A
avflf
Guest
Take this one up with TheQuestioner. He wrote:
.
Based on archaeological and historical research
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment”.
Why should i perceive this as an affirmation of what Moses actually believed in respect of his religion, rather than a mere symbolic or poetic gesture which intends to convey the divine legitimation of the Judaic God?
You seem to demand a completely literal rendering of everything that Moses said, instead of taking in to account other literary devices that could possibly account for his supposed “Heno-theism”.
Until you show me a Jewish author who perceived his or her Judaism as explicitly being polytheistic or heno-theistic in nature beyond a question of a doubt (and that’s without being deemed heretical), your arguments will amount to nothing more than mere suggestion and conspiracy.
A
avflf
Guest
Considering that you copied the above *verbatim * from your book “Insight On The Scriptures - Vol. 1 (Gods and Godesses)” article, you should, at least, give it as a reference. As you present it here gives the impression that you are the author.
So, you say because Jehovah was upset with Pharaoh for not allowing the Hebrews to leave he went about humiliating the gods of the Egyptians by plaguing the whole population of Egypt and, as far as the last plague goes, killing every firstborn when only the Pharaoh’s child was the divine one that would have sufficed in getting his point across. Nice going Jehovah. One cannot even call it collateral damage, it was plain genocide. No wonder the Egyptians never converted to the Jewish religion. Their gods were much more humane, and the Egyptians viewed the Hebrew’s sacrifices with repugnance: Ex 8:26 But Moses said, “That would not be right. The sacrifices we offer the LORD our God would be detestable to the Egyptians. And if we offer sacrifices that are detestable in their eyes, will they not stone us? We must make a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God, as he commands us.” NIV
It reminds me of a sermon I once heard where the preacher said that the slaughter of small children and infants during Josh’s conquest of Canaan was to shows us in the here and now that we must put away even the smallest sin. Yeah, right. God commands the wholesale slaughter of humans to give us all a moral lesson. Pull the other one…
E
edwest2
Guest
I have lost trust in archaeological and historical research. I prefer whatever the Church teaches.
The Church allows both a literal and a more developmental interpretation. This is not an error on their part.
God bless,
Ed
A
A_Servant
Guest
I agree with this. However, I tend to view his primary purpose for coming was not “justice”, but as the Catechism and my own convictions affirm, that Christ’s coming was aimed directly at removing the bonds of sin which separate us from God so that we may achieve the end that we were created for, “to know and love God”, and to share in His Divine Life. Of course in a Just universe whatever one does, WHATEVER one does, has consequences, I believe the Buddhists call this Karma. However, in the Christian understanding, God created the Universe as a Just universe and as such those who do good deeds will be rewarded greatly for each, whether in this life or the next, and those who do bad deeds, will bear the consequences of that as well, whether in this Life or the next (Purgatory). Purgatory as such is where we bear the punishments of our venial sins that we did not bear the punishment for in this Life. THIS IS NOT the purpose of Hell however, alone. Even as the Christian must pay the price for his actions, so must the Separated and the Lost, and this DOES take place in Hell for certain however, these punishments are not eternal (possibly) but the ETERNAL consequence of Mortal sin and what makes “Hell” Hell is the separation from God and thus the Happiness and Joy which we can only find in him, it is the only place where God is not present in the universe. This is what makes Hell Hell, and to prevent this from happening by sacrificing himself that we might have the Divine Life and Communion with God that we were created for, and this sacrifice was of course, our God Himself, in the Person of the Son, in human form. This is Why the Catechism calls Hell a “state” >>>>
(CCC 1033)
T
TheQuestioner
Guest
for 4. you are right, but those interactions were mainly for trade. Due to the wide differences in the essentially monotheistic religions I posted it would be a stumbling block for any anthropologist to say that the mythologies were related and shared (even with predating). So either way, these forms of monotheism seem to have formed independently from each other.
Also, try comparing the Egyptian Aten to the Hebrew God. I doubt you will find many similarities. Again, predating does not mean originating, and in order to prove that one gave birth to the other the argument “well, this one came first and they are close to each other” is in no way a good one. You need to show a logical flow of ideas and arguments and evidence that show this is true, including striking similarities and many cases of changing ideas to fit peoples interests and lineage (kinda like how Islam replaced Isaac for Ishmael). As far as I can tell, you will have a very hard time showing that the Egyptian Aten was the progenitor for the Hebrew God (Egyptian religions seem to be wildly distinct from other Middle Eastern ones), the Persian Ahura Mazda (or Zurvan) and the Hindu concept of there really being one God.
If you do have evidence, please post your sources.
Also, try comparing the Egyptian Aten to the Hebrew God. I doubt you will find many similarities. Again, predating does not mean originating, and in order to prove that one gave birth to the other the argument “well, this one came first and they are close to each other” is in no way a good one. You need to show a logical flow of ideas and arguments and evidence that show this is true, including striking similarities and many cases of changing ideas to fit peoples interests and lineage (kinda like how Islam replaced Isaac for Ishmael). As far as I can tell, you will have a very hard time showing that the Egyptian Aten was the progenitor for the Hebrew God (Egyptian religions seem to be wildly distinct from other Middle Eastern ones), the Persian Ahura Mazda (or Zurvan) and the Hindu concept of there really being one God.
If you do have evidence, please post your sources.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
So sorry, I missed this post. Let’s use this definiton of love (agape), which is not predicated on emotion. The simple question is: “how does God’s alleged love manifest itself here and now?” What are God’s actions (here and now) which support that he “cares” about us? Please leave John 3:16 alone. I am familiar with it, and it is not convincing.
You missed my point. You said that the **acceptance **of love must be a conscious, volitional decision. That is what I disputed with the small child example.
Thank you. Now, where is the sign that God fulfills his responsibility to continue to care about our well-being?
Sorry, if I was not clear. No, I don’t believe in “natural rights”. I was referring to the obligation of any maker toward his creation.
This concept needs to be substantiated. How can you prove that “mere existence” is preferable to “non-existence”?
Yet, the CC does not maintain that the spontaneous abortions of millions of fertilized eggs will place those “souls” into hell…, after all they could not have “chosen” to end there. In its wishy-washy fashion the Church merely says that “we entrust those souls to God’s decision, and hope that they will be in heaven”. And those aborted eggs (which never get implanted in the wall of the uterus) are flushed out from the bodies of the females by the millions, every day. Surely their fate should deserve a bit more than “hoping”.
Of course not. But I have my “living will”, and entrust my wife what I should not be kept artifically alive if my brain ceases to function.
Yes. So where is the sign of this kind of love on God’s part? And why is it necessary that this kind of love be a volitional act? What does the volitional part add to the innate “goodness” of a robot, which cares only about others, and according to its programming it “sacrifices” itself if the circumstances warrant it? I am talking about the mine-sniffing robots, which have themselves blown up to protect the human soldiers.
I thought I did. But if I am mistaken, please point them out to me.
G
Greg27
Guest
I think a traditional Christian understanding of God’s purpose in creating the universe is well stated here in an extract from the CCC para 293:
"III. “THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR THE GLORY OF GOD”
293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God."134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it”,135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand."136 The First Vatican Council explains:
"This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . ."137
294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us “to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace”,138 for "the glory of God is man fully alive; moreover man’s life is the vision of God: if God’s revelation through creation has already obtained life for all the beings that dwell on earth, how much more will the Word’s manifestation of the Father obtain life for those who see God."139 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude."140
Aquinas argued the reason God created was to communicate his abundant goodness (there are some useful extracts in a book by Matthew Fox, a former Dominican priest in his book on Aquinas). Though it should be mentioned the Franciscans such as Scotus and Ockham and later John Calvin put more emphasis on creation being a pure and unfettered act of freedom on the part of God.
In relation to the question of the role of man, the above needs to be read together with this extract which is also a good summary of the teaching of classical theology:
"I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”
356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and **he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity: **
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221"
"III. “THE WORLD WAS CREATED FOR THE GLORY OF GOD”
293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God."134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it”,135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand."136 The First Vatican Council explains:
"This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . ."137
294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us “to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace”,138 for "the glory of God is man fully alive; moreover man’s life is the vision of God: if God’s revelation through creation has already obtained life for all the beings that dwell on earth, how much more will the Word’s manifestation of the Father obtain life for those who see God."139 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude."140
Aquinas argued the reason God created was to communicate his abundant goodness (there are some useful extracts in a book by Matthew Fox, a former Dominican priest in his book on Aquinas). Though it should be mentioned the Franciscans such as Scotus and Ockham and later John Calvin put more emphasis on creation being a pure and unfettered act of freedom on the part of God.
In relation to the question of the role of man, the above needs to be read together with this extract which is also a good summary of the teaching of classical theology:
"I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”
356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and **he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity: **
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221"
A
avflf
Guest
You read the whole article and you pick on one little quote? And, in your mind, you feel you have put your point across? And the 3rd quote from the top by Yehezkel Kaufmann, a Jew, from his book “The Religion of Israel” - The Israelite tribes were heirs to a religious tradition which can only have been polytheistic still not good enough?
Me thinks you’ll never be satisfied, unless one agrees with your ideas.
A
avflf
Guest
Spoken as a true devotee.
R
ricmat
Guest
R Daneel - I know you are looking for an answer from another poster, but I just had to answer several of your questions above.
God has no obligation to creation. Rather, we have an obligation to God for creating us.
God shows his love for us by maintaining creation in existence. If God somehow lost his love for humanity, there would be no need for a universe. And the universe would just go “poof” and disappear. God continues to hold creation in existence for every microsecond.
I’ll let the others jump back in.
D
dj_dave
Guest
[SIGN]
R
R_Daneel
Guest
You are very welcome to give your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I don’t agree. We did not “ask” to be created. The creator is always responsible for the creation. Not a perfect analogy, but the parents are responsible for their children, at the very least up until the point when they also become adults. When we shall be like God, with all the knowledge and power, then God’s responisbility will end. But not until then.
Why? Do the children have obligation to the parents? