Adam's Choice to Remain with Eve--The keeping of a commandment and blessing.

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
We are a world apart in our view of this world.

I view it as still “very good” and that God truly had omniscience at all times and therefore knew that Eve and Adam would make the choices they made, before they made them, and knew there would be a requirement for a Redeemer, before they made the choices they made that eventuated the requirement for an opportunity of Redeeming grace through the planned and necessary atonement of Christ.

Believe it or not, I agree with everything you stated above. Our Church teaches that God’s creation is “very good” even today and we would completely agree that God, in His omniscience, has always known the course of salvation history and that it would be necessary to send Jesus Christ to redeem the world. What is necessary in order to be good is the gift of a free will. A robot is not good, in the moral sense, because it does what we program it to do. There is no choice to make. For someone to be morally good they must have the choice to choose otherwise. This is free will and it was given to mankind through Adam and Eve. What I am saying is that they made the wrong choice. They “failed” in their obedience to God whether or not the exact term is used in the scriptural text.

I view the words you have chosen to bring into interpreting the Genesis account–words such as “failed” (not in Genesis), “original holiness” (not in Genesis), “harmony with the rest of creation” (not in Genesis), “struggle in pain just to live” (not in Genesis), and certainly the idea that every sin is “slavery” and “this sin (failure) changed the history of all creation” as being wrong choices of words, not intended as the meaning conveyed by Moses. If he had meant for the account to have said those words, the account would have used those words or something very close to those meanings.

I’m at a slight disadvantage right now as I have no reference materials at hand. I will answer this more specifically but let me just say that we are certainly able to draw conclusions from what was written. As I have responded to wussup, the book of Genesis is written in a poetic genre and therefore the meaning must go beyond the absolute literal translation. For instance, are we speaking of a literal “tree” in the garden or is this figurative language meaning something more? Prior to the first sin, we can certainly presume that they were “holy” (free from sin). After the first sin they obviously were not in the state of “holiness” which they enjoyed when they were free from sin. This doesn’t mean that they did not have some degree of holiness, just like the rest of us. It is not a stretch to say that, due to sin entering into the human condition, that their “original holiness” was lost.

If your view is that God is the “first cause of all creation” then how can something happen by the choice of the created people whom He placed into a situation where they, having been created by Him with every single attribute they had, would choose “failure” and yet that not be some sort of failure of God since He created them and gave them their attributes plus placed them in a position where it was obvious they would fail (given Eve’s personality and given the opportunity presented to gain wisdom through their eyes being opened to see “good and evil”)?

I think this is kind of a “predestination” type of issue. Does the fact that God knows what choices we will make mean that we have no choice? No. We are not “forced” to make any choice; we were given free will. Did God know from the beginning that Adam and Eve would disobey? Yes. Does that then mean that they had no choice but to disobey because God made them that way? No. Did God know, from all eternity that He would have to send His Son to save us from our sins? Yes. Does that mean then that we have no choice but to sin? No. We freely choose to sin just as our first parents did. The fact that God knows how all of history will play out does not mean that our sin is His fault. It isn’t. When we try to project our limited human understanding into God’s plan we fall short. This is what the Catholic Church means when it speaks of “mystery”; something we cannot fully grasp until we meet God “face to face”. It isn’t a “cop out”, but rather the reality of a finite mind trying to grasp the infinite.

Parker, I’m convinced that we are actually a lot closer than we both realize and that our inability to understand each other is due to definition of terms, to a large extent. For instance I think when I speak of “sin” it means one thing to me and something different to you. I am interested in trying to overcome these things. If that is possible, we may still disagree about some things, but my bet is that we would be a lot closer to agreeing on a lot of things.

I have to go now, but will get to your two questions a little later.

God bless you.

Steve

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes, but I followed the logic of the words as they are written with the direct meaning, and the logic of human nature as it has been studied for thousands of years–not “fallen human nature”–just the nature of the instinctive human condition that anyone can study and figure out using the people around them or the people from history.

I don’t see logic in your interpretation, I see you contorting Genesis to fit your preconceived notions. You stated earlier in the thread:

I don’t know how else to explain in such a way that you will be able to move any slightest degree from your basic premises that you began with, which were assumptions you have brought with you into the reading of the text of Genesis.

You have through the whole thread done just what you accused others of doing, brought assumptions to your reading of Genesis. To paraphrase Inigio, you keep quoting these words, I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Such is interpretation (to paraphrase someone else).

