Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

They could never have created sugar or cookies.

Yes. But then you’re saying that God making sugar cookies is evil. It’s not. The cookie analogy is a fairly harmless analogy. No real harm would come from this.

But people disobeying God (and, using this analogy, children disobeying their parents) is the evil act.

KarenNC:

1. The parents do not damn the child and all his descendants to eternal torment for then taking the cookie that the parent put on the table knowing that there was a great likelihood that the child would take a cookie because the parent made the child’s desire for cookies stronger than his self-restraint, then wait several thousand years before deciding to give them an “out.”

Actually, let’s put the sugar cookies aside for a moment-- because it doesn’t capture the severity of the sin against God.

Adam and Eve being expulsed from the garden was like young adults being ejected out of their parent’s house for doing something that they shouldn’t have, such as willingly, severely and openly rebelling against their parent’s will.

It’s like a father saying to his 18 year old son, “I’m sorry son. But we have rules here. If you cannot obey these rules, then it’s time for you to go out on your own. Everything you need is out there. And just remember this: I’ll always be here if you need me. I’ll never be far from you if you decide you want to come home again.”

KarenNC:

A parent (imperfect and not omniscient) who knows that a child has not reached the point where his self-restraint is greater than his desire for cookies doesn’t place the cookie jar on the table. She places it on a shelf out of the child’s reach until such a time as the child can control those desires.

But Adam and Eve weren’t little children. They were capable of understanding right from wrong before they partook in the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve herself perceived that the tree was good before she ate from the tree.
Genesis 3:6:

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

See how Eve concluded this was good for something before she partook in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

They were created with enough self-restraint, self-restraint that was greater than their desire for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The reason why they partook in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was because they willingly made a choose to ignore their own God given self-restraint and follow their own desires, selfish desires which were not given to them by God.

KarenNC:

A loving parent who has a child with a condition like Prader-Willi Syndrome, in which the parent knows in advance that the child is and always will be incapable of controlling his eating on his own because of the way he is made, would never bake or buy the cookies at all, much less put the cookie jar on the table in the first place.

But Adam and Eve did not have any condition like Prader-Willi Syndrome. They were created perfect without any desire to sin. The sin they committed, they did of their own selfish motives-- not because of any inability to control themselves like Prader-Willi Syndrome.

I can see this is going to be a long discusison. I’ll be back after.

 

[KarenNC]

The reason why they partook in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was because they willingly made a choose to ignore their own God given self-restraint and follow their own desires, selfish desires which were not given to them by God.

Who did give them the selfish desires or the capacity to have such?

**But Adam and Eve did not have any condition like Prader-Willi Syndrome. They were created perfect without any desire to sin. The sin they committed, they did of their own selfish motives-- not because of any inability to control themselves like Prader-Willi Syndrome.]/b]

If they were created perfect, then perfection includes the capacity to be selfish or or to sin? To say they were created with no desire to sin then to say that they sinned from their own selfish motives seems a contradiction to me.**

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Who did give them the selfish desires or the capacity to have such?

Adam and Eve did.

But Adam and Eve did not have any condition like Prader-Willi Syndrome. They were created perfect without any desire to sin. The sin they committed, they did of their own selfish motives-- not because of any inability to control themselves like Prader-Willi Syndrome.

KarenNC:

If they were created perfect, then perfection includes the capacity to be selfish or or to sin?

No. Perfection includes the capacity to choose good. The problem with having the ability to make a choice is that there is a negative side to making a choice against what God desired them to choose.

God gave them the ability to choose. He also desired them to choose good-- and if they had simply followed the motion of the Spirit they would have chosen the good path.

The chaotic nothingness which preceeded creation, however, was not created by God. Prior to the creation, there was nothingness. And this is the path which Adam and Eve chose.

When Adam and Eve decided to rebel against God’s will, they were participating in the nothingness which preceeded the creation of the material world. Sin leads the sinner in the direction of the chaotic nothingness which came prior to creation. In this sense, sinning is an kind of anti-creation, essentially returning to void…

What didn’t God create?

