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

[SteveVH]

I like that. Beautifully stated.

First, it is refreshing to have the question answered and reasoned questions followed up on. Frankly, your position is sound based on the Catholic perspective. It is the LDS perspective that Adam and Eve knew an innocent kind of peace, but that without ‘hardship’, i.e., without the earth being cursed for Adams sake, they could not experience difficulty. And without knowing misery, it is impossible to know true happiness. Does that mean the more miserable one can flagellate oneself, the more we can experience happiness? Of course not. We also have the ability to feel empathy. I can see pictures of Haiti to know sorrow and pain, and feel joy when I see the video’s have little children eating happily. Your parable is close, but contains misconceptions regarding the LDS faith. First, analogy falls short comparing the lost children and the parents. God never lost us, we lost God. Second, the children left the campsite but did not willfully get lost, nor did they willfully endanger their lives. Adam and Eve exercised their freewill and partook of the fruit, whatever that would be. They willfully understood the consequences for their disobedience to God (that being expulsion from the Garden, separation from God, and entering into a sinful state). There is one major point I realize now we have not addressed. Leaving the Garden of Eden did not bring about the necessity of the individual sin. Yes, we believe in ‘original sin’ to the point that as in Adam all die. That ‘original sin’ has been paid for by the Savior, and ALL will be resurrected to glory (even the most heinous amoung us). Christ is the exemplar of this. He was born (according to LDS Doctrine) in this state of mortal life. He was different in that as God, he could choose to live forever as a mortal or not. It is our contention he choose to follow the will of the Father (‘nevertheless, Thy will be done’), and ‘died’ on the cross. He also was different in that only He has the ability, as God, to return to His body, but in an immortal Glorified state. The difference we have not addressed is that Christ showed that even though we all are born in this mortal life with the ‘original sin’ of death hanging over each of our heads, it is possible theoretically to live this life without sinning. However, the reality is that each of us sins at some time. We all are disobedient to the will of the Father. So, even though Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden for the Sin of disobedience, they did not necessarily also have to commit any other sin the rest of their lives. And they still would need the redeeming Sacrifice of the Savior.

Now, to be sure, this doctrine is hinted at in the Bible, but it is only found in LDS doctrine because it is part of the Restored Gospel. Proving such a thing is not possible. No Catholic would come of this doctrine save through revelation from God. But then, he would no longer be a RC. Truthfully, it is unique in modern religion.

I would be curious to see if Parker feels the same.

Wow. That is quite a mouthfull. Yes I realize that my analogy of my lost kids is imperfect. It was the best I could do at the moment. Lets just say that our doctrines concerning salvation obviously differ fundamentally. This is where Parker and I had to part company. My view of your position concerning the necessity of sin is that it was all a part of God’s original plan for mankind. That we could not “progress” without it. We cannot know true happiness without knowing what it means to suffer. What do you say of the angels in heaven? Do they not experience happiness? This is where the problem lies. My view is that Adam and Eve were perfectly happy prior to their sin. The fact that God has known from all eternity what man would choose, does not mean that it was His will. Rather, He gave us free will and we have abused that freedom. God did not “will” that sin should come into the world. He could not. It came in due to the free choice of Adam and Eve and out of His love for us He sent His Son to redeem us. I’ll agree that it is a mind-bender. We have no idea of what it is like to be omniscient and we are trying to understand this as “intellectual infants”. But we do know that God is incapable of sinning or causing one to sin. For God to include sin in His original plan for man would be akin to causing man to sin. He didn’t cause or want sin. He simply dealt with it in the most beautiful way possible; by giving His very life for us. Simply put, sin is bad. Holiness is good. God wants holiness, not sin.

One important disagreement I would have concerns your statement that “That ‘original sin’ has been paid for by the Savior, and ALL will be resurrected to glory (even the most heinous amoung us).”

I would agree that even the most heinous among us can be saved, but not all will be “resurrected to glory”. There is a state of existence called hell and scripture is quite clear on this point.

Is 33:11, 14 (who of us can live with the everlasting flames.)
Mt 25-41 (depart you accursed, into the eternal fire.)
Mt 25:46 (these will go off to eternal punishment)
Lk 3:16-17 (The chaff he will burn in unquenchable fire.)
2 Thess 1:6-9 (these will pay the penalty of eternal ruin.)

