How could Adam and Eve sin?

[steve-b]

Hmmm. Let’s change your belief a little and assume that you believe God who is creator and evil and Satan who is an Angel and good. Which one do you follow?

Even though this was to @Gorgias, I hope you don’t mind me butting in briefly. I’ll be quick, Then I’ll go away

We wouldn’t know anything concrete about God unless we had revelation (properly referenced) for this God we believe in. Without that revelation, anybody could make stuff up ad nauseum, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. It’s all opinion. And that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

Can someone deny this revelation? Sure. And many do. And as it turns out, apparently most people live as if they do, because of these terrible results Few are saved

Can one say that’s just baloney? Sure.

And there’s the wager. The bet. Who is right and who is therefore wrong. I’ll just say this SST, if you are right and I’m wrong there’s no harm no foul. We’re just dead…forever. It’s like we were never here. But If I’m right and you’re wrong, ya can’t take it back once you’re dead. Hell is forever. There is no getting out. And people there know that. A trillion years from now is still now in eternity. No yesterday today or tomorrow. No seasons. Just the eternal now. One should be laser focused on where they want to spend eternity and how that happens

Carry on

 

[STT]

STT:

So it is real?

We’ll know that after we die. For now, all we have to go on are the descriptions given us in Scripture.

These are some verses: 20 Top Bible Verses About Hell - Scripture Quotes

STT:

Neutral is just neutral and not a mix of good and absence.

Cannot be, by definition. Here’s your spectrum:

   <A>---------------<X>--------------------*---------------<Y>-------------------<G>

“A” is the point we’re describing as “complete absence of good”, while “G” is the point we’re describing as “complete presence of good.”

“X”, then, would be “more absence than presence” and “Y” would be “more presence than absence”.

How would you describe the midpoint ("*"), then? One could not offer “neither good nor bad”, since that means “the absence of the absence of good along with the absence of good”. That’s illogical. Perhaps “a balance – in some ways, good is present, and in others, it’s absent.”

No. It is like this. Evil-------Neutral------Good. You can experience each piece of that.

STT:

And this plan was unavoidable?

This plan is God’s plan. We weren’t consulted on it.

Great. So we had to go through this.

STT:

They conclude wrong.

OK. That’s your opinion. I disagree.

No, that is Church teaching.

STT:

One cannot conclude otherwise when he are trapped. One must be consistent.

Not sure where you see the inconsistency.

The state of being in Heaven is the Beatific Vision. Otherwise we could fall also after going to Heaven.

 

[STT]

I mean God eventually face the sin of Adam and Eve if they could do it. Especially when they were fooled by Satan.

 

[Gorgias]

No. It is like this. Evil-------Neutral------Good. You can experience each piece of that.

Except that “Evil” means “absence of good” and “Good” means “presence of good.” You can change the words all you like, but if their definition is what we’ve talked about, then what is between “absence” and “presence”?

Great. So we had to go through this.

He’s God. We’re not.

No, that is Church teaching.

It’s Church teaching that the angels experienced the Beatific Vision prior to making their choice? Are you sure about that? If so, then you can cite a Church document that makes that claim. OK, then… let’s see it!

The state of being in Heaven is the Beatific Vision. Otherwise we could fall also after going to Heaven.

You’re conflating two distinct ideas. Yes, being in the Beatific Vision means that we cannot fall after attaining to heaven. But no, the angels weren’t in the Beatific Vision until after they, too, made their choice.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

Except in their case God proved to be good.

Of course not. Stand fooled them. That is what you said in post #58.

I also said this in post #58

God Himself came and made it right for us, took the punishment of death as well, so we wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of our sin.

God told them that he would do that.

Gen. 3
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

 

[STT]

STT:

Hmmm. Let’s change your belief a little and assume that you believe God who is creator and evil and Satan who is an Angel and good. Which one do you follow?

Even though this was to @Gorgias, I hope you don’t mind me butting in briefly. I’ll be quick, Then I’ll go away

We wouldn’t know anything concrete about God unless we had revelation (properly referenced) for this God we believe in. Without that revelation, anybody could make stuff up ad nauseum, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. It’s all opinion. And that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

Can someone deny this revelation? Sure. And many do. And as it turns out, apparently most people live as if they do, because of these terrible results Few are saved

Can one say that’s just baloney? Sure.

