Did God really set up Adam and Eve for failure?

[Lunam_Meam]

I do not wish her to be banned,…

I have reason to believe you do, and therefore you are not speaking the truth, and your flagging certain posts of mine where I am speaking what I know is from God proves this Truth: “And, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12).

Additionally, I was corresponding back and forth rather quickly with a staff member of Catholic Answers regarding rule #6 under Content Rules, and when I asked the following question, well, it has been over 12 hours, and he has yet to answer:

“Why ban the lay faithful for referencing from and discussing certain private revelations that the Catholic Church has issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats? In other words, why punish the lay faithful for referencing and discussing what the Catholic Church has approved to be published and read, and thus discussed by the lay faithful, as it is not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds?”

:]

(3 of 3)

 

[anendlesswaltz]

Satan was an angel once, right? As were his followers? That’s how i’ve always understood it at least, i might be wrong. I assume that means they were permitted the free will to choose to not obey God and for lack of the right words become demons, fallen angels, instead. I made a thread about it and people told me angels have free will too which was how Satan was able to become Satan and not just stay angel.

So, assuming i’m not entirely wrong and off base which i very well might be, that means God really values free will. He wants people to choose to obey him and choose to follow him and worship him and love him because they want to, not because they were created without the free will do choose anything else.

He might have told them to not eat the fruit of the tree but He had a plan for them even if they didn’t obey him and did it anyways.

I have another question - why did God permit Satan to enter Eden to tempt Adam and Eve to begin with? Pastors and youth leaders always talked about it like it was an ideal paradise, where we walked and talked with God as we were always meant to, but obviously it wasn’t really perfect if Satan was allowed access to tempt people?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

According to God, there are three reigns : (i) the reign of the spirit , (ii) the moral reign , and (iii) the reign of the flesh . “The Serpent seduced me” says Eve. “The woman offered me the fruit and I ate of it” says Adam. And, the triple greed has ruled the three dominions since then.

Where do you document that this is according to God? Just because you write this doesn’t make it true.

So, you do not agree mankind has a spirit, morals, and flesh, and that we struggle in these areas?

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Everything has been revealed.

Everything has been revealed? So, for example, do you not agree the apostle, John the Beloved, was correct when he said “…there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (Jn. 21:25)?

Everything we need for salvation.

Whew! It sounded as if you were speaking generally. Do you agree the Bible is not a compilation of information on everything there is to know, nor contains every detail of all that is already known, generally speaking?

God can do anything.

So, do you agree God can elaborate on known Truths, and reveal new unknown Truths, which would not contradict what is already known Truth, rather further enlighten and enrich the soul?

God does speak to who He wishes, but He doesn’t go against His own word.

Did you intend to say God does speak as in the present-tense? Or, did you mean to say the past-tense? And, do you mean to who He wishes as in to those within or within and outside the Church?

(1 of 3)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

…your not going to get through to a zealot who disregards the Church.

There have been and are leaders in the Church who do and do not always speak or act in accordance with God, of their own free will . Do you agree? I do not embrace what is not of God, only what is of God. Do you do the same?

Who judges what is “of God”? The Church does. I trust the Church and embrace it. Do you do the same?

So, if only leaders in the Church can judge what is of God, then prior to Jesus establishing the Church, how was it possible for anyone to know what was of God? Divine luck?

Before Christ there were Prophets that is the way God communicated.

That does not answer my question. Again, if only leaders in the Church can judge what is of God, then prior to Jesus establishing the Church, how was it possible for anyone, which includes prophets, to know what was of God?

And, do I trust the Church and embrace it? I have already answered this before you even asked. See bolded above and, again, do you agree and do the same?

(2 of 3)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

I do not wish her to be banned,…

I have reason to believe you do, and therefore you are not speaking the truth, and your flagging certain posts of mine where I am speaking what I know is from God proves this Truth: “And, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12).

Additionally, I was corresponding back and forth rather quickly with a staff member of Catholic Answers regarding rule #6 under Content Rules, and when I asked the following question, well, it has been over 12 hours, and he has yet to answer:

“Why ban the lay faithful for referencing from and discussing certain private revelations that the Catholic Church has issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats? In other words, why punish the lay faithful for referencing and discussing what the Catholic Church has approved to be published and read, and thus discussed by the lay faithful, as it is not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds?”

:]

(3 of 3)

You misunderstand Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats. They do not approve the apparition.

I never said private revelations that have been issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are official declarations they are authentic, as in come from God.

