Letter From Christian Guys...

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">of course her decision was irrational to say the least- but at least we can say in her defense she had no idea of what the consequences of her desire actually were. it's important to remember in this version of the story she was tricked, her adversary played her due to her nature.
which God gave her.</div></div>
I don't know that the adversary "played her due to her nature". What nature was that? He reasoned with her, and she tried to apply human logic (using her will, intellect and emotion) to her situation. Not irrational at all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why he did nothing to protect her from the evil he also allowed to set itself against her is beyond me...</div></div>
Why should God have bailed her out when she was faced with the test of who she should believe? Wouldn't He have to bail her out everytime after that? The issue was one of obedience. She was told "don't" which she obviously was aware of, but chose/decided to ignore.

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

well her nature was flawed. capable of making mistakes, the making of which would simply be a matter of probability. and God made her that way so he full well knew she could be corrupted. Just like any parent, you know your daughter might get mixed up in drugs- addicted to heroin. So you never just stand by with a quaint admonishment, and if you see she has taken up with drug dealers and addicts you step in to save her. so why should she suffer if her actions were a consequence of how she was made and created to react. and what a heap of suffering God visits upon her! we all have natural instincts which God has given us to protect us, he could have programmed us to be instinctually safe from the devil and his wiles. Why not give us a built in lie detector, se we can really freely choose. In fact God himself does not want Adam or Eve to have knowledge of what good or evil is:

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

What kind of malarcky is that when the very agent of evil is about the place looking to take down creation.

anyway she was not once given the facts of the situation- for example she could not have any concept of what 'death' was, since there was no death until after they 'fell.' From the perspective of an agent of pure evil, she was an easy play and he couldn't have asked for a better target. He played a sleight of hand. Quite possibly Eve might not have even known what a lie even was.

as to why God should have bailed her out, see above. God should have never allowed the situation to develop, if he really loved her. God knew the full consequence, Eve did not. She was like a little kid, we are told, innocent and pure. Being omniscient, God would have known she would fail this test and that the devil would succeed, yet still he stood by and let it go down. Then if that is not bad enough, he lets Adam go down too. Frankly, there was no reason to even have that tree in there. You don't put your kids in the same room as a loaded gun do you, and just tell them hey don't play with that. Of course you wouldn't. But we are expected to believe that God would do this. LOL. This is what people base a salvation plan on.

It's like if you tell a kid not to talk to strangers, then give some candy to a child molester, or dress the pederast up like a cop and have him come and "test" your kid. Let's even grant it, why on earth would God have let her eat. At the point he saw she was going to he could have popped in there, and he still would know the outcome. But God never broke it down to Eve and said to her there was something evil that was around- everything in Eve's experience was from God and was good. Why shouldn't she trust what the adversary said. I mean in our example above you've told the kid what is the right thing to do, but who knows, they are just kids, and kids do stupid sh!t and make stupid mistakes. We are smart enough as a society to know it is not the fault of the kid who goes off with the kidnapper, the kid does not get punished, the kidnapper does. The abused child is not sent off to prison, the abuser is. But in some of our religions we are not smart enough to see this?

Anyway being omnipotent, he could have wiped out the evil, in fact was morally and ethically obligated to do just that, but he allowed it to exist and defy his will to start with and corrupt everything.

but we know God is sadistic in this story, since he has no problem cursing off the innocent- like the serpent. Until Christians turned the serpent into the devil, the story at least made a little sense as to why God would be upset with the serpent- even though he also created the serpent according to it's nature- but after the serpent became the devil it really makes God into a sadistic prick. Also, I'd like to point out, apparently if Satan can choose to not follow God, then we are not alone to be able to choose. I know many Christians like to keep their angels automatons and man special.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

This is not a beat up on women.

To the contrary I believe the prize of the adversary was Adam not Eve.
Adam was given dominion by God.
The adversary is later described as , he was smitten with Eve.
The serpent is described as subtle.
What we are not told is the reason for his subtlety but the focus then shifts to Eve. We are led to believe that his subtlety was focussed on her.