 

[SteveVH]

Here is mine:

I love my children with all the deep feelings of a parent, and a lot more than that. I can see that they lack some qualities that would be very helpful for them to have (note: in the LDS theology, they lack both perfection and experience, but we can use a Catholic position and say “God created them lacking perfection and lacking wisdom.”) I desire their happiness, but I don’t want to just “give” it to them because I can fully understand that just giving them such a gift would defeat the purpose, since in the first place they wouldn’t be grateful for it (not having known anything else), and in the second place the kind of happiness I would want them to have would necessitate some knowledgeable experience on their part.

I would think it would be helpful for them to go off to school–a place where they could learn and would come to appreciate the happiness gift I was prepared to give them.

But as the perfect Parent, I would also want them to be able to make their own choice about whether they really wanted to go to school where they wouldn’t have constant eye-to-eye communication with me as their Parent, and where there would be a great deal of choices to make (with opportunities for making wrong choices but also the opportunity to learn from those choices). I would want them to feel fully responsible for making their own choice–in other words, that they wouldn’t be able in some way to “blame their choice on me” when things got tough for them or weren’t as “easy” as they had presumed life would be in that school. I would want to give them a choice that did indeed give them full responsibility for their choice–go or no go.

I would even go so far as to say “there will be so much pain as part of that school that you will die in the process” (even while having in mind that I had a plan about the death situation and that the plan included having all the wrong choices being turned for a good learning purpose so long as the children would yield their own wills about the curriculum to the One Master teacher I had planned all along to send to help with the school.)

So when my children choose to go ahead and go to that school, I won’t consider it rebellion and I am satisfied that they will have made a choice that will turn out to have been good for them, but it will have been their choice to have made. I certainly won’t consider them “lost” since I will have been watching the situation the whole time. I will be glad they wanted wisdom as a choice they thought was worthwhile for them–but it will have been their choice, not mine.

Hey Parker. I think between your post and wussup’s post I have stumbled on a crucial point in our discussion. It all has to so with the fact that you believe that Adam and Eve were created less than perfect. By the way, your statement: "but we can use a Catholic position and say “God created them lacking perfection and lacking wisdom.” is not a Catholic position. We believe they were created perfectly and enjoyed perfect happiness in the presence of God. it was sin that reduced them and us to the state in which we now find ourselves.

God bless.

Steve

 

[wussup]

wussup, thanks for your response. I always appreciate your comments and insight. I see a light, still dim, but a light nevertheless. I am speaking of the hope that we will at least understand each other at some point, regardless of whether or not we agree.

As we all struggle along in our salvation with fear and trembling, isn’t that all we can expect? Understanding does NOT mean accepting. It just means you are mature enough to see another’s point of view.

“The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.” (CCC par 374) That statement any Mormon worth his salt would agree with.

“The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original ‘state of holiness and justice’. This grace of original holiness was ‘to share in… divine life.’” (CCC par 375)

ditto,however we will soon split. I do find the latter part of your statement interesting.

“By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between mand and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called ‘original justice’.” (CCC par 376)

Yes, Yes, and yes

"Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. WIthout the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc.

Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another." (CCC par 387)

I promise! I did not borrow this term!

This is a topic I still struggle with, not on a faith shaking level, but on an understanding what happened level.

One way, I think even the Catholic would agree is to say that anything, or even the only thing, that could separate man from God is Sin. So yes, the partaking of the fruit wrought a separation from God, and would therefore be a sin. Or would it? Did Christ sin on the cross when he said to the Father, “why hast though forsaken me”? Obviously not. It is the position of the Church that there were two commandments, a higher and a lesser sin involving the obedience/disobedience of each. For some reason, Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of sex yet. After all, they didn’t even no they were naked. Was it God’s will that Adam and Eve come to this conclusion on their own, that they do as Christ did and choose for themselves to leave the presence of God, enter mortal life, walk by faith alone, and have Children? Yet there is that pesky fruit they were commanded not to eat. It would seem to me that that was the ‘way’ Adam and Eve were to choose to leave the presence of God. Parker assertion that the fruit was a choice to be made, with the consequences clearly laid out is reasonable (to me). I will have to re-read all the applicable texts to give a more cogent argument for the lesser and greater command. I guess the question for the LDS would be, would God set up a conundrum choice?

We do not see the ‘original sin’ in any of these ways.

Sin does not help us progress. Overcoming sin does.