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, but I followed the logic of the words as they are written with the direct meaning, and the logic of human nature as it has been studied for thousands of years–not “fallen human nature”–just the nature of the instinctive human condition that anyone can study and figure out using the people around them or the people from history.

Parker, I have been trying to approach our dicussions on a different level, but can you not see how unfair your statement is? Your interpretation is correct, because you follow “the logic of the words with the direct meaning”? You have arrived at truth that theologians have missed for 2000 years? Your denial of a “fallen human nature” contradicts completely what people have observed about the human condition for several thousand years as well as the clear meaning of scripture. It is permisable for you to attach your interpretation but not permisable for anyone else? It is hard to arrive at truth with this approach. I am enjoying our conversation and thought we might be getting somewhere, but I’m having second thoughts. I’m still willing to try, but how do we get anywhere when an alternate opinion is dismissed out of hand because you don’t agree. You are very close to claiming personal infallibility.

God bless.

Steve

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t see logic in your interpretation, I see you contorting Genesis to fit your preconceived notions. You stated earlier in the thread:

You have through the whole thread done just what you accused others of doing, brought assumptions to your reading of Genesis. To paraphrase Inigio, you keep quoting these words, I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Such is interpretation (to paraphrase someone else).

Zaffiroborant,
I disagree that I have been “contorting Genesis”. Perhaps a detail of what you mean can be looked at by taking a case in point. That will be fine with me. Talking in generalities when the text deals in specifics, is not going to arrive at a reliable conclusion.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I have been trying to approach our dicussions on a different level, but can you not see how unfair your statement is? Your interpretation is correct, because you follow “the logic of the words with the direct meaning”? You have arrived at truth that theologians have missed for 2000 years? Your denial of a “fallen human nature” contradicts completely what people have observed about the human condition for several thousand years as well as the clear meaning of scripture. It is permisable for you to attach your interpretation but not permisable for anyone else? It is hard to arrive at truth with this approach. I am enjoying our conversation and thought we might be getting somewhere, but I’m having second thoughts. I’m still willing to try, but how do we get anywhere when an alternate opinion is dismissed out of hand because you don’t agree. You are very close to claiming personal infallibility.

God bless.

Steve

SteveVH,
Of course any Biblical text can be looked in a way that says “I am permitted to attach any meaning I would like to these words.” That is basically saying, “I have free will and choice with regard to how I draw meaning from language.” But that may not lead to an understanding of what Moses was conveying when he wrote the words as he was inspired to write them.

Words have meanings that can be studied and thought about. Texts draw their meaning from the words used in the text. People can take the same text and draw different meanings, and that may result from their background in the language, their frame of reference based on how their own family or their own sub-culture has used a word or a phrase, or any other rationale–but if one desires to figure out a meaning based on what the original author intended the words to mean, then they had best (1) stay pretty close to the text itself and not add connotations that are not implied in the actual words used, and (2) if they are dealing with an issue of human behavior including instinctive behavior, then it would seem that God would expect humankind to use their experience of lives lived and behaviors studied, to bring to bear that well-thought-out kind of human experience in understanding the kinds of issues that Eve and Adam were dealing with in the choices they were faced with. That is what I have tried to do in looking at the Biblical text and thinking, “what is likely going on inside their minds as these things are happening that are being described?”

People study a writer such as Shakespeare all the time with the intent of both trying to understand Shakespeare’s “mind” (his incredible genius for understanding human behavior) and trying to understand the minds of the characters in his plays–their motives, the issues in their lives that bring them to the situation of making the choices and decisions that they make. This is done all of the time in literature and its study. I don’t think it is unhelpful to bring the same kind of thought process to studying the Bible texts. They are, after all, describing real people who are not caricatures with a single-faceted personality.

 

[zaffiroborant]

SteveVH,
Of course any Biblical text can be looked in a way that says “I am permitted to attach any meaning I would like to these words.” That is basically saying, “I have free will and choice with regard to how I draw meaning from language.” But that may not lead to an understanding of what Moses was conveying when he wrote the words as he was inspired to write them.

Words have meanings that can be studied and thought about. Texts draw their meaning from the words used in the text. People can take the same text and draw different meanings, and that may result from their background in the language, their frame of reference based on how their own family or their own sub-culture has used a word or a phrase, or any other rationale–but if one desires to figure out a meaning based on what the original author intended the words to mean, then they had best (1) stay pretty close to the text itself and not add connotations that are not implied in the actual words used, and (2) if they are dealing with an issue of human behavior including instinctive behavior, then it would seem that God would expect humankind to use their experience of lives lived and behaviors studied, to bring to bear that well-thought-out kind of human experience in understanding the kinds of issues that Eve and Adam were dealing with in the choices they were faced with. That is what I have tried to do in looking at the Biblical text and thinking, “what is likely going on inside their minds as these things are happening that are being described?”