God did not create nothingness.

KarenNC:

To say they were created with no desire to sin then to say that they sinned from their own selfish motives seems a contradiction to me.

No. To say that they sinned from their own selfish motives is to say that they participated in the chaotic nothingness prior to creation, something which God did not create.

Therefore it is perfectily acceptable to say that they were created with no desire to sin but that they choose a path that God himself did not create. When they acted on their own desires instead of God’s desires, they participated in the void, essentially an act of anti-creation, and led themselves towards the eternal destruction of the void which preceeded creation.

---

Anyway, my wife is currently at the hospital-- my mom brought her there. Her blood pressure has been very low and she’s getting checked out right, adjusting some medication. As such, I’m not going to be able to reply as much as I want to right now. I’ve taken the day off from work to make sure things are stable-- plus the kids are off school due to a storm day today (so our hands are kind of full right now).

Once everything is more stable and everyone is to bed tonight, I will come back to this thread and explain things better.

There’s a bit more details that need to be explained here so that you do not get the wrong improession, such as the divinity of Christ being necessary in order for the God to be omniscient.

Don’t forget that Jesus was slain from the foundation of creation. That’s an important part that one needs to remember before one makes incorrect assumptions about the supposed impotency of God.

God is not omnipotent because he can do anything. God cannot lie for example. In fact, it’s impossible for God to lie. It was also impossible for death to keep its hold on Christ too-- so this is another thing God could not do.

God is not omnipotent because he can do anything. God is omnipotent because eveything he does is good. And no matter what we do, it will work according to God’s will. In fact, whether we obey God or disobey God, we will still fulfill his will. Quite simply, there is no escaping God’s will.

But I’ll explain this part later as well.

If you do pray, then you can pray for us. Blessing for now.

 

[KarenNC]

If you do pray, then you can pray for us. Blessing for now.

I will be glad to do so and hope that your wife’s condition improves rapidly.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Okay…I’m back…and thank you by the way.

My wife is doing quite well. Now let’s back to the thread.

I guess, just as a refersher, I need to know if you’re thinking that God created the inclination for Adam and Eve to sin?

I think I’ve explained why this is not the case and my posts from here on will work along these same lines of reasoning.

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

The creation of people with the ability to praise him out of love far outweighs the consequences of those who rebel against God’s will.

KarenNC:

I don’t think those who face eternal damnation, who were just as much creations of the same God who thus created also their inclination to rebel, would agree.

But God didn’t created their inclination to rebel. They chose this rebellious path when they chose to not be led by God’s Spirit, when they chose to rebel against the default position they were created in and that God desired them to follow.

Besides that, even if God cannot look upon evil, there are still an entire host of angels and archangels mediating back and forth between God and man, observing and recording everything that happens so much so that God’s perception via his messengers is still omnicient.

KarenNC:

So God is not really omniscient in and of Himself, He just has a good network of reporters?

No. God is omniscient in the sense that he knows all things good. Everything that is good, that is moved by his Spirit, he is perfectly aware of.

Likewise, God is quite aware of all things which reflect his presense. Creation acts like a mirror, designed by God reflect the glory of her creator. In fact, the entire creation was designed by God to praise his holy name.

Although this list is not exaustive (and I can certailnly provide more examples all throughout the Scriptures), I think this psalm captures very well how all of creation, like a mirror reflecting its creator, is designed by God to give praise to his holy name.
Psalm 148:

Praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD from the heavens,
praise him in the heights above.

Praise him, all his angels,
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.

Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars.

Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.

Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for he commanded and they were created.

He set them in place for ever and ever;
he gave a decree that will never pass away.

Praise the LORD from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all ocean depths,
lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
stormy winds that do his bidding,
you mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars,
wild animals and all cattle,
small creatures and flying birds,
kings of the earth and all nations,
you princes and all rulers on earth,
young men and maidens,
old men and children.

Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for his name alone is exalted;
his splendor is above the earth and the heavens.