The Genesis story is not complete.
I have heard speculation about God giving a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil to Adam but not Eve.(I find this nowhere in scripture)
That even in Eden man had precedence. This argument is one from hindsight.

<span style="color: #3333FF"><span style="color: #3366FF">1co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the WOMAN is the man; and the head of Christ is God. </span>
1co 11:8 For the man is not of the WOMAN; but the WOMAN of the man.
1co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the WOMAN; but the WOMAN for the man.
1ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression </span>
My take is God saw Adam and Eve as one flesh, not two individuals, Adam was given dominion and Eve as a part of Adam was given the same dominion.
I see a power play by the adversary, the goal was to surplant Adam and take his dominion and Glory.
It meant splitting Adam and Eve into two opposing parties (devide and conquer) work on Eve's desire to be as Gods and Adam's weakness for companionship.
Eve had to covet this glory to be like God for the adversary to succeed.
Why then call it a curse giving man ruler ship over the woman if he already had it?

<span style="color: #3333FF">Ge 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; <span style="color: #CC0000">and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee </span></span>

God punished Eve at the desire level, she would be subjugated. Something about Eve's needed subjugation this was her curse.

It could not be a curse if the desire was innocent.

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well her nature was flawed. capable of making mistakes, the making of which would simply be a matter of probability. and God made her that way so he full well knew she could be corrupted. Just like any parent, you know your daughter might get mixed up in drugs- addicted to heroin. So you never just stand by with a quaint admonishment, and if you see she has taken up with drug dealers and addicts you step in to save her. so why should she suffer if her actions were a consequence of how she was made and created to react. and what a heap of suffering God visits upon her! we all have natural instincts which God has given us to protect us, he could have programmed us to be instinctually safe from the devil and his wiles. Why not give us a built in lie detector, se we can really freely choose. In fact God himself does not want Adam or Eve to have knowledge of what good or evil is:

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

What kind of malarcky is that when the very agent of evil is about the place looking to take down creation.</div></div>
Your entire piece is an interesting take, but my limited time at the moment will only allow me a few thoughts on the portion quoted. Like most people, you apply a human logic to the way God is supposed to work, and by doing so, if He doesn't conform to the way humans think, it becomes difficult to appreciate that our perspective is really not that significant in the big scheme of things.

I do not believe Eve's nature was flawed at the onset. That it contained a potential to become that is obvious, but that would only come to the fore based on the choices she, and all mankind for that matter, would make. Jesus demonstrated the ability to rise above / resist temptations, all the time conforming His will and desires to those of the Father. Adam and Eve had the same ability which is why they were held accountable for their actions. It would be a cruel diety that would hold someone responsible for decisions they made if they didn't have the ability to resist actions that went against His will.

Regarding the verses you quoted, it is easy to forget that Adam and Eve were created as adults. Nowhere do we read that they had the capacity at the time to fully understand good and evil, but I believe this was why God visited them daily to instruct them accordingly. I take the view that it was God's intention for them to fully understand the responsibilities that came with the right to that kind of knowledge before imparting it to them. The alternative makes no sense. The subtlety of the serpent was two fold: 1) take advantage of Eve's ignorance, and 2) through the seduction of Eve, destroy Adam. Given that he tried to prevent Jesus from going to the Cross by offering Him various alternatives only show that his mode of operation hasn't changed. All three of Jesus' temptations were in the same three areas in which Eve was challenged - lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

So there really was no need for God to provide built in detector to keep us safe. What Eve had, and what we have, is God's instructions, and He made it so that we can freely decide what to do with them. One could argue that the 'detector' is the Word; whatever doesn't conform to it is a lie. If we were programmed for automatic obedience/allegiance, where would be our free will imput? A covenant relationship requires that free will compononet as it involves a decision on our part to reciprocate God's love for no other reason than simply because we chose to. I firmly believe that Adam and Eve had that ability, but when faced with a choice of obedience, chose not to exercise it for purely selfish reasons. We are still doing the same thing today.