Again, this is different from LDS doctrine in that while overcoming sin does help us ‘progress’ or become more Jesus-like, is that not the same as saying we are learning to choose good over evil?

#9-#13 is where I have a problem understanding the LDS doctrine, because it would seem that the LDS position is that God gave Adam and Eve conflicting commandments, not just “choices”.

“Do not eat…” would appear to be a commandment.
“Be fruitful and multiply” also appears to be a commandment.

Yet the LDS position seems to be that Adam and Eve had to choose one or the other to obey, thus resulting in a sin - a disobedience of one of those commandments. I just don’t see in Genesis where these commandments are offered as “choices” in terms of: Ok, Adam & Eve, take your pick, choose door #1 for this result or door #2 for this result. If that was the case, the “choices” would not have been worded as they were in Scripture. They were specifically worded as commandments - expected to be obeyed.

I agree with the confusion. Like I said, I will look at the texts and try to put a proper LDS spin on it . I would say though, Genesis is extremely brief. The accounting of the fall is woefully inadequate to explain either LDS or RC position in light of reasoned debate. I will not critic the RC view, you have probably read all that before.

 

[wussup]

First, let me apologize for mis-characterizing your statement concerning a “wink and a nod”. I realize that you are speaking in terms of relativism as to where the true suffering occured (i.e the taking on of man’s sin or the physical pain he endured). Do I have this right?

Yep

Yes, it was an inflammatory statement to make. It was not meant to be flippant, but rather to position the true sacrifice Christ made. After all, he could have changed in the twinkling of an eye, passing from mortality to immortality with no suffering, if he chose.

Did Christ die? Yes. Scripture tells us he died. If He had not died, He could not have resurrected. He was truly human (as well as truly divine) and died a human death, the death of his mortal body. Death was the punishment He suffered for our sins. We can discuss what it means to die, but I think scripture is crystal clear that Jesus did die, willingly.

Yes! We have reached agreement. Christ’s mortal existence ended (death). He passed on to us the gift of immortal life (as in Adam all die [that being every single soul], so in Christ are we made alive [that being every single soul].

[/QUOTE]

 

[wussup]

My view of your position concerning the necessity of sin is that it was all a part of God’s original plan for mankind. That we could not “progress” without it. We cannot know true happiness without knowing what it means to suffer.

We do not share in the historic catholic view of the wretchedness of mankind. Catholics view of sin is far more…intense than LDS. We view sin as somewhere between making a wrong decision and being cast into outer darkness. I remember when my daughter, now in college, was called to task in kindergarten for calling into doubt the species of one of her classmates parents. Something to do with dogs… Anyway, was that a sin (aside from her young age)? Sure, we ought not to speak ill of others, even if they kick you. And while I was laughing on the floor on the inside, the swat to the bottom for using that horrid language (he he) taught her not to do it. That was a learning experience. (She learned not to say those things where a teacher could hear.) From the LDS perspective, it is exceedingly important that we learn to choose right from wrong. That is the purpose for our existence.

What do you say of the angels in heaven? Do they not experience happiness?

Angels are another subject, but yes they do. But then we believe angels to be what the name implies, messengers from God. Thus, when Moses et al appeared to the Savior, they were angels.

This is where the problem lies. My view is that Adam and Eve were perfectly happy prior to their sin.

At the risk of sounding sophist, what is perfect happy mean. It is our opinion they were at peace, and sure there was some level of happiness. Apply it to your life. Can you not see times where you struggled, failed, struggled, failed, kept struggling and persevered? Would you know the joy of succeeding without the struggle to get there? I attended one of the most difficult schools of any type anywhere in the world. I passed. I did not excel, ok, I did pretty good, but the point is it was the most difficult 3 years of my life, academically. And the joy of success is with me 20 years later. I would not know of this had I not gone through the struggle.

The fact that God has known from all eternity what man would choose, does not mean that it was His will. Rather, He gave us free will and we have abused that freedom. God did not “will” that sin should come into the world. He could not. It came in due to the free choice of Adam and Eve and out of His love for us He sent His Son to redeem us. I’ll agree that it is a mind-bender. We have no idea of what it is like to be omniscient and we are trying to understand this as “intellectual infants”. But we do know that God is incapable of sinning or causing one to sin. For God to include sin in His original plan for man would be akin to causing man to sin. He didn’t cause or want sin. He simply dealt with it in the most beautiful way possible; by giving His very life for us. Simply put, sin is bad. Holiness is good. God wants holiness, not sin.