He has raised up for his people a horn,
the praise of all his saints,
of Israel, the people close to his heart.
Praise the LORD.

In this sense, anything that reflects God’ will (and all things made by God reflect God’s will in one way or another) is perfectly known by God, right down to the quantum level-- past, present and future. In other words, despite Heisenberg’s claims of a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system, I can assure you that God does indeed know the exact position and momentum of every single particle that ever existed, exists or ever will exist.

In this physical sense, God does indeed know everything– and is quite omniscient in this traditional sense as well. What this implies is that if God continues to increase the accuracy with which he measures one particular particle, there will never come a point at which he must measure the other particle with less accuracy.

So, to be clear, when I talk about God not being able to look upon evil, I’m not talking about the physical universe itself. The gnostics believed the material universe was inherently evil. Christians never did. When I talk about God ‘in heaven’ not being able to look upon evil, I’m talking about the internal spirit, the sins which reside in hearts of all people who have ever sinned.

Now did you note how I said God ‘in heaven’ not being able to look upon evil?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

Now did you note how I said God ‘in heaven’ not being able to look upon evil?

This is an important distinction to make-- I’m talking about God the Father as opposed to God the Son. I’m talking about God the Father as opposed to God on earth, the Son of God incarnated in the virgin by the Holy Spirit, eternally begotten from the Father in heaven.

During the early development of the Church, there arose a common catch-phrase interpretted in English as monarchianism. The name refers to a heresy which basically started in Rome around c. 190-- and it refers to a fear that talking about jesus as God somehow endangered the monarchia, the unity and authority of God the Father.

In response to these questions, some schools of thought tried to make Jesus less than God-- and I don’t really need to cover these thoughts here. Other schools of thought, however, went in the opposite direction, attempting to unite Christ to the Father so closely that his distinct personhood was lost. And for the sake of this thread, this is the direction we need examine to understand the necessaity of the incarnation better.

Sebellius taught this in the early third century when he asserted that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were simply different modes of the same being. This kind of ‘modalism’ became known as Sabellianism and even Patripassianism-- with Patripassianism being a latin phrase for ‘father suffers’. In essence, this implied that God the Father suffered on the cross, which is a heretical teaching.

The problem here is that God the Father does not suffer-- let alone look upon sin. For that matter, there is no sin in heaven. No suffering. No pain. No evil whatsoever-- not even a trace of a thought about these things.

That’s why the Son of God incarnated into his own creation, so that he could know what humanity was undergoing from the earth’s finite perspective.

This comes back to Hebrews 4:15:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

And again here…
Hebrew 7:23-28:

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

And finally here…
Hebrews 9:11-15:

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Jesus as true God and true man was perfectly situated between heaven and earth for precisely this reason. He came in order to make the connection between God and man because is he is the One Mediator between God and man. No one comes to the Father except through the Son. And Christ was slain from the foundation of the creation itself. Or, as Revelation 13:8 notes, the Lamb was slain from the creation of the world.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Besides that, even if God cannot look upon evil, there are still an entire host of angels and archangels mediating back and forth between God and man, observing and recording everything that happens so much so that God’s perception via his messengers is still omnicient.

KarenNC:

So God is not really omniscient in and of Himself, He just has a good network of reporters?

No. God really is omniscient in and off himself. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

As 1 John 2:23 says, no one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Just as light is a direction, an amplitude and a wavelength, so too is God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I think that God cannot see evil when in heaven, so he became both true God and true Man in order to come down and experience everything we do so that he could save us. Although I do believe that Christ’s incarnation was “without sin” in the sense that he was aware of what sin was (in his mind) and yet he never succumbed to it mentally or physically, I also believe that Christ “became” sin by knowing sin (in his mind) and becoming aware of its temptations so that God could pin-point sin and obliterate it through Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

KarenNC:

Are you then saying that
a) there is something God cannot do? (see sin when in heaven) If so, he is by definition not omnipotent/

No. I’m saying the world’s definition of omnipotent is not the same as God’s definition of omnipotent, just as the world’s definition of peace is not the same as God’s definition of peace.
John 14:27:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

There’s one thing that God cannot do: sin.