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Your entire piece is an interesting take, but my limited time at the moment will only allow me a few thoughts on the portion quoted. Like most people, you apply a human logic to the way God is supposed to work, and by doing so, if He doesn't conform to the way humans think, it becomes difficult to appreciate that our perspective is really not that significant in the big scheme of things.
</div></div>

But it is GOD who is working in human medium. So why wouldn't he want to make sense to us. He certainly has no problem punishing us accordingly. That is not ethical. The Big Scheme of Things has quite a few of us suffering for what we can't understand? Completely sadistic.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do not believe Eve's nature was flawed at the onset. That it contained a potential to become that is obvious...</div></div>

well that is a flaw, she is not perfect, and being God, he would have known already she would fail. So he could have made it so she would be possessed of the faculty to know the adversary and his game from the jump. He could have made her a lot smarter.

But granting this, let's move on. God never warns Eve about this character, knowing full well what his evil intentions are. I mean, wouldn't you tell her to watch out for the adversary that was to come against her?

Of course you would, considering what is at stake.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> but that would only come to the fore based on the choices she, and all mankind for that matter, would make. Jesus demonstrated the ability to rise above / resist temptations, all the time conforming His will and desires to those of the Father. Adam and Eve had the same ability which is why they were held accountable for their actions. It would be a cruel diety that would hold someone responsible for decisions they made if they didn't have the ability to resist actions that went against His will.
</div></div>

Jesus was given support by Angels. He was also, we are told, God's very own fleh and blood son. Adam and Eve were no where near Yashua in that respect in this trial. Where were the ministering angels when Eve was trying to decide to take the fruit and eat thereof? Well there was only one ministering Angel, according to christian mythology.

Much is made of the fact that Eve has free will. God has already seen one of his agents and a third of his angelic host fall to 'free' will. So Eve had a choice, yes, but to have an actual choice it must be an informed choice, else it is a trick. Like a shell game. You think you have all the information necessary to make a free choice. She was not given all the information, she certainly had no concept of what death was. If she knew the serpent was evil, and knew what evil was, of course we would expect her to make the right choice. But God witheld this important information.

CEW this is starting to get childish, lol- God formed them as adults yet he had to sit with them and instruct them daily. So they are children. Clueless! Were they playing hookie when it came time for the instruction on who the Devil was. You yourself admit she was ignorant. That is not her fault.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subtlety of the serpent was two fold: 1) take advantage of Eve's ignorance, and 2) through the seduction of Eve, destroy Adam. Given that he tried to prevent Jesus from going to the Cross by offering Him various alternatives only show that his mode of operation hasn't changed. All three of Jesus' temptations were in the same three areas in which Eve was challenged - lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.</div></div>

So why did God curse the creature who was invaded by the devil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If we were programmed for automatic obedience/allegiance, where would be our free will imput?
</div></div>

Let me ask you this. Are you currently stalked by a thief? A psychotic murderer? No? Yet you exercise free will every day.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A covenant relationship requires that free will compononet as it involves a decision on our part to reciprocate God's love for no other reason than simply because we chose to. </div></div>

Well there is a problem here. If we don't love God back, we get cursed off to hell in some of these mythologies.

That is not true love, and that is plain to see.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

CEW,
I see you too are pressed for time and compressed an answer to us both in one post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do not believe Eve's nature was flawed at the onset. That it contained a potential to become that is obvious, but that would only come to the fore based on the choices she, and all mankind for that matter, would make. Jesus demonstrated the ability to rise above / resist temptations, all the time conforming His will and desires to those of the Father. Adam and Eve had the same ability which is why they were held accountable for their actions. It would be a cruel deity that would hold someone responsible for decisions they made if they didn't have the ability to resist actions that went against His will.

Regarding the verses you quoted, it is easy to forget that Adam and Eve were created as adults. Nowhere do we read that they had the capacity at the time to fully understand good and evil, but I believe this was why God visited them daily to instruct them accordingly. I take the view that it was God's intention for them to fully understand the responsibilities that came with the right to that kind of knowledge before imparting it to them. The alternative makes no sense. The subtlety of the serpent was two fold: 1) take advantage of Eve's ignorance, and 2) through the seduction of Eve, destroy Adam. Given that he tried to prevent Jesus from going to the Cross by offering Him various alternatives only show that his mode of operation hasn't changed. All three of Jesus' temptations were in the same three areas in which Eve was challenged - lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. </div></div>

<span style="color: #3333FF">Ro 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from ADAM to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of ADAM's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.</span>

I am going to use a lot of scripture in this posts in trying to paint a picture I believe that shows ADAM did not have to sin.