And there’s the wager. The bet. Who is right and who is therefore wrong. I’ll just say this SST, if you are right and I’m wrong there’s no harm no foul. We’re just dead…forever. It’s like we were never here. But If I’m right and you’re wrong, ya can’t take it back once you’re dead. Hell is forever. There is no getting out. And people there know that. A trillion years from now is still now in eternity. No yesterday today or tomorrow. No seasons. Just the eternal now. One should be laser focused on where they want to spend eternity and how that happens

Carry on

There is a problems here: There are more than 4000 religions according to wiki so Wager argument does not cut. I would rather search the truth and stay agnostic rather than betting and putting all my credits on one spot. I think I can answer God about my choice because it is a rational and honest choice.

 

[STT]

STT:

No. It is like this. Evil-------Neutral------Good. You can experience each piece of that.

Except that “Evil” means “absence of good” and “Good” means “presence of good.” You can change the words all you like, but if their definition is what we’ve talked about, then what is between “absence” and “presence”?

It is not absence because you are experiencing it. Isn’t existing Good?

STT:

Great. So we had to go through this.

He’s God. We’re not.

Greate. I rest my case.

STT:

No, that is Church teaching.

It’s Church teaching that the angels experienced the Beatific Vision prior to making their choice? Are you sure about that? If so, then you can cite a Church document that makes that claim. OK, then… let’s see it!

That is what you said in post #100: “The experience of the Beatific Vision is the condition of heaven.”

 

[Gorgias]

It is not absence because you are experiencing it. Isn’t existing Good?

You’re not making sense here. I think you’re suggesting that an ‘experience’ implies an ‘existence’ of a feature. It’s almost like you’re suggesting that when I experience ‘darkness’, then ‘darkness’ takes on existence. I would disagree: what I experience (and name as ‘darkness’) is the absence of light.

Greate. I rest my case.

Your case is that God created us and defines salvation history? OK. I’m cool with that.

That is what you said in post #100: “The experience of the Beatific Vision is the condition of heaven.”

Ahh, yes. But the context of that statement is the experience of humans following their life on earth. Yes – in that context, a human in heaven experiences the Beatific Vision. However, the theological definition of the experience of angels is “no Beatific Vision prior to making their irrevocable choice for or against God.”

 

[steve-b]

STT:

Hmmm. Let’s change your belief a little and assume that you believe God who is creator and evil and Satan who is an Angel and good. Which one do you follow?

Even though this was to @Gorgias, I hope you don’t mind me butting in briefly. I’ll be quick, Then I’ll go away

We wouldn’t know anything concrete about God unless we had revelation (properly referenced) for this God we believe in. Without that revelation, anybody could make stuff up ad nauseum, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. It’s all opinion. And that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

Can someone deny this revelation? Sure. And many do. And as it turns out, apparently most people live as if they do, because of these terrible results Few are saved

Can one say that’s just baloney? Sure.

And there’s the wager. The bet. Who is right and who is therefore wrong. I’ll just say this SST, if you are right and I’m wrong there’s no harm no foul. We’re just dead…forever. It’s like we were never here. But If I’m right and you’re wrong, ya can’t take it back once you’re dead. Hell is forever. There is no getting out. And people there know that. A trillion years from now is still now in eternity. No yesterday today or tomorrow. No seasons. Just the eternal now. One should be laser focused on where they want to spend eternity and how that happens

Carry on

STT:

There is a problems here: There are more than 4000 religions according to wiki so Wager argument does not cut it

As I said previously, what I believe, I’m not guessing at. It comes via revelation (properly referenced) from the one we believe in. That proof is bonafide, it’s been MORE than adequately verified. Through ONE faith, ONE religion, ONE Church.

Can people still reject belief in this? Sure. And they do. Even seeing Jesus many miracles, they still to His very face walked away from Him. AND didn’t return.

It validates a quote from Aquinas (paraphrased)

To those who have faith no explanation is necessary, to those without faith, no explanation is sufficient.

It puts things in perspective.

STT:

I would rather search the truth and stay agnostic rather than betting and putting all my credits on one spot. I think I can answer God about my choice because it is a rational and honest choice.

The link I previously gave, shows those who were standing in front of Truth, in front of God in the flesh, and they didn’t recognize Him nor obviously accept Him. Why didn’t they accept Him? They had no faith.