This is a logical fallacy of limiting the options. There is another option than either ‘God brought sin into the world’ or ‘God did not bring sin into the world’. How about God allowed us to make a decision based on faith (rather than the sure knowledge of His presence). Sin is not a noun, but rather a verb, describing a wrong decision. To be sure, that wrong decision eternally separates us from God, but thankfully He provided His Son as a sacrificial lamb to pay the penalty for our mistakes. Simply put, God wants us to trust in Him, have Faith in Him, do the best we can, and He will forgive us.

One important disagreement I would have concerns your statement that “That ‘original sin’ has been paid for by the Savior, and ALL will be resurrected to glory (even the most heinous among us).”

I would agree that even the most heinous among us can be saved, but not all will be “resurrected to glory”. There is a state of existence called hell and scripture is quite clear on this point.

Sorry, but you are arguing with scripture. All will be resurrected to glory. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. Now, in that Glory will the Hitlers of the world get to live with God. No. Will he have to pay for penalty of his sins because he rejected the savior? Yes. Will that penalty involve eternity. Sure. He will never get to live with the Father.

 

[wussup]

We believe they were created perfectly and enjoyed perfect happiness in the presence of God. it was sin that reduced them and us to the state in which we now find ourselves.

With respect, this doesn’t make sense. A perfect being (Christ was perfect) cannot by definition sin. If they sin, they would not be perfect. They were immortal innocent beings. As close to Christ as you can get. Yet in the end, they still needed his salvation.

Again, the real issue here is the idea of perfection. There is another option, they made a choice to leave the Garden, and walk in faith that Jesus Christ would atone for the fall from immortality and any sins they may make.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
In the first place, you or whomever you are following with respect to word choice are the one bringing the word “rebellion” into the conversation about Adam and Eve. God did not do that. Moses did not do that. So if you are saying (which I’m not really sure what you are saying) that the “first” or “greatest sin of all” was “rebellion” then God did not say Adam and Eve rebelled. (Lucifer rebelled).

Romans 5:19

For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

dis·o·be·di·ence
n. Refusal or failure to obey.

Synonyms: defiance, dereliction, disregard, indiscipline, infraction, infringement, insubmission, insubordination, insurgence, intractableness, mutiny, neglect, nonobservance, perversity, rebellion, recalcitrance, refractoriness, revolt, revolution, riot, sabotage, sedition, strike, stubbornness, transgression, unruliness, violation, waywardness

Eve sought wisdom–that was not rebellion.

Eve disobeyed God. This is called sin.

How can it be said in a way that you may understand that Eve and Adam had a completely free will choice–no issue of what God “hopes for” or is “reliant on”–just the simple case that they had a choice, with consequences for choosing the fruit of the tree of knowledge or consequences for choosing not to eat that fruit.

ParkerD- how is it you cannot understand that when God gave us free will, it is in order that we may follow Him freely. To choose otherwise is an abuse of the freedom He has given us.

 

[ParkerD]

Romans 5:19

For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

dis·o·be·di·ence
n. Refusal or failure to obey.

Synonyms: defiance, dereliction, disregard, indiscipline, infraction, infringement, insubmission, insubordination, insurgence, intractableness, mutiny, neglect, nonobservance, perversity, rebellion, recalcitrance, refractoriness, revolt, revolution, riot, sabotage, sedition, strike, stubbornness, transgression, unruliness, violation, waywardness

Eve disobeyed God. This is called sin.

ParkerD- how is it you cannot understand that when God gave us free will, it is in order that we may follow Him freely. To choose otherwise is an abuse of the freedom He has given us.

RebeccaJ,
Synonyms do not mean that they are the same word.

If you are saying that Adam and Eve sinned and by that very fact they are therefore “rebellious, defiant, insurgent, recalcitrant, and acting in sedition,” and doing all that by the fact that they “sinned”, and that “sin” (disobedience) is “an abuse of the freedom He has given us”–then I take it that you are either saying you are perfect (which would be inadvisable to say because we have already seen what John said about a person who would say that) or you are saying that you are deliberately “rebellious, defiant, insurgent, recalcitrant, and acting in sedition” against God and are thus “abusing the freedom He has given us”. I take it that if you believe what John taught, that you believe every person on earth now living is in that condition also–so then why place more blame on Adam and Eve than on anyone else including yourself?