ADAM here meaning the man and woman God created. God called the male and female ADAM. The man called the female "woman" and being given Dominion by God he named her EVE. To GOD however they were "one flesh" ADAM.

GOD is changeless in Eternity, timeless. In creation he had to interface with the temporal. He created the earth in time periods he called days. We know he demarketed time into evening and morning but the light in the first three days did not came from SOL because he created Sol on the fourth day.

In Eden it appeared time was suspended, the tree of life seemed to keep it so. There was no death no decay no aging.

<span style="color: #3333FF">1.co 15:22 For as in ADAM all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.</span>

ADAM did not have to sin. God did not get it right after a number of failures. That God knew of death, that he placed death in EDEN beside the Tree of Life, means that this test was failed before.

We read of LUCIFER in pride being cast out of heaven, there is a desire that leads one to covet GOD's Glory that a one way road to Death, separation from the source of Life which is GOD.

<span style="color: #3333FF">Php 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Php 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
</span>
The male ADAM was patient to wait on GOD even though he was lacking. He was alone. HIS desire was for a mate.
The female ADAM was also lacking her desire was for GLORY. HE was prepared to wait on GOD she looked for an alternative.

The man Jesus submitted his will to wait on GOD. The man ADAM refuse to submit his will when his mate gave up hers he choose her way above God.

The first angel created a pride in himself to challenge God for his Glory, the first female nursed a desire for God's Glory.

Lucifer recognised a being with like passions and exploited them.

But the passions were there.


<span style="color: #3333FF">
1co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.</span>

Its all about subjection, to whom we yield our passions, his servant we are.

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: accepted2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I am going to use a lot of scripture in this posts in trying to paint a picture I believe that shows ADAM did not have to sin.</div></div>
Of course he/they didn't have to. The second Adam, Jesus, demonstrated what the first Adam should have been.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ADAM here meaning the man and woman God created. God called the male and female ADAM. The man called the female "woman" and being given Dominion by God he named her EVE. To GOD however they were "one flesh" ADAM.</div></div>
No disagreement from me regarding your first sentence. The English word "Adam" is a derivative of the Hebrew word aw-dawm' which means "man" or "human being", so effectively, Eve was also an aw-dawm'.

[acceptedtoday]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

CEW,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course he/they didn't have to. The second Adam, Jesus, demonstrated what the first Adam should have been.</div></div>

We are in agreement here but there still remains Monk issue. That since God already had a game plan in case Adam did'nt make it then the test was stacked against them from the start and Jesus was an eventuality, because Jesus as the second Adam was the spirituat while Adam was only the natural.

But here's the real issue with that.
Is God a God of trial and error?

First Adam, Then Noah, Then Patriarchs, then Judges,Then Kings,then prophets finally grace?

Does God understand his creation, man?
Why the need for Adam to Die if Jesus was the solution all along?.

You are not saying it but you are hinting that this had to play out so salvation could come through Jesus Christ.

So why blame Adam for sin and death?

[niceniss]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, contrary to what some think, Christianity, properly understood, doesn't advocate the subjugation of women. We like our ladies dressing classy AND modestly [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] </div></div>so women should be responsible because you men have no self control and behave like animals? </div></div>
How about them just being responsible, period? </div></div>

And what responsibility should men have? Are you saying that women who dress in a way that men find attractive are irresponsible?

[niceniss]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 5_30</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...and it's not just in church. Our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and God warned, WOE pan anyone who causes someone to fall. I tell ma sister all the time, that's too close-fitting. That's too tight - she dresses modestly for the most part - but when sopm nuh too right, mi mek sure mi tell ar. I've even told women in church who could be ma mother, to pull up dem blouse cause dem spillin!! It nuh right. And funny enough men dweet to! Dis bredda who mussi wenna advertise fi de gym weh him guh use to wear muscle shirt come a church - smaddy spoke to him bout it. De bible seh raise u han - not flex to bi and triceps [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/704555_dwl.gif[/img] Women have commented on it; how dem feel when him a worship. Not cool! </div></div>

Seriously guy, what's wrong with you?