But that’s the only thing he cannot do. And once you realize that this limitation is not actually a limitation, then you will start to understand what we mean when we say that God is omnipotent.

God is omnipotent because everything he does is perfectly good-- that is, his actions never result in strange Gods before him, taking his own name in vain, refusing to keep holy the Lord’s Day, dishonoring father or mother, murdering, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting your neighbor’s spouse or coveting your neighbors goods.

God is the Father Almighty, whose fatherhood and power shed light on one another. What this means is that God reveals his fatherly omnipotence by the way he takes care of our needs; by the filial adoption that he gives us:

I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty

Finally God reveals his fatherly omnipotence by his infinite mercy, for he displays his power at its height by freely forgiving sins.

God is not omnipotent because he can do anything. God cannot contradict his own will for example.

God is omnipotent precisely because his will shall be accomplished regardless of what he can or cannot do– and regardless of what we do or don’t do as well. And it’s precisely in these facts that he cannot sin and yet can freely forgive our sins which manifests his omnipotence.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

KarenNC:

b) God was required to become human in order to become aware of sin or temptation so that He would know what it was? If so, then He either is not omniscient (something existed of which He was not aware) or omnipotent (there was something that He could not do as God–understand sin or obliterate it, but had to become human).

But Jesus is God. He is true God and true man.

What this comes down to is the very nature of God, particularly the qualities of being personal and impersonal and also immanent and transcendent.

For example, the distinction between a personal and an impersonal God can be very complex and equivocal. This is due to the fact that it is impossible for both extremes to be wholly true.

A wholly personal God, accessible in purely human terms, would be considered by some to be insufficiently divine. Unlike Christians, many Jews and Muslims would say this leads one toward polytheism instead of monotheism.

On the other hand, an entirely impersonal God would be extremely difficult to comprehend. Indeed, if God were entirely impersonal, then one would have to wonder we became aware of him in the first place-- a question that I’ve never heard sufficently answered by those who hold to a strict version of monotheism.

Similarly, when we look toward the ideas of immanence and transcendence, we see a nearly identical problem emerging. The qualities of God’s immanence and transcendence refer to the degree within which God is active inside or outside his creation. In this sense, it either replies to the world and its development or else points toward a mystery that lies beyond human comprehension-- and here too neither extreme seems possible.

On the one hand, we would simply have no understanding of a God who is totally separate from us. Again, if God is totally transcedent, then how do we even know about him?

On the other hand, if he is too immanent, then God would penetrate so deeply into his creation that it would be impossible to discern his presence at all. His presence would, in effect, dissolve into our own human experience and be indistinguishable from it.

Aside from the Hindu visions of life, death and rebirth of divinity within a cosmic cycle of unchanging perfection through the Brahman, Christianity is the only other religion which sufficiently answers these apparent contradictions and impossibilities of extremes.

And when I compare Hinduism to Christianity, I find Christianity on whole to be far more convincing and lucid when describing God in triune fashion. The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is indeed the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

KarenNC:

I have read the Old Testament many times. God seems pretty clear on the concept of what sin is, in fact He is the one who defines what is and is not a sin. Was He wrong until Jesus came, or just uninformed?

No. Jesus was slain from the creation of the world. It was all finished before it even began-- because God knows the very end from the very beginning.

Likewise, according to John 1:18, no one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. Similarly, according to John 6:46, no one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

A common saying among many Christians is that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.

What this means is that what is mentioned in the New Testament is revealed in the Old Testament either clearly or in types and figures. The Savior that was promised in the Old Testament is more fully revealed in the New Testament, and the ultimate expression of God’s love, the sending of His son Jesus Christ, is revealed in all its glory.

Consequently, when one reads through the ‘Old Testament’, many Christians see Christ being active all throughout it.

When the Scriptures speak of God walking in the garden with Adam and Eve, this wasn’t God the Father. This was God the Son as theophany prior to his own incarnation.