People study a writer such as Shakespeare all the time with the intent of both trying to understand Shakespeare’s “mind” (his incredible genius for understanding human behavior) and trying to understand the minds of the characters in his plays–their motives, the issues in their lives that bring them to the situation of making the choices and decisions that they make. This is done all of the time in literature and its study. I don’t think it is unhelpful to bring the same kind of thought process to studying the Bible texts. They are, after all, describing real people who are not caricatures with a single-faceted personality.

And again this is just what you expressed exasperation at others for doing. It seems you are saying “look you;re are starting with these assumptions of yours, if you would just start with my assumptions you’d get it”

 

[ParkerD]

And again this is just what you expressed exasperation at others for doing. It seems you are saying “look you;re are starting with these assumptions of yours, if you would just start with my assumptions you’d get it”

No–I have cited the text and tried to understand (by human experience that has precedent in how people have lived their lives for centuries of time) what was going on inside of the mind of a person such as Eve or Adam or Solomon, by looking at the description of the experience as written down by Moses and by the writer of 1 Kings and by Solomon himself.

Again, you may go ahead and take a specific case and we can pursue evaluating what you are generalizing by taking that case specifically. I am totally willing to do that. I think it would be helpful to do that.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No–I have cited the text and tried to understand (by human experience that has precedent in how people have lived their lives for centuries of time) what was going on inside of the mind of a person such as Eve or Adam or Solomon, by looking at the description of the experience as written down by Moses and by the writer of 1 Kings and by Solomon himself.

Again, you may go ahead and take a specific case and we can pursue evaluating what you are generalizing by taking that case specifically. I am totally willing to do that. I think it would be helpful to do that.

No, you are making assumptions about “human experience that has precedent in how people have lived their lives for centuries of time” If you can not see that you start with your own assumptions just as much as any other human being on earth(past present or future) then I don’t see any conversation as helpful.

 

[ParkerD]

No, you are making assumptions about “human experience that has precedent in how people have lived their lives for centuries of time” If you can not see that you start with your own assumptions just as much as any other human being on earth(past present or future) then I don’t see any conversation as helpful.

It is true that science arrives at conclusions about human behavior by first making some assumptions (hypotheses), and then the scientist if true to the scientific method, will test their hypothesis. They do that by gathering data and evaluating the data, perhaps refining their hypothesis, gathering more data, and so forth. The study of human behavior is not a subject that is completely foreign to the scientific community, I think the conclusions drawn through the scientific method for studying human behavior and human interaction and the behavior of a species, whether male or female, need not be viewed as that everyone is “making their own assumptions.”

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Of course any Biblical text can be looked in a way that says “I am permitted to attach any meaning I would like to these words.” That is basically saying, “I have free will and choice with regard to how I draw meaning from language.” But that may not lead to an understanding of what Moses was conveying when he wrote the words as he was inspired to write them.

Which means what? That it is you who have the understanding of what Moses was conveying? That Catholic exegets, for two thousand years have missed the true meaning of these words. Some of the greatest thinkers, scholars, philosophers and theologians in the world have just glossed over the true meaning of the story of the fall of mankind. How could they think that man has a fallen nature? Why can’t they see that it wasn’t Adam and Eve’s fault, that God placed them in a situation in which they had no choice but to disobey Him. And so it really wasn’t that bad. They had to disobey God in order to be fruitful and multiply. But your opinion is not at all influenced by any preconceived notions or doctrinal beliefs, you’re simply reading the words and finding meaning that the rest of Christianity has been lacking. I think I get it.

Words have meanings that can be studied and thought about. Texts draw their meaning from the words used in the text. People can take the same text and draw different meanings, and that may result from their background in the language, their frame of reference based on how their own family or their own sub-culture has used a word or a phrase, or any other rationale–but if one desires to figure out a meaning based on what the original author intended the words to mean, then they had best (1) stay pretty close to the text itself and not add connotations that are not implied in the actual words used, and (2) if they are dealing with an issue of human behavior including instinctive behavior, then it would seem that God would expect humankind to use their experience of lives lived and behaviors studied, to bring to bear that well-thought-out kind of human experience in understanding the kinds of issues that Eve and Adam were dealing with in the choices they were faced with. That is what I have tried to do in looking at the Biblical text and thinking, “what is likely going on inside their minds as these things are happening that are being described?”