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, contrary to what some think, Christianity, properly understood, doesn't advocate the subjugation of women. We like our ladies dressing classy AND modestly [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] </div></div>so women should be responsible because you men have no self control and behave like animals? </div></div>
How about them just being responsible, period? </div></div>
And what responsibility should men have? Are you saying that women who dress in a way that men find attractive are irresponsible? </div></div>
Like I said in an earlier comment, there is a shared responsibility here. Sisters have a responsibility to the brothers, and vice versa. And yes, if a sister chooses to dress in a manner deemed inappropriate for church, by any collective standard, she is being irresponsible.

[Diplomat]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are in agreement here but there still remains Monk issue. That since God already had a game plan in case Adam did'nt make it then the test was stacked against them from the start and Jesus was an eventuality, because Jesus as the second Adam was the spiritual while Adam was only the natural.</div></div>
Can you expand on the bolded phrase? I'm not sure I'm following you here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But here's the real issue with that.
Is God a God of trial and error?

First Adam, Then Noah, Then Patriarchs, then Judges,Then Kings,then prophets finally grace?

Does God understand his creation, man?</div></div>
This argument plays into the issue of whether God is omniscient or not. Some would argue that the lack of omniscience is demonstrated in the different plans used, while others would say omniscience enabled God to have different strategies in place for dealing with man's transgressions, all with one or more ordained purpose(s) in mind. Is God seeing things as they unfold in time and space as we are, or that He exists outside of time and space allows Him to see the full picture in ways we can't? That really depends on one's theology, doesn't it? I take the latter view for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is what God, and the Scriptures, reveal of / about Himself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why the need for Adam to Die if Jesus was the solution all along?.

You are not saying it but you are hinting that this had to play out so salvation could come through Jesus Christ.

So why blame Adam for sin and death?</div></div>
One could say Jesus was the plan "B" for redemptive purposes if/when Adam failed. Unlike Monk, and maybe yourself, I do not believe that the odds were stacked against Adam from the beginning because as mentioned earlier, God, in the person of Jesus Christ, visited mankind as an aw-dawm', void of any divine abilities, and accomplished what Adam, the first aw-dawm', should have accomplished. His message to humanity, IMO, was, among other things: "This is how you experience victory over the evil one." If one were to ask: "Was it fair for God to 'test' Adam?", it raises the follow up question: "Fair by whose standards?" As we saw in the case of Job, God reserves for Himself the right to put His creation in any situation that furthers a divine purpose. Of course, that doesn't answer all the questions, and Job had his fair share, but God's response to what is fair offers an interesting insight into our significance in the big scheme of things. I do not think it is a coincidence that the book of Job is considered the oldest of all the Biblical books.

I wasn't aware I was hinting at what you propose, however it seems to me, from a theological perspective, that mankind find itself as the coveted prize in the cosmic battle between God and Satan. You will immediately recognize that this is not unlike what we know of Job's situation, and the glimpse we got into the heavens regarding the conversation between the Protagonist and the Antagonist - a test of loyalty. IMO, this was Adam's test, and on his own volition, he failed. That he chose to disobey, having being told not to eat of whatever the fruit of the tree symbolized, is why he was held responsible. Had he held firm like Job did, we would probably be having a different kind of conversation.

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
One could say Jesus was the plan "B" for redemptive purposes if/when Adam failed. Unlike Monk, and maybe yourself, I do not believe that the odds were stacked against Adam from the beginning because as mentioned earlier, God, in the person of Jesus Christ, visited mankind as an aw-dawm', void of any divine abilities, and accomplished what Adam, the first aw-dawm', should have accomplished.
</div></div>

But Yashua, granting he was the son of God, was aware of his mission, and more importantly, was aware of what mortality was and knew the stakes- Adam was told death would be the result of God's first test. Nowhere in the scripture- or any of it's precursors, does God lay out the full hundred of what is going to happen if they eat of the fruit. He only says something is going to happen of which they have no idea or concept- they've never seen death or experienced it.