When the Scriptures speak of God meeting and eating with Abraham, this wasn’t God the Father. This was God the Son as theophany prior to his own incarnation.

When the Scriptures speak of God leading the Isrealites out of the bondage of Egypt, this wasn’t God the Father. This was God the Son as theophany prior to his own incarnation.

When the Scriptures speak of God standing with those Israelites within the furnace, this wasn’t God the Father. This was God the Son as theophany prior to his own incarnation.

A theophany is better understood as an unambiguous manifestation of God, to man, where “unambiguous” indicates that the seers or seer are of no doubt that it is God revealing himself to them.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

KarenNC:

c) that “knowing something in your mind” is the same as experiencing it? I can “know in my mind” about ice cream. I can even watch people eat it. That doesn’t mean I fully comprehend the experience of eating ice cream, neither the pleasure gained from it nor the effects of weight gain.

One minor quibble is that I’m sure that people can figure out that eating too much results in increased weight gain without actually gaining weight by personally eating too much. But as far as the taste of something is concerned, I think that’s exactly right.

I’m positive that Adam and Eve knew what dying meant. I think they experienced it all around them at least in the form of plant life dying when they ate of certain fruits. Even the grass and other vegetation may have gone through its normal life cycles. In fact, if Adam and Eve did not know what dying meant, this would have rendered God’s warning to them completely useless.

I think that their participation in the tree of knowledge shifted their perspective from one of impersonally knowing what dying meant to actually personally experiencing what dying feels like. They didn’t just understand death with their minds when they partook in the tree of knowledge. Their souls tasted death when they partook in its forbidden fruit. In dying the death, they began to die that very day, body and soul.

Jesus, as true God and true man, stood in the perfect vantage point to be the One mediator between God and man-- his very body emcompassed the entire means by which God would reconcile humanity to himself.

KarenNC:

So the essence of this is that God required Himself to sacrifice Himself to Himself to save the beings He created from a situation that He Himself created?

Not quite. But you’re getting warmer.

 

[Valke2]

This is a question that I’ve pondered quite a bit. As far as I understood, it seems highly probable that they did possess the indwelling of the Holy Spirit-- so I believe the answer to this question is yes.

Consequently, I’ll be up front with people to begin with. I believe that if Adam and Eve did indeed have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then this would have negative implications for certain theologies which presume permanent salvation for those who have the Spirit’s indwelling.

In particular, it seems as though that those who believe in some form of once saved always saved would be likely to answer that Adam did not have the Spirit’s indwelling-- and they would specifically insist this because they believe that the Spirit’s indwelling is required for them to be saved.

But if this is the case, does this imply that Adam and Eve were created, by default, damned?

I don’t think this is the case. Clearly, Adam and Eve were created ‘saved’ to begin with-- impying that they had the Spirit’s indwelling to begin with, but then lost their connection to him in some way. In other words, it was when they rejected God’s promise that their default position changed from ‘saved’ to something else.

Defining exactly what this ‘something else’ would be remains to be debated in this thread.

Prior to the fall, there would be nothing to be saved from.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Prior to the fall, there would be nothing to be saved from.

To some extent that’s pretty much what I’m saying. Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, were created inside God’s grace to begin with. They weren’t created outside of God’s grace before the fall. They were created in God’s original holiness and justice. They were, by default, moving by God’s Spirit which God himself had breathed into them..

And yet, having said this, there would nonetheless very much be something for people to be saved from-- their future without God’s indwelling presence.

So, just as a man can warn people against a dangerous pit in order to prevent them from falling in, God can warn us against the eternal dangers of the abyss which we will fall into if we fail to heed his word. This is to say, people can be saved in advance of their future actions which would inevitably separate them from God in the future.

So, for example, if God warns someone in advance not to do something lest there be danger, and they reject God’s council in favor of their own selfish desires, then they will have failed to be saved from the future danger precisely because they did not listen to God.