To clarify: I don’t consider the fact that you would be in a position that you “sin” is a position of “rebellion” or those other connotations against God, nor do I consider that I do that either when I act in less than perfect ways (which is pretty much all of the time).

Peace to all readers here.

 

[Jay53]

SteveVH’s analogy:

Hi, Jay53,
I had thought about trying to write the kind of analogy that would protray what I have had in mind, so I suppose I’ll try and do that. First, note that I have placed SteveVH’s analogy above for reference.

Here is mine:

I love my children with all the deep feelings of a parent, and a lot more than that. I can see that they lack some qualities that would be very helpful for them to have (note: in the LDS theology, they lack both perfection and experience, but we can use a Catholic position and say “God created them lacking perfection and lacking wisdom.”) I desire their happiness, but I don’t want to just “give” it to them because I can fully understand that just giving them such a gift would defeat the purpose, since in the first place they wouldn’t be grateful for it (not having known anything else), and in the second place the kind of happiness I would want them to have would necessitate some knowledgeable experience on their part.

I would think it would be helpful for them to go off to school–a place where they could learn and would come to appreciate the happiness gift I was prepared to give them.

But as the perfect Parent, I would also want them to be able to make their own choice about whether they really wanted to go to school where they wouldn’t have constant eye-to-eye communication with me as their Parent, and where there would be a great deal of choices to make (with opportunities for making wrong choices but also the opportunity to learn from those choices). I would want them to feel fully responsible for making their own choice–in other words, that they wouldn’t be able in some way to “blame their choice on me” when things got tough for them or weren’t as “easy” as they had presumed life would be in that school. I would want to give them a choice that did indeed give them full responsibility for their choice–go or no go.

I would even go so far as to say “there will be so much pain as part of that school that you will die in the process” (even while having in mind that I had a plan about the death situation and that the plan included having all the wrong choices being turned for a good learning purpose so long as the children would yield their own wills about the curriculum to the One Master teacher I had planned all along to send to help with the school.)

So when my children choose to go ahead and go to that school, I won’t consider it rebellion and I am satisfied that they will have made a choice that will turn out to have been good for them, but it will have been their choice to have made. I certainly won’t consider them “lost” since I will have been watching the situation the whole time. I will be glad they wanted wisdom as a choice they thought was worthwhile for them–but it will have been their choice, not mine.

Thanks for trying to explain.

But, in your analogy, would you tell them, “Do not go to school lest you experience pain etc etc.” That’s where I get hung up on your thinking. Because if you did indeed WANT them to go to school I don’t believe you would say “Do not go…”, yet still fully expect them to disobey you and choose that option.

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks for trying to explain.

But, in your analogy, would you tell them, “Do not go to school lest you experience pain etc etc.” That’s where I get hung up on your thinking. Because if you did indeed WANT them to go to school I don’t believe you would say “Do not go…”, yet still fully expect them to disobey you and choose that option.

Jay53,
I can certainly see the importance of this question.

Being the perfectly knowledgeable and perfectly loving Parent but also perfectly desiring free will and choice in what these children might choose to do, I would tell them that school was a very painful place–with a challenging and very difficult curriculum–and because of wanting them to realize that if they chose to go to that school, they were likely to look back on their choice if they thought I had persuaded them to go and say to themselves, “I didn’t make this choice–my Parent did and this is so painful and hard that I resent their having made this choice for me”. Instead, I would communicate that the school is a very painful place, and explain that if they chose to go to the school, that was 100% their choice because by nature and disposition, the perfectly loving Parent does not choose that their child experience pain as a choice the Parent has made for them. I would explain, “This is a choice you have, but if you choose the school and the pain then you will have broken my commandment that would have allowed you no pain and no death but would bring you no wisdom.”

(The perfectly knowledgeable and perfectly loving Parent would know that the first step in gaining wisdom for someone less than perfect within their own inner make-up and disposition would be the step of experiencing difficult choices to make, and seeing their results. This perfect Parent would allow the child to decide whether to take that first step, or not.)

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I can certainly see the importance of this question.