Again, certain private revelations that have been issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are official forms of approval by leaders within the Catholic Church that declare they merely be published and read, and thus obviously referenced/discussed by the lay faithful, as they are not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds.

Therefore, I asked the Chief of Office to explain Catholic Answer’s reasoning behind punishing the lay faithful for referencing and discussing literature that has been officially approved by leaders within the Catholic Church to be published and read, and thus obviously referenced/discussed, as they are not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds, and he has yet to answer.

:]

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

I do not wish her to be banned,…

I have reason to believe you do, and therefore you are not speaking the truth, and your flagging certain posts of mine where I am speaking what I know is from God proves this Truth: “And, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12).

Additionally, I was corresponding back and forth rather quickly with a staff member of Catholic Answers regarding rule #6 under Content Rules, and when I asked the following question, well, it has been over 12 hours, and he has yet to answer:

“Why ban the lay faithful for referencing from and discussing certain private revelations that the Catholic Church has issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats? In other words, why punish the lay faithful for referencing and discussing what the Catholic Church has approved to be published and read, and thus discussed by the lay faithful, as it is not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds?”

You misunderstand Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats. They do not approve the apparition.

I never said private revelations that have been issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are official declarations they are authentic, as in come from God.

Again, certain private revelations that have been issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are official forms of approval by leaders within the Catholic Church that declare they merely be published and read, and thus obviously referenced/discussed by the lay faithful, as they are not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds.

Therefore, I asked the Chief of Office to explain Catholic Answer’s reasoning behind punishing the lay faithful for referencing and discussing literature that has been officially approved by leaders within the Catholic Church to be published and read, and thus obviously referenced/discussed, as they are not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds, and he has yet to answer.

:]

In the one you refer to it is suspect. By the Church rules Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats must be issued from the persons diocese. You won’t find one in her diocese.

You need to research properly, even of things you disapprove of.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

According to God, there are three reigns : (i) the reign of the spirit , (ii) the moral reign , and (iii) the reign of the flesh . “The Serpent seduced me” says Eve. “The woman offered me the fruit and I ate of it” says Adam. And, the triple greed has ruled the three dominions since then.

Where do you document that this is according to God? Just because you write this doesn’t make it true.

So, you do not agree mankind has a spirit, morals, and flesh, and that we struggle in these areas?

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Everything has been revealed.

Everything has been revealed? So, for example, do you not agree the apostle, John the Beloved, was correct when he said “…there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (Jn. 21:25)?

Everything we need for salvation.

Whew! It sounded as if you were speaking generally. So, do you agree the Bible is not a compilation of information on everything there is to know, nor contains every detail of all that is already known, generally speaking?

God can do anything.

So, do you agree God can elaborate on known Truths, and reveal new unknown Truths, which would not contradict what is already known Truth, rather further enlighten and enrich the soul?

God does speak to who He wishes, but He doesn’t go against His own word.

Did you intend to say God does speak as in the present-tense? Or, did you mean to say the past-tense? And, do you mean to who He wishes as in to those within or within and outside the Church?

(1 of 2)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

…your not going to get through to a zealot who disregards the Church.

There have been and are leaders in the Church who do and do not always speak or act in accordance with God, of their own free will . Do you agree? I do not embrace what is not of God, only what is of God. Do you do the same?

Who judges what is “of God”? The Church does. I trust the Church and embrace it. Do you do the same?

So, if only leaders in the Church can judge what is of God, then prior to Jesus establishing the Church, how was it possible for anyone to know what was of God? Divine luck? And, do I trust the Church and embrace it? I have already answered this before you even asked. See bolded above and, again, do you agree and do the same?

Before Christ there were Prophets that is the way God communicated.

That does not answer my question. Again, if only leaders in the Church can judge what is of God, then prior to Jesus establishing the Church, how was it possible for anyone, which includes prophets, to know what was of God?

And, do I trust the Church and embrace it? I have already answered this before you even asked. See bolded above and, again, do you agree and do the same?

(2 of 2)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

hope:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

I do not wish her to be banned,…

I have reason to believe you do, and therefore you are not speaking the truth, and your flagging certain posts of mine where I am speaking what I know is from God proves this Truth: “And, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12).

Additionally, I was corresponding back and forth rather quickly with a staff member of Catholic Answers regarding rule #6 under Content Rules, and when I asked the following question, well, it has been over 12 hours, and he has yet to answer:

“Why ban the lay faithful for referencing from and discussing certain private revelations that the Catholic Church has issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats? In other words, why punish the lay faithful for referencing and discussing what the Catholic Church has approved to be published and read, and thus discussed by the lay faithful, as it is not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds?”