The motion of the Spirit seems to be most often recognized as a redeeming motion after one has sinned. But the Spirit’s motion also works in a preventative motion too, preventing people from sinning (or falling into danger) in the first place.

Indeed, according to Romans 15:13 we say may the God of hope fill us with all joy and peace as we trust in him, so that we may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I’m honestly not sure what the official Jewish position is on ‘the fall’, if they have an official opinion on this matter all. It seems to me, however, that some Jewish theologians seem to be of the opinion that Adam and Eve partaking in the tree of kowledge was a good act, that this very action was what distinguished humanity from the animals.

Needless to say, Catholic theology disagrees with this particular Jewish teaching. For that matter, even some Jewish theologians disagree with this particular Jewish doctrine.

But, getting back to Catholic thought, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear on more than a few points,

For example, the doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

Similarly, in regards Adam and Eve’s original state of creation, we know by revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. Indeed, God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. Since man is a spiritual creature, he can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The harmony in which they had originally found themselves, however, thanks to God’s original justice, was destroyed after they sinned against God.

 

[Valke2]

Maybe I am misunderstading what a christian means when they discuss being saved? I thought it meant being saved from the consequences of origional sin.

 

[ricmat]

I do have to say that if God’s eyes are too pure to look on evil and he cannot tolerate wrong, but still is the omnipotent omniscient perfect Creator of the Universe who stands outside of Time----why would He then create something with not only the capacity to do what he defined as “evil” or “wrong” but knowing at the time He created it that it would indeed do so?

It is areas like this that make a strong case for polytheism to me.

I skim read the many posts and didn’t see this answered directly (sorry if I missed the posts).

The answer (mine at least) is based on the concept of love, and free will. God is Love. God created all things, and all things have a “nature”. For example, it is the nature of the sun to shine, and dogs to bark when the doorbell rings.

Man is the only creation which has the capability of acting contrary to our nature, which is to love God (and therefore follow his commandments). Sin is to act contrary to God’s commandments, and therefore to NOT love God.

Evil is possible only because we have free will, and some (well maybe all of us at times) choose to do evil things.

Back to love - love is not something that just “happens” to us. It is a choice. Love MUST be a choice. God could have created us with without the capacity to do evil, but then we would be robots, without free will, and without the ability to CHOOSE to love God. But forced love is not really love.

God created all things and holds them in existence. God could take away all things, and does on occasion. The one thing God will not take from us is our love (also known as doing the right thing with our free will).

To choose to love God is our only purpose - which we practice for in this life so we can do it perfectly in the next life.

During mass, when we say “We lift them (our hearts) up to the Lord” we are telling God that we relinquish our free will to conform to his will, his commandments, and his infinite love that he wishes to share with us.

God can tolerate to look on evil in this world, but not in the next life. Hence, purgatory, but that’s another thread.

IMHO

 

[KarenNC]

But forced love is not really love.

Giving the only option other than God’s definition of love (absolute and exclusive worship) as eternal damnation and endless torment isn’t considered at least coercion?

 

[Sixtus]

For my half pennorth worth, seeings we do not know what Adam and Eve were really like or how many of them there were, nor their abilities to comprehend the meaning of sin, it is difficult to debate their culpablility.

What appears certain is that were they not mere allegory but truthful existence then there is no reason to suppose they did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It is my personal belief ‘Adam and Eve’ were a group of primitive humanoids who transcended neanderthal man and spanned perhaps several million years, rather than a single generation. That they were culpable in that they understood moral rules but chose not to obey them.

For me, the real enlightenment and infill of the Holy Spirit came with the coming of Christ. That He was the dawning of the modern age, not Adam and Eve. That the Moral Law as we now understand it, came from Him, albeit in primitive form as a precursor in the Mosaic Code

 

[ricmat]

Giving the only option other than God’s definition of love (absolute and exclusive worship) as eternal damnation and endless torment isn’t considered at least coercion?

Now you’ve brought up another 2 more subjects:

1. Contrition.

There are 2 types of contrition, imperfect contrition = being sorry for, or in fear of your sins because of the consequences.