Being the perfectly knowledgeable and perfectly loving Parent but also perfectly desiring free will and choice in what these children might choose to do, I would tell them that school was a very painful place–with a challenging and very difficult curriculum–and because of wanting them to realize that if they chose to go to that school, they were likely to look back on their choice if they thought I had persuaded them to go and say to themselves, “I didn’t make this choice–my Parent did and this is so painful and hard that I resent their having made this choice for me”. Instead, I would communicate that the school is a very painful place, and explain that if they chose to go to the school, that was 100% their choice because by nature and disposition, the perfectly loving Parent does not choose that their child experience pain as a choice the Parent has made for them. I would explain, “This is a choice you have, but if you choose the school and the pain then you will have **broken my commandment **that would have allowed you no pain and no death but would bring you no wisdom.”

(The perfectly knowledgeable and perfectly loving Parent would know that the first step in gaining wisdom for someone less than perfect within their own inner make-up and disposition would be the step of experiencing difficult choices to make, and seeing their results. This perfect Parent would allow the child to decide whether to take that first step, or not.)

But that doesn’t answer the question. Would you say, “Do not go…” using those specific words? (Those are the words used in Genesis (“Do not”) - not a long explanation about choices.)

And with the part of your quote I bolded above, why would you have made a commandment against what you really wanted them to do in the first place?

I’m still not seeing your logic in your analogy. I still think SteveVH’s analogy portrays your position better, at least as far as you have presented it in this thread.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
Synonyms do not mean that they are the same word.

If you are saying that Adam and Eve sinned and by that very fact they are therefore “rebellious, defiant, insurgent, recalcitrant, and acting in sedition,” and doing all that by the fact that they “sinned”, and that “sin” (disobedience) is “an abuse of the freedom He has given us”–then I take it that you are either saying you are perfect (which would be inadvisable to say because we have already seen what John said about a person who would say that) or you are saying that you are deliberately “rebellious, defiant, insurgent, recalcitrant, and acting in sedition” against God and are thus “abusing the freedom He has given us”. I take it that if you believe what John taught, that you believe every person on earth now living is in that condition also–so then why place more blame on Adam and Eve than on anyone else including yourself?

I think you are being purposely obtuse. That is what I think. Is the definition of sin disobedience to God? If you can’t agree with this simple concept then you are LOST.

Understanding what sin is does not make a person perfect. Is this seriously what you think?

To clarify: I don’t consider the fact that you would be in a position that you “sin” is a position of “rebellion” or those other connotations against God, nor do I consider that I do that either when I act in less than perfect ways (which is pretty much all of the time).

Peace to all readers here.

You should be very aware Parker, that when you or I sin, we are in rebellion against God. To think otherwise is to believe that you don’t need God, which is a sin itself.

 

[ParkerD]

I think you are being purposely obtuse. That is what I think. Is the definition of sin disobedience to God? If you can’t agree with this simple concept then you are LOST.

Understanding what sin is does not make a person perfect. Is this seriously what you think?

You should be very aware Parker, that when you or I sin, we are in rebellion against God. To think otherwise is to believe that you don’t need God, which is a sin itself.

(Jay53,
I’ll provide a response when I have more time.)

RebeccaJ,
The word “rebellion” or “rebel” is not used in the New Testament as translated, yet the word “sin” is indeed used.

The word “rebellion” is used in the Old Testament as translated, but it is not used interchangeably or synonymously with the word “sin”. When God gave the children of Israel the law of Moses and continued the law of sacrifice within the law of Moses, they knew perfectly well that there was a “sin offering” that was part of that law and it did not mean they were rebelling against God to need to offer a “sin offering”. They were rebelling against God if they did as King Saul did in not doing the offering through the right authority or under the direction of the prophet. They were rebelling against God if they made graven images and thus placed their trust and affections on false worship. But they were not rebelling against God if they followed the God-ordained practice of having the Levites offer a “sin offering”, and that would surely mean they understood they were not perfect as a people.

The word “rebellion” means “to oppose or disobey one in authority” with the connotation of “renounce or resist by show of force or opposition”.

While I agree that “sin” means “disobedience to God’s commandments,” I disagree that “sin” means “to renounce or resist by show of force or opposition” to God.

If that is what “sin” means to you, then that’s fine–you can believe as you wish and if it helps you come unto Christ by thinking that way about yourself, then all well and good.

But the term “rebellion” is not a term used in the New Testament and not a word that I consider describes my feelings toward God, so I will choose the New Testament approach to the word “sin” and I do not consider it a “sin” to actually do that if it means I recognize my sins and seek to come unto Christ and allow Him to change me through His grace and His guidance.