I mean, the real point here, is why even create a test with these parameters and results. That has to be explained without copping out to 'purpose we can't comprehend.'

I'd also like to hear why the serpent gets cursed, when the poor creature had little to do with Eve failing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> His message to humanity, IMO, was, among other things: "This is how you experience victory over the evil one." If one were to ask: "Was it fair for God to 'test' Adam?", it raises the follow up question: "Fair by whose standards?" As we saw in the case of Job, God reserves for Himself the right to put His creation in any situation that furthers a divine purpose.
</div></div>

So...just suck it up and stick it out, jump through my hoops and you'll come out of the whole thing I set up ok?

Such an entity is not worthy of worship.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, that doesn't answer all the questions, and Job had his fair share, but God's response to what is fair offers an interesting insight into our significance in the big scheme of things. I do not think it is a coincidence that the book of Job is considered the oldest of all the Biblical books.

...From a theological perspective, that mankind find itself as the coveted prize in the cosmic battle between God and Satan. You will immediately recognize that this is not unlike what we know of Job's situation, and the glimpse we got into the heavens regarding the conversation between the Protagonist and the Antagonist - a test of loyalty. IMO, this was Adam's test, and on his own volition, he failed. That he chose to disobey, having being told not to eat of whatever the fruit of the tree symbolized, is why he was held responsible. Had he held firm like Job did, we would probably be having a different kind of conversation.
</div></div>

And I would return for consideration my nonna's own galactic law- you own up for your mistakes. God let Satan break in, and visit iniquity and horror on this earth- according to this mythology. At any time, if he was omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent, we would be having a much different conversation, quite true. It's one thing to disobey- it's quite another to create something with foreknowledge of all potential outcomes then sit by while the worst ones unfold- to the harm and disaster of innocents and do nothing.

Also, from an ethical and moral standpoint, I'd like to see someone explain to me why we are all paying for somebody else's mistake, and why are we paying such a high price that it would require the blood sacrifice of God's only son to get us back into grace. How about an "I'm sorry?" Worked for Yashua. Let us set aside the glaring fact that if that were actually Yashua's purpose one would assume he would have spent a lot of time talking about it.

I would also here add to the weight of the stacked deck argument by suggesting that God did not make Eve aware of the nature of the adversary, he did not tell her there was one being who was going to come at her who she is not to trust, nor did he seem to have any problem placing the tree within their easy reach. I mean, why not put it on a mountain? Why not put the Angel there at the tree from get go, if it is so important. God has not thought about baby proofing the garden?

This plan B concept still suffers from simple ethical flaws.

Yahsua had the benefit of knowing the consequences of which of his actions which would result in death, he had the benefit of knowing about the story of Eve's failure, and when sh!t got real rough for him, he had his Team on hand.

[niceniss]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Donnika</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, contrary to what some think, Christianity, properly understood, doesn't advocate the subjugation of women. We like our ladies dressing classy AND modestly [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/70409-waytogo.gif[/img] </div></div>so women should be responsible because you men have no self control and behave like animals? </div></div>
How about them just being responsible, period? </div></div>
And what responsibility should men have? Are you saying that women who dress in a way that men find attractive are irresponsible? </div></div>
Like I said in an earlier comment, there is a shared responsibility here. Sisters have a responsibility to the brothers, and vice versa. And yes, if a sister chooses to dress in a manner deemed inappropriate for church, by any collective standard, she is being irresponsible. </div></div>

ah such piety! [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I'll be sorry for any woman who is myopic enough to be with such a repressive character of a man. Thank God you are not a ruler of any country for you would rule in contemptuous tyranny.

[rudemonk]

Re: Letter From Christian Guys...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had he held firm like Job did, we would probably be having a different kind of conversation.
</div></div>

Why is Job given the opportunity to salvation's test. If Job can do it, so can we all, we don't then need Jesus.