You misunderstand Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats. They do not approve the apparition.

I never said private revelations that have been issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are official declarations they are authentic, as in come from God.

Again, certain private revelations that have been issued Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats are official forms of approval by leaders within the Catholic Church that declare they merely be published and read, and thus obviously referenced/discussed by the lay faithful, as they are not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds.

Therefore, I asked the Chief of Office to explain Catholic Answer’s reasoning behind punishing the lay faithful for referencing and discussing literature that has been officially approved by leaders within the Catholic Church to be published and read, and thus obviously referenced/discussed, as they are not objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds, and he has yet to answer.

:]

In the one you refer to it is suspect. By the Church rules Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats must be issued from the persons diocese. You won’t find one in her diocese.

You need to research properly, even of things you disapprove of.

I have researched this for forty years. I doubt that you have researched it beyond those who support it.

40 years? Assuming that is true, clearly decades of experience in something can mean zilch. As for me, I have not researched this for forty years as I am only 32 years old, but I have researched beyond those who support it, which is why I am able to counter the arguments of the naysayers.

 

[Le_Crouton]

If anything he set them for success

 

[Lunam_Meam]

We are not getting anywhere with this and it is against the policies of the forum not to address the topic of the tread.

You were discussing off topics until I re-asked you my unanswered questions in posts 122 and 123. So, you are just referring to that policy now as a way out to avoid answering them.

Smh.

 

[Vico]

why didnt He simply keep us in heaven without any temptation if He loves us so much?

The first parents were not in heaven. That is, the Garden of Eden was not heaven. Mankind can partake of the divine nature through grace, and in heaven can have the Beatific Vision after freely proving charity before the judgement.

 

[BornInMarch]

If not what exactly did He do? Finally, how to defend against that objection?

God explicitly told them what not to do, that was the only rule placed on them, and it wasn’t even a very imposing one at that. Moreover Adam and Eve were born without original sin, meaning they had no bad impulses; when they disobeyed God it was as a rational choice rather than an accident.

Moreover, though recently created, Adam and Even had adult brains and thus adult brain chemistries. That means presenting them as toddlers isn’t entirely correct.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

We are not getting anywhere with this and it is against the policies of the forum not to address the topic of the tread.

You were discussing off topics until I re-asked you my unanswered questions in posts 122 and 123. So, you are just referring to that policy now as a way out to avoid answering them.

Smh.

…every one of your questions have been answered.

If I thought there was the slightest possibility that were true, I’d challenge you to prove every question in my posts 122 and 123 were answered, but we both know you cannot do it.

 

[hope]

What makes you think it is defensible?
Have you even considered that the your deity is imperfect when it comes to moral issues with humanity?

God is perfect. The imperfection lies with humanity. The punishment was not for wanting to know more but disobedience.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

hope:

The punishment was not for wanting to know more, but disobedience.

Why was that request from your deity worth obeying in the first place?

Disobedience was the beginning of the downfall: “Do not eat and do not touch of that tree” said God. God had forbidden the knowledge of good and evil, because He had already granted good to them gratuitously, and He did not want them to know evil. Eve and Adam did not respect that prohibition.

The metaphorical tree: the means to test their obedience. What does obedience to God’s commands imply? It implies all possible good, because God commands nothing but good. What is disobedience? It is evil, because it brings about a rebellious mental state in which Satan can be active.

 

[hope]

Why was that request from your deity worth obeying in the first place?
Should all commands from your deity to be followed, regardless of agreement or understanding?

First I don’t like your use of deity. I find it disrespectful.
Second Yes we should be obedient.

 

[hope]

If your god is perfect by definition, then how can you ever morally assess any commandment or action of your deity to be anything but good? Isn’t a moral assessment open to be assessed as good or bad before you conclude that it is actually good or bad?

Again you are being disrespectful. God is capitalized and there is only one. The answer to your question is no.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

TOS Conduct Rule #5 for this forum:

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

You are indeed under the above obligation when you participate on this forum.

 

[ciros2]

But you still didn’t justify the point for why a commandment from your deity is to be obeyed in the first place other than to say, “what is good is because it said so and anything it says is good .” Sorry but that is just circular logic fallacy with divine command theory or Might makes Right. This isn’t an argument for why something is moral or not.

A person is “good” if he performs the Divine purpose, and “bad” if he does not.
Similarly, a clock that shows the correct time only 2 times a day is objectively bad, but if it was created as a sculpture, it will be objectively good.