Do as you wish, and so will I, and what I do with the word “sin” acknowledges both the Old Testament use of the word and the New Testament use of the word.

 

[Jay53]

I’d also like to know what anyone who views Adam and Eve’s choice as “good” sees as the significance of Satan being the one who is tempting Adam and Eve to disobey God.

If this sin of partaking of the fruit was simply a “choice” that would bring wisdom and good to Adam and Eve, why is it Satan and not God who is doing the tempting? (Particularly if one believes that God, as a Perfect Parent WANTED Adam and Eve to make that choice.)

Satan, who admittedly deliberately rebelled against God is the one trying to make Adam and Eve make the “choice” to disobey God. Do we think that Satan somehow had Adam and Eve’s best interests at heart? He was so good natured that he wanted them (and us) to have this wonderful freedom to grow in wisdom and learn?

Even today, he tempts all of us into disobeying God and His commandments because it gives us “choices” and the freedom to grow in wisdom?

 

[RebeccaJ]

(Jay53,
I’ll provide a response when I have more time.)

RebeccaJ,
The word “rebellion” or “rebel” is not used in the New Testament as translated, yet the word “sin” is indeed used.

The word “rebellion” is used in the Old Testament as translated, but it is not used interchangeably or synonymously with the word “sin”. When God gave the children of Israel the law of Moses and continued the law of sacrifice within the law of Moses, they knew perfectly well that there was a “sin offering” that was part of that law and it did not mean they were rebelling against God to need to offer a “sin offering”. They were rebelling against God if they did as King Saul did in not doing the offering through the right authority or under the direction of the prophet. They were rebelling against God if they made graven images and thus placed their trust and affections on false worship. But they were not rebelling against God if they followed the God-ordained practice of having the Levites offer a “sin offering”, and that would surely mean they understood they were not perfect as a people.

ParkerD, following God is not rebellion.

The word “rebellion” means “to oppose or disobey one in authority” with the connotation of “renounce or resist by show of force or opposition”.

While I agree that “sin” means “disobedience to God’s commandments,” I disagree that “sin” means “to renounce or resist by show of force or opposition” to God.

Resistance to God’s word is rebellion.

If that is what “sin” means to you, then that’s fine–you can believe as you wish and if it helps you come unto Christ by thinking that way about yourself, then all well and good.

ParkerD, you should worry more about your view that sin is God-willed.

But the term “rebellion” is not a term used in the New Testament and not a word that I consider describes my feelings toward God, so I will choose the New Testament approach to the word “sin” and I do not consider it a “sin” to actually do that if it means I recognize my sins and seek to come unto Christ and allow Him to change me through His grace and His guidance.

ParkerD, are you daft? I mean this in all seriousness? SIN is not a good feeling to have toward God. So no, when you are sinning you are in rebellion. And yes, the path to redemption is Jesus Christ.

Do as you wish, and so will I, and what I do with the word “sin” acknowledges both the Old Testament use of the word and the New Testament use of the word.

You need to read more carefully.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, following God is not rebellion.

Resistance to God’s word is rebellion.

ParkerD, you should worry more about your view that sin is God-willed.

ParkerD, are you daft? I mean this in all seriousness? SIN is not a good feeling to have toward God. So no, when you are sinning you are in rebellion. And yes, the path to redemption is Jesus Christ.

You need to read more carefully.

Are you saying that you believe that every person in the world now living is in rebellion against God, and the apostles were in rebellion against God, and that you would be willing to be quoted in the newspaper as having said and believed this?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you saying that you believe that every person in the world now living is in rebellion against God, and the apostles were in rebellion against God, and that you would be willing to be quoted in the newspaper as having said and believed this?

Yes ParkerD, this is the result of original sin. It is the whole point of Jesus Christ. Why else do you believe we need Him. Why else do we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation to reconcile us back to God, if not because of our rebellion (sin)?

Do you not understand the parable of the prodigal son?

Christ died for all.

 

[SteveVH]

We do not share in the historic catholic view of the wretchedness of mankind.

Neither do Catholics. We believe that we are called to be sons and daughters of God and have always defended the dignity of man. We realize that we are sinners and in need of God’s saving grace. We do not attain heaven by “progressing” through learning experiences involving sin. We attain heaven through the saving power of Christ by acknowledging our sin, asking forgiveness and repenting (turning away from sin).