You relate interpreting scripture to observing our lives today, in this culture. What about the time and culture in which the text was written? What about the literary genre in use at that time? Was it historical, prophetical, poetical or some other form of literary expression? Have you looked at these texts from, not only the literal sense, but the allegorical, moral and anogogical senses? Have you considered how this text relates to the whole of scripture? Or does it just seem right according to your own experience? You get it, but those who spend their entire lives dedicated to the study of these texts just don’t get it. You have the ability to know “what is likely going on inside their minds as these things are happening that are being described?” You take two human beings who walked with God in the garden, free from the consequences of sin, and believe you can relate to their experience through the observance sociological norms in this society. You can do this because you deny that original sin has had any effect on our world, therefore we are just like they were before the fall. Then you accuse me or my Church of putting our own spin on things. I see no point in carrying this any further.

I wish you the best Parker, and have no personal animosity toward you. I just really don’t know where we can go from here.

God bless.

Steve

 

[zaffiroborant]

It is true that science arrives at conclusions about human behavior by first making some assumptions (hypotheses), and then the scientist if true to the scientific method, will test their hypothesis. They do that by gathering data and evaluating the data, perhaps refining their hypothesis, gathering more data, and so forth. The study of human behavior is not a subject that is completely foreign to the scientific community, I think the conclusions drawn through the scientific method for studying human behavior and human interaction and the behavior of a species, whether male or female, need not be viewed as that everyone is “making their own assumptions.”

Like your logic I don’t see any support for your implication that you employ “the scientific method” when you are reading and interpreting scripture. I see someone firmly entrenched in their prior assumptions (and asserting they are correct) stating their view repeatedly and annoyed when the same firmness is encountered in others.

You come to this discussion with preconceived notions about Genesis, from the LDS primary manual (what is taught to children):

*1. The fall of Adam and Eve was foreseen by Heavenly Father and “was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us” (Gospel Principles, p. 33). We accepted this condition in the spirit world when we supported Heavenly Father’s plan.

1. “Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden”*

And from the Gospel Principles Manual:

*Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

After the Fall, Eve said, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed [children], and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11).

The prophet Lehi explained:

"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen [been cut off from the presence of God], but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; . . .

"And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

"But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:22-25).*

Honest conversation and exchange of ideas is impossible with you as long as you refuse to see that you come to the table steeped in your own preconceptions.

 

[ParkerD]

Believe it or not, I agree with everything you stated above. Our Church teaches that God’s creation is “very good” even today and we would completely agree that God, in His omniscience, has always known the course of salvation history and that it would be necessary to send Jesus Christ to redeem the world. What is necessary in order to be good is the gift of a free will. A robot is not good, in the moral sense, because it does what we program it to do. There is no choice to make. For someone to be morally good they must have the choice to choose otherwise. This is free will and it was given to mankind through Adam and Eve. What I am saying is that they made the wrong choice. They “failed” in their obedience to God whether or not the exact term is used in the scriptural text.

I’m at a slight disadvantage right now as I have no reference materials at hand. I will answer this more specifically but let me just say that we are certainly able to draw conclusions from what was written. As I have responded to wussup, the book of Genesis is written in a poetic genre and therefore the meaning must go beyond the absolute literal translation. For instance, are we speaking of a literal “tree” in the garden or is this figurative language meaning something more? Prior to the first sin, we can certainly presume that they were “holy” (free from sin). After the first sin they obviously were not in the state of “holiness” which they enjoyed when they were free from sin. This doesn’t mean that they did not have some degree of holiness, just like the rest of us. It is not a stretch to say that, due to sin entering into the human condition, that their “original holiness” was lost.

I think this is kind of a “predestination” type of issue. Does the fact that God knows what choices we will make mean that we have no choice? No. We are not “forced” to make any choice; we were given free will. Did God know from the beginning that Adam and Eve would disobey? Yes. Does that then mean that they had no choice but to disobey because God made them that way? No. Did God know, from all eternity that He would have to send His Son to save us from our sins? Yes. Does that mean then that we have no choice but to sin? No. We freely choose to sin just as our first parents did. The fact that God knows how all of history will play out does not mean that our sin is His fault. It isn’t. When we try to project our limited human understanding into God’s plan we fall short. This is what the Catholic Church means when it speaks of “mystery”; something we cannot fully grasp until we meet God “face to face”. It isn’t a “cop out”, but rather the reality of a finite mind trying to grasp the infinite.