AND

Without faith one can’t please nor even know God . That said, re: search for truth while remaining agnostic, I would just caution, given that quote from scripture, good luck finding Him as an atheist or even agnostic. Both are minus faith

 

[Gorgias]

There are more than 4000 religions according to wiki so Wager argument does not cut.

No… it merely means that there are at least 3999 wrong choices (as well as one wrong choice of rejecting every religion). The wager still holds.

I would rather search the truth and stay agnostic rather than betting and putting all my credits on one spot.

OK… that’s your personal prudential judgment. Could be right… and could be wrong.

Since the Wager is a statistical argument, I’ll point out that the expected value of not making a choice is precisely zero. In other words, you never win.

I think I can answer God about my choice because it is a rational and honest choice.

“Rational and honest” choices can be incorrect too, my friend.

 

[Vico]

I mean God eventually face the sin of Adam and Eve if they could do it. Especially when they were fooled by Satan.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the deception of Eve was preceded by a prior sin; that of a “love for her own power and a proud presumptuousness regarding that power”.

 

[STT]

STT:

It is not absence because you are experiencing it. Isn’t existing Good?

You’re not making sense here. I think you’re suggesting that an ‘experience’ implies an ‘existence’ of a feature. It’s almost like you’re suggesting that when I experience ‘darkness’, then ‘darkness’ takes on existence. I would disagree: what I experience (and name as ‘darkness’) is the absence of light.

That is what you believe: Being is good according to Aquinas. Being exists.

STT:

Great. I rest my case.

Your case is that God created us and defines salvation history? OK. I’m cool with that.

I am not cool with that. There a tons of people who are severely suffering and they are not cool with that either. Have you ever heard of locking syndrome. I had sleep polarize and I partly know what does it mean.

STT:

That is what you said in post #100: “The experience of the Beatific Vision is the condition of heaven.”

Ahh, yes. But the context of that statement is the experience of humans following their life on earth . Yes – in that context, a human in heaven experiences the Beatific Vision. However, the theological definition of the experience of angels is “no Beatific Vision prior to making their irrevocable choice for or against God.”

I cannot follow you here: Isn’t the Beatific Vision the condition of heaven? Weren’t fallen Angels in Heaven?

 

[Gorgias]

I am not cool with that. There a tons of people who are severely suffering

Right. That’s known as ‘natural evil’ – the universe is not perfect, and therefore, we suffer.

I cannot follow you here: Isn’t the Beatific Vision the condition of heaven? Weren’t fallen Angels in Heaven?

I’m afraid that you are, rather simplistically, focussing on the words “in heaven” and asserting that it means the same thing in all cases. As spiritual beings, of course, angels have no physical extension and therefore, do not have the property of “being in a place,” per se. So, the statement that “angels are in heaven” is necessarily figurative.

The teaching of the Church is that angels, upon their creation, were not in the Beatific Vision, but were given the opportunity to choose whether to serve God. Those who chose to serve, gained the Beatific Vision. Those who chose not to serve, are denied it eternally.

 

[STT]

STT:

There is a problems here: There are more than 4000 religions according to wiki so Wager argument does not cut it

As I said previously, what I believe, I’m not guessing at. It comes via revelation (properly referenced) from the one we believe in. That proof is bonafide, it’s been MORE than adequately verified. Through ONE faith, ONE religion, ONE Church.

Can people still reject belief in this? Sure. And they do. Even seeing Jesus many miracles, they still

You could have been a Muslim. They believe in the different things but they believe that Mohammad received revelation.

It validates a quote from Aquinas (paraphrased)

To those who have faith no explanation is necessary, to those without faith, no explanation is sufficient.

It puts things in perspective.

You of course should be rationally convinced. A being who cannot rationally convince you is not a God.

STT:

I would rather search the truth and stay agnostic rather than betting and putting all my credits on one spot. I think I can answer God about my choice because it is a rational and honest choice.

The link I previously gave, shows those who were standing in front of Truth, in front of God in the flesh, and they didn’t recognize Him nor obviously accept Him. Why didn’t they accept Him? They had no faith.

AND

Without faith one can’t please nor even know God . That said, re: search for truth while remaining agnostic, I would just caution, given that quote from scripture, good luck finding Him as an atheist or even agnostic. Both are minus faith

I am not against anything. I am not in favor of one thing because I have not been convinced.