Angels are another subject, but yes they do. But then we believe angels to be what the name implies, messengers from God. Thus, when Moses et al appeared to the Savior, they were angels.

.

Angels are messengers and so are people (prophets). Humans do not become angels and angels do not become humans. Angels are a completely different creature than humans. They are pure spirit.

Sorry, but you are arguing with scripture. All will be resurrected to glory. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. Now, in that Glory will the Hitlers of the world get to live with God. No. Will he have to pay for penalty of his sins because he rejected the savior? Yes. Will that penalty involve eternity. Sure. He will never get to live with the Father.

I would love to see the scriptures supporting this premise. How do you answer the scriptures I quoted in support of hell? This may explain why LDS doctrines do not seem to concern themselves with sin at the level that Catholic doctrine does. You believe that you will reach some level of heaven regardless of your actions during this lifetime. We believe that it is truly a matter of life and death, spiritual death, from whence there is no return.

 

[wussup]

My Weimaraner puppy is sick, any prayers from folks who believe such would be appreciated…

Neither do Catholics. We believe that we are called to be sons and daughters of God and have always defended the dignity of man. We realize that we are sinners and in need of God’s saving grace.

Catholics have a long history of self flagellation. I do not mean this as a criticism, but surely you are aware of the extremes that some devotees have gone to in the Catholic Faith?

We do not attain heaven by “progressing” through learning experiences involving sin. We attain heaven through the saving power of Christ by acknowledging our sin, asking forgiveness and repenting (turning away from sin).

We strongly believe in the latter. We believe in the former in the sense that we are to learn to walk in faith, to learn to make correct decisions. We are to learn to NOT sin. Perhaps an even more basic concept we haven’t discussed is what is the purpose for God’s moral code he expects us to follow? There are many religions that have honored the believer who was more brutal, more violent, etc…, so the answer is not self evident.

I would love to see the scriptures supporting this premise. How do you answer the scriptures I quoted in support of hell? This may explain why LDS doctrines do not seem to concern themselves with sin at the level that Catholic doctrine does. You believe that you will reach some level of heaven regardless of your actions during this lifetime. We believe that it is truly a matter of life and death, spiritual death, from whence there is no return.

‘Even as in Adam, all die; so in Christ all are made alive’. This is very clear. In the exact same way all men die as a result of Adams choosing to leave the Garden to be with Eve and live a mortal existence, so in Christ will these same mortals be made alive as glorified perfect beings. There is a tremendous irony here you would not see. The typical Baptist or Calvinist thinker criticizes the LDS for focusing to much on the sin, on the works we supposedly do to ‘earn’ our salvation, yet here we see we are focusing to little on the sin. We believe each creature will rise to the fullness of their glory. My Weimaraner puppy is the sweetest and most loving, even most accepting dog I have ever had. He plays with a neighbor girl with a speech impediment, trying so hard to understand her and play with her. She weighs all of 30 lbs, he 60, yet is gentle as the caress of a lily. We believe that even he will have a portion in our Father’s Kingdom. I suppose you have a point. We look more to the potential of a person, rather than the current state of wretchedness. And we are wretched species. The things people do to each other are horrible. Yet, as you say, we are all sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father. Spiritual death to an LDS is only possible to a son of perdition. I am feeling very melancholy because of my puppy. I will be able to rationally explain myself better later.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Questioner,
I am surprised once again, but oh well, I’ll cite the scriptures to show that Paul and John saw that death was indeed necessary and that such a circumstance was not “sad.”

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

2 Timothy 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

Revelation 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

None of this implies death is good, just necessary

Death is derived from sin…
Romans 6:23
3For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life ina] Christ Jesus our Lord.

God did not create sin, nor does he delight in it. Though death is necessary, it is not good. If it was there would have been no point in Jesus having to come and rescue us from death. But death comes from sin. Now what are the fruits of the sinful nature?

Romans 8
7the sinful minda] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

Galatians 5
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
All these things are the result of mankind taking on the sinful nature. If all of these things came from sin, and death too, then what on earth would cause you to say death is a good thing? Are you telling me sin brought us 99 bad things but the 100th thing, death, was a good thing?

I think you are confusing dying in Christ with actual death. Dying in Christ means to forsake all things for Him. It means to die to the world and its ways and whims, and raise in Christ and search for higher things. Do all these things, even to the point of martyrdom. This is what it means.