Parker, I’m convinced that we are actually a lot closer than we both realize and that our inability to understand each other is due to definition of terms, to a large extent. For instance I think when I speak of “sin” it means one thing to me and something different to you. I am interested in trying to overcome these things. If that is possible, we may still disagree about some things, but my bet is that we would be a lot closer to agreeing on a lot of things.

I have to go now, but will get to your two questions a little later.

God bless you.

Steve

SteveVH,
Thanks for trying to explain in a way that might approach coming closer together.

I think there was a built in contradiction in paragraph one of what you had written here, since you have stated a truth about being “morally good” but have said Adam and Eve “made the wrong choice”, yet what they chose led to there being choices between “good” and “evil” so their choice led to being able to have a “morally good” choice in the world subsequent to their fall. That was the whole point of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

You have stated that God knew “from the beginning that Adam and Eve would disobey” (with which I agree, although we differ profoundly, evidently, about their motives).

One of my points as this conversation has shifted from discussing Adam’s dilemma to discussing Eve’s choice, has been that by suffering for all of the sins of humankind including the sins of Adam and Eve, Christ opened the door to salvation and also brought little children into the condition of purity that I guess you would call “holiness” (I would only call it “innocence”) because they were thus free from sin until they did in fact sin using knowledge they personally had in their own mind and heart.

The Israelites at the time of Moses did not have a concept in place of “original sin” or of their children having a blame upon their heads for the choices that Adam and Eve made. Solomon was grateful for the correcting influence of the Lord, and wrote about its importance in developing greater righteousness and wisdom. Moses and Solomon knew what they were writing about, and wrote by inspiration for the texts we have from them.

I realize I had placed you in a somewhat awkward position by asking some direct questions. Thank for your consideration of those questions, anyway, without answering them. Perhaps they are part of the “mystery”, I would suppose.

I like God’s plan of salvation, as it is and as it has unfolded in our world.

 

[ParkerD]

Like your logic I don’t see any support for your implication that you employ “the scientific method” when you are reading and interpreting scripture. I see someone firmly entrenched in their prior assumptions (and asserting they are correct) stating their view repeatedly and annoyed when the same firmness is encountered in others.

You come to this discussion with preconceived notions about Genesis, from the LDS primary manual (what is taught to children):

And from the Gospel Principles Manual:

Honest conversation and exchange of ideas is impossible with you as long as you refuse to see that you come to the table steeped in your own preconceptions.

Zaffiroborant,
If you’re saying that LDS have more than just the Bible as a point of reference and a point of doctrinal security and guidance, then of course I agree with that.

My points about Adam and Eve had to do with their psychological make-up as a male person and as a female person.

SteveVH has stated that God knew from the beginning that Adam and Eve “would disobey”. I have stated He knew they would disobey both because He knew their personality and because He knew omnisciently what they would choose. He gave them a choice of whether to bring “moral choice” into the world, so that there could be a situation of there being “morally good” choices to make. He did that in a way that the choice was really on their shoulders, and along with that choice there were consequences that would bring the opportunity for growth including gaining wisdom and gaining more love and compassion and more patience than they ever could have had by living in innocence in the garden of Eden, even if they had had children in that environment.

All those elements can be learned directly from the text of the Bible, without the aid of the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price. But it is certainly true that I have those additional resources, and have read them and thus am familiar with them.

 

[SteveVH]

I guess I would perhaps learn something about your thinking if you were to convey answers to two questions:

1–What would have been the “history of all creation” in the ideal world, the “very good” world, you are thinking God wanted this world to have been?

2–What are the reasons God made humankind and placed them into this world if it was supposed to have been a world with only “good” and no “pain” and no “death.” Would there have been a need for a Redeemer had Adam and Eve not partaken of the forbidden fruit, in your view?

SteveVH,
I realize I had placed you in a somewhat awkward position by asking some direct questions. Thank for your consideration of those questions, anyway, without answering them. Perhaps they are part of the “mystery”, I would suppose.

I like God’s plan of salvation, as it is and as it has unfolded in our world.

Parker, I have no problem answering your questions, just hadn’t had time to get to them yet.

1–What would have been the “history of all creation” in the ideal world, the “very good” world, you are thinking God wanted this world to have been?

Obviously anything I could say here would be pure speculation as I have no idea what it was like or would be like living in a world free from the stain of sin. You’re asking a man blind from birth to describe a beautiful sunset. That is one our differences. You believe sin had no effect on our world and our lives. I do. What I do know is that Adam and Eve lived in perfect happiness prior to disobeying God. So I would have to guess that we would have enjoyed the same life. What that is actually like would be impossible for me to describe.

2–What are the reasons God made humankind and placed them into this world if it was supposed to have been a world with only “good” and no “pain” and no “death.” Would there have been a need for a Redeemer had Adam and Eve not partaken of the forbidden fruit, in your view?

God made man for no other reason then a gratuitous act of love; to share in the love between the Father and the Son; to become His adopted children. No, there would have been no need for Jesus to suffer and die for us had we not sinned. That is what He saves us from; our sins. God, being a good and merciful God, did not stop loving Adam and Eve, nor does He stop loving us when we sin. But when sin entered the world, through Adam and Eve, the gates of heaven were closed (nothing sinful can exist in heaven). They were opened again only through the sacrifice of Christ.

I’m trying to imagine your train of thought here. I could be wrong so feel free to correct me. It seems that you are saying something like the following:

Lets say that my children get lost in the wilderness on some camping trip. Realizing that they haven’t returned at the appropriate time I begin searching for them. Time passes and everyone realizes that their very lives are in danger. At last I find them and save them from extreme thirst, starvation and exposure. In my rejoicing I hold a welcome home party, invite all of our friends and relatives and buy them wonderful gifts. Even the mayor gives them the keys to the city; this is a huge event. Their experience of being rescued (saved) was unlike anything they had experienced before; very likely the greatest experience of their lives. Had they not been lost, they would not have experienced the exhilaration of being found, the welcome home party or the gifts. What I hear you saying is that they should be happy that they were lost and almost died because otherwise they would not have had this experience. I find that logic absolutely ludicrous. The fact that we have such a loving and merciful God, a God that brings even greater gifts to us through the saving power of Jesus, does not justify our sin. It only magnifies the glory of our God.

God bless you.

Steve

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I have no problem answering your questions, just hadn’t had time to get to them yet.

1–What would have been the “history of all creation” in the ideal world, the “very good” world, you are thinking God wanted this world to have been?

Obviously anything I could say here would be pure speculation as I have no idea what it was like or would be like living in a world free from the stain of sin. You’re asking a man blind from birth to describe a beautiful sunset. That is one our differences. You believe sin had no effect on our world and our lives. I do. What I do know is that Adam and Eve lived in perfect happiness prior to disobeying God. So I would have to guess that we would have enjoyed the same life. What that is actually like would be impossible for me to describe.

2–What are the reasons God made humankind and placed them into this world if it was supposed to have been a world with only “good” and no “pain” and no “death.” Would there have been a need for a Redeemer had Adam and Eve not partaken of the forbidden fruit, in your view?

God made man for no other reason then a gratuitous act of love; to share in the love between the Father and the Son; to become His adopted children. No, there would have been no need for Jesus to suffer and die for us had we not sinned. That is what He saves us from; our sins. God, being a good and merciful God, did not stop loving Adam and Eve, nor does He stop loving us when we sin. But when sin entered the world, through Adam and Eve, the gates of heaven were closed (nothing sinful can exist in heaven). They were opened again only through the sacrifice of Christ.

I’m trying to imagine your train of thought here. I could be wrong so feel free to correct me. It seems that you are saying something like the following:

Lets say that my children get lost in the wilderness on some camping trip. Realizing that they haven’t returned at the appropriate time I begin searching for them. Time passes and everyone realizes that their very lives are in danger. At last I find them and save them from extreme thirst, starvation and exposure. In my rejoicing I hold a welcome home party, invite all of our friends and relatives and buy them wonderful gifts. Even the mayor gives them the keys to the city; this is a huge event. Their experience of being rescued (saved) was unlike anything they had experienced before; very likely the greatest experience of their lives. Had they not been lost, they would not have experienced the exhilaration of being found, the welcome home party or the gifts. What I hear you saying is that they should be happy that they were lost and almost died because otherwise they would not have had this experience. I find that logic absolutely ludicrous. The fact that we have such a loving and merciful God, a God that brings even greater gifts to us through the saving power of Jesus, does not justify our sin. It only magnifies the glory of our God.

God bless you.

Steve

SteveVH,
Thank you for responding–I do appreciate getting a better grasp of your thinking.

I have thought it best to wait until Monday to respond, other than to say that the analogy was not reflective of my thinking, at all.

Realizing this is a sacred and holy time of year for those participating on this forum, I think it best to wait to make any other comment, and will add that I certainly respect your beliefs and your love for the Savior. God bless you and all readers here.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Thank you for responding–I do appreciate getting a better grasp of your thinking.

