanistic means (albeit he's definitely not using or endorsing that mechanism, ie. he's strictly bible scholarship, but my experiences though just further edified, in my mind, the way his theories are set up).

Now THAT makes sense.



That seems a little out there, but I've sometimes wondered if Adam and Eve were a metaphor for hunter-gatherer humans. The serpent is a popular symbol n pagan religions, and government leaders of pagan kingdoms usually claimed to be gods. The serpent represents false religion tempting these chieftains to claim to be gods in order to wield more absolute authority over their subjects, and in doing so the morality of God gets lost in their propaganda of how they (claim) they are divine.

But that wouldn't explain why Paul referred to Adam and Eve as literal people, which your model does. Interesting.



I can see that.