Perfect contrition = being sorry for your sins because you know it offends God and God’s love. This is love in return.

1. Hell is not a place that God puts you for being bad. Hell is a place that people choose themselves and is defined as being totally devoid of God. If you spend your life going against God, why would you consider it punishment to spend eternity there? Note: I’m not claiming that you or any specific person is going there…only God knows what’s in people’s hearts.

 

[ricmat]

Giving the only option other than God’s definition of love (absolute and exclusive worship) as eternal damnation and endless torment isn’t considered at least coercion?

Also…“coercion” is such a negative word

When we teach our 2 year old kids not to plug a butter knife into an electrical socket, is that coercion? No, of course not. We do it out of love for them, because we want the best for them, and we don’t want them to suffer the consequences of being shocked.

God, as our parent, also tells us what not to do, also because of bad consequences.

 

[KarenNC]

**My wife is doing quite well. **

Glad to hear it. Wow, you’ve been busy

Creation acts like a mirror, designed by God reflect the glory of her creator. In fact, the entire creation was designed by God to praise his holy name.

I have heard this often, but I still have trouble understanding why this is an appealing theology.

**No. God is omniscient in the sense that he knows all things good. Everything that is good, that is moved by his Spirit, he is perfectly aware of.Likewise, God is quite aware of all things which reflect his presense. **

and

No. I’m saying the world’s definition of omnipotent is not the same as God’s definition of omnipotent, just as the world’s definition of peace is not the same as God’s definition of peace.

Herein lies a basic problem. If words do not mean in reference to Christianity what they mean in reference to all other religions, then it is not going to be terribly feasible to have a useful discussion. I’m afraid it really does come across as special pleading. Unless you would use those same definitions in examining the gods of other religions as well?

God is omnipotent because everything he does is perfectly good-- that is, his actions never result in strange Gods before him, taking his own name in vain, refusing to keep holy the Lord’s Day, dishonoring father or mother, murdering, adultery, stealing, lying, coveting your neighbor’s spouse or coveting your neighbors goods.

So God is omnipotent because He doesn’t
worship other Gods (which he claims do not actually exist) ahead of Himself

take his own name in vain,

refuse to worship Himself on the day upon which He decided He should be worshipped in the manner in which He decided He should be worshipped. Honestly, if He went to all the trouble to create an entire universe simply to have someone to worship Him and a mirror to reflect His glory, then this shouldn’t be a hardship

dishonor His Father and Mother (well that should be easy ,

murder (ie kill someone or something without having what He considers to be a just cause although He is the arbiter of what is a just cause),

commit adultery (ie engage in any sort of sexual activity with someone who is not His spouse, especially the spouse or betrothed of someone else–the betrothal was considered just as legally binding as a marriage and had to be ended by a divorce --see myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Marriage/AboutMarriage/EvolutionAncient.htm)). Also Deut. 22-29.)

steal (though all things belong to Him anyway)

covet His neighbor’s spouse (this does raise the question of who qualifies as “neighbor” for God. Is it humanity or is it others described as gods?)

or covet His neighbor’s goods (see above–if neighbor is humanity, then He already owns all of it anyway. If it is others described as gods, then exactly what is the command to convert those of other religions other than coveting your neighbor’s worshippers?)

I’m sorry, but it really looks like this boils down to God is omnipotent because God can’t do anything He said is not a good thing to do. It gets a whole lot easier to avoid doing things that are a sin against oneself when one is the only one who gets to define what constitutes such a sin.

** I’m positive that Adam and Eve knew what dying meant. I think they experienced it all around them at least in the form of plant life dying when they ate of certain fruits. Even the grass and other vegetation may have gone through its normal life cycles. In fact, if Adam and Eve did not know what dying meant, this would have rendered God’s warning to them completely useless**

In order to have fruit, there must at least be a partial life cycle. I don’t know if simply observing a vegetative life cycle, however, would translate to a knowledge of death as a permanent condition. Instead, I would think that it would lead one more naturally to a cyclical reincarnation model.