I have thought it best to wait until Monday to respond, other than to say that the analogy was not reflective of my thinking, at all.

Realizing this is a sacred and holy time of year for those participating on this forum, I think it best to wait to make any other comment, and will add that I certainly respect your beliefs and your love for the Savior. God bless you and all readers here.

Yes, I am off to Good Friday services here shortly. Thank you for respecting our celebration of Holy Week and God bless you also.

Steve

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, I am off to Good Friday services here shortly. Thank you for respecting our celebration of Holy Week and God bless you also.

Steve

SteveVH,
I have realized I don’t want to have the response I had said I would do as something I feel an obligation toward for Monday, so here is a brief response instead of waiting until then.

My feeling about the fall of Adam and Eve is as I have described several times during these conversations. My feeling about sin is that unlike Lucifer, who rebelled against God, humankind’s sins are not usually a rebellion but are part of a learning process in many cases except for breaking any of the ten commandments, which I think usually reflect selfishness of the person who breaks one of those–many times because they may have been following poor examples from their past.

I think many of the people of the world would love God better if they understood Him better, and understood His love for them. If they understood that the atonement is about the love of Christ for each of them, with His belief in their capacity to change and become a better person and His succor and help offered in doing that, then I think they would reach out to Him and make the changes in their lives that would bring them happiness and joy in their relationships. This life and this world would then be a place where the principal, overriding qualities in their lives would be feelings of peace, tranquility, joy, forgiveness toward others, contentment in making progress in life on an upward path toward seeking to become more Christ-like, with a real feeling of His guidance and shepherding influence. I just don’t see the need for any regret about the choices Adam and Eve made, particularly since the Bible speaks positively about the correcting that the Lord does out of love for us.

'Peaceful and deeply joyous Easter wishes to all.

 

[larkin31]

To simply turn the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden into a child’s tale ONLY of disobedience to a rule is to reduce humanity to a form of intellectual infancy.

That’s just too boring for me, and, I sense, inaccurate.

The serpent was right, after all. Their eyes were opened and they did not die (immediately). What is their to fault in the serpent? Simple rebellion? Christ, after all, was a rebel, too. The world rarely makes progress without rebellion.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I have realized I don’t want to have the response I had said I would do as something I feel an obligation toward for Monday, so here is a brief response instead of waiting until then.

My feeling about the fall of Adam and Eve is as I have described several times during these conversations. My feeling about sin is that unlike Lucifer, who rebelled against God, humankind’s sins are not usually a rebellion but are part of a learning process in many cases except for breaking any of the ten commandments, which I think usually reflect selfishness of the person who breaks one of those–many times because they may have been following poor examples from their past.

Parker, our differences are basic and fundemental. It was Lucifer in the garden, the one who rebelled against God. He caused Adam and Eve to rebell as well. I truly find it amazing that this isn’t apparent to you. Our sins are a learning process? Except for breaking any of the ten commandments? Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments and reduced them to two. 1) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Mt:22:37) 2) “The second is like it: You shall lover your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commands.” (Mt 22:39,40)

How do you not violate one of these commandments when you sin? Any sin is an offense against God or it is not a sin. Many of our sins are also an offense against our neighbor. If one offends God then how can that person claim to not break the command on which “The whole law and the prophets depend”? I find it troubling that you reduce sin to a learning experience. This also reduces Christ’s sacrifice to, as wussup said, a *. He gave himself entirely, for you, not so you could have “learning experiences” but to save you from your sins. I don’t see any way to come to terms on this point.

I think many of the people of the world would love God better if they understood Him better, and understood His love for them. If they understood that the atonement is about the love of Christ for each of them, with His belief in their capacity to change and become a better person and His succor and help offered in doing that, then I think they would reach out to Him and make the changes in their lives that would bring them happiness and joy in their relationships. This life and this world would then be a place where the principal, overriding qualities in their lives would be feelings of peace, tranquility, joy, forgiveness toward others, contentment in making progress in life on an upward path toward seeking to become more Christ-like, with a real feeling of His guidance and shepherding influence. I just don’t see the need for any regret about the choices Adam and Eve made, particularly since the Bible speaks positively about the correcting that the Lord does out of love for us.