 

[STT]

STT:

There are more than 4000 religions according to wiki so Wager argument does not cut.

No… it merely means that there are at least 3999 wrong choices (as well as one wrong choice of rejecting every religion). The wager still holds.

It doesn’t hold. Those who created 3999 religion most likely win. You most likely lose. Moreover, I am not against anything. I am nost just in favor of anything until I am convinced.

STT:

I would rather search the truth and stay agnostic rather than betting and putting all my credits on one spot.

OK… that’s your personal prudential judgment. Could be right… and could be wrong.

Since the Wager is a statistical argument, I’ll point out that the expected value of not making a choice is precisely zero. In other words, you never win .

Well, the religion should not be about gambling.

STT:

I think I can answer God about my choice because it is a rational and honest choice.

“Rational and honest” choices can be incorrect too, my friend.

Hmmm, I would say that rationality is our only resort.

 

[STT]

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the deception of Eve was preceded by a prior sin ; that of a “love for her own power and a proud presumptuousness regarding that power”.

So there was something wrong in their nature: The greed for power. Isn’t that correct?

 

[Gorgias]

It doesn’t hold. Those who created 3999 religion most likely win. You most likely lose.

You’ve got to do a bit of work on statistics, my friend. I think you’re confusing ‘probability’ with ‘expected value’. Moreover, I think that the way that you’re (implicitly) conceiving of a trial is flawed.

Finally, your understanding of Catholic teaching is deficient – those who do not know that the Church is necessary for salvation are not condemned. So… no; your analysis doesn’t hold up.

Well, the religion should not be about gambling.

It’s not. Pascal’s case is.

Hmmm, I would say that rationality is our only resort

Well… not our only resort. Nevertheless, it’s also not a guarantee of correctness.

 

[STT]

"STT:

Hmmm, I would say that rationality is our only resort

Well… not our only resort. Nevertheless, it’s also not a guarantee of correctness.

What else could be our resot?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the deception of Eve was preceded by a prior sin ; that of a “love for her own power and a proud presumptuousness regarding that power”.

So there was something wrong in their nature: The greed for power. Isn’t that correct?

The root is pride, aversion from God – the sin was to have knowledge but against the command of God.

We do not know when God constituted Adam and Eve with the preternatural and supernatural gifts, however we know that they were sufficient to remain without mortal sin as long as they cooperated. As the Catechism states:

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

STT:

There is a problems here: There are more than 4000 religions according to wiki so Wager argument does not cut it

As I said previously, what I believe, I’m not guessing at. It comes via revelation (properly referenced) from the one we believe in. That proof is bonafide, it’s been MORE than adequately verified. Through ONE faith, ONE religion, ONE Church.

Can people still reject belief in this? Sure. And they do. Even seeing Jesus many miracles, they still

You could have been a Muslim. They believe in the different things but they believe that Mohammad received revelation.

Yes, Muhammad invented Islam. Is Muhammad still in the ground where he was buried?Yep As for his soul, that’s a question.
Did He raise anyone from the dead including himself? Nope!
He is not the savior of the world, nor did he claim to be.
Why would I follow him?

Jesus lived, died, and resurrected from the dead just as He said He would. THAT, put simply, is St Paul’s entire argument summarized

I make the informed choice to follow Jesus and His Church that He established. I want what He promised.

It validates a quote from Aquinas (paraphrased)

To those who have faith no explanation is necessary, to those without faith, no explanation is sufficient.

It puts things in perspective.

STT:

You of course should be rationally convinced. A being who cannot rationally convince you is not a God.

STT:

I would rather search the truth and stay agnostic rather than betting and putting all my credits on one spot. I think I can answer God about my choice because it is a rational and honest choice.

The link I previously gave, shows those who were standing in front of Truth, in front of God in the flesh, and they didn’t recognize Him nor obviously accept Him. Why didn’t they accept Him? They had no faith.

AND

Without faith one can’t please nor even know God . That said, re: search for truth while remaining agnostic, I would just caution, given that quote from scripture, good luck finding Him as an atheist or even agnostic. Both are minus faith
[/quote]

STT:

I am not against anything.

Actually you are

STT:

I am not in favor of one thing because I have not been convinced.

And you won’t be convinced without faith