I pray for a greater understanding of God’s love on a regular basis. We just finished Holy Week in which we focus on the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. The love He showed is beyond all comprehension. I want you to know that I don’t lose any sleep with regrets about Adam and Eve’s sin. I have my own sins to worry about. I also have a loving and merciful God who forgives me when I recognize, have true contrition, confess and repent of my sin. Spiritual progress doesn’t subsist in sinning, but rather in overcoming sin. The goal is to attain a sinless state, not to seek “new experiences” involving sin. That, being an impossibility in light of our fallen nature, requires a Savior. A Savior and God so wonderful that we will enter into a relationship likened to a wedding, not with our former wives, but with the Lamb. Yes, I think I have a pretty good idea of the love God has for me and for you while realizing that this love is infinitely beyond my human ability to fully grasp. This Love is God Himself. He desires holiness, not sinfulness.

Have a happy and holy Easter.

Steve*

 

[wussup]

My feeling about the fall of Adam and Eve is as I have described several times during these conversations. My feeling about sin is that unlike Lucifer, who rebelled against God, humankind’s sins are not usually a rebellion but are part of a learning process in many cases except for breaking any of the ten commandments, which I think usually reflect selfishness of the person who breaks one of those–many times because they may have been following poor examples from their past.

I think many of the people of the world would love God better if they understood Him better, and understood His love for them. If they understood that the atonement is about the love of Christ for each of them, with His belief in their capacity to change and become a better person and His succor and help offered in doing that, then I think they would reach out to Him and make the changes in their lives that would bring them happiness and joy in their relationships. This life and this world would then be a place where the principal, overriding qualities in their lives would be feelings of peace, tranquility, joy, forgiveness toward others, contentment in making progress in life on an upward path toward seeking to become more Christ-like, with a real feeling of His guidance and shepherding influence. I just don’t see the need for any regret about the choices Adam and Eve made, particularly since the Bible speaks positively about the correcting that the Lord does out of love for us.

'Peaceful and deeply joyous Easter wishes to all.

Parker, our differences are basic and fundemental. It was Lucifer in the garden, the one who rebelled against God. He caused Adam and Eve to rebell as well. I truly find it amazing that this isn’t apparent to you. Our sins are a learning process? Except for breaking any of the ten commandments? Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments and reduced them to two. 1) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Mt:22:37) 2) “The second is like it: You shall lover your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commands.” (Mt 22:39,40)

How do you not violate one of these commandments when you sin? Any sin is an offense against God or it is not a sin. Many of our sins are also an offense against our neighbor. If one offends God then how can that person claim to not break the command on which “The whole law and the prophets depend”? I find it troubling that you reduce sin to a learning experience. This also reduces Christ’s sacrifice to, as wussup said, a *. He gave himself entirely, for you, not so you could have “learning experiences” but to save you from your sins. *
larkin31;6484818:

To simply turn the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden into a child’s tale ONLY of disobedience to a rule is to reduce humanity to a form of intellectual infancy.

That’s just too boring for me, and, I sense, inaccurate.

The serpent was right, after all. Their eyes were opened and they did not die (immediately). What is their to fault in the serpent? Simple rebellion? Christ, after all, was a rebel, too. The world rarely makes progress without rebellion.

Steve;
I am loath to speak for someone else, but I understand the point of view of Parker. All disobedience to the will of God is sin. The tiniest infraction, left on repented of and without the redeeming grace of the Son dooms us to hell. Yet there is an almost infinite variety of sin that man commits. Within that sin is, IMO, the two greatest sources, man’s selfishness, and man’s ignorance of the act as a sin. Yes, these must be repented of, and yes, Christ paid the penalty for each. ’ Yet still, Larkin’s point that mankind is an intellectual infant, and that this mortal existence was granted to man that he might learn and grow is aptly stated. As a parent, I am sure you have let your children make mistakes so they can learn from them (so long as they did not harm themselves unduly)? So has the Father done for us, the difference is the consequence for man exercising his freewill in sin is eternal damnation. On the other hand, in His Infinite Grace, God the Father provided his Son as the Sacrificial Lamb of God, to take upon Himself the consequence for our mistakes, our selfish desires…our sins.

You are mis-characterizing my statement, re ‘wink and a nod’. I was referencing the oft claimed sacrifice as Christs’ Death. I do not believe in death, but rather the cliche of a death we call birth. Christ did not die, He willingly laid down His body for 3 days, went to the Spirits in prison as a disembodied spirit, and then ‘picked’ it back up, He resurrected Himself. I belittle NOT the sacrifice Christ made both in the Garden and on the Cross as Infinite Passion.

Do you believe Christ died? What do you mean by death? Is it such a terrible thing? Was Christ ever concerned about the transition from the corporeal mortal existence, to the incorporeal immortal existence, and to the Corporeal Immortal Existence? I don’t see this.

Larkin,
How was Christ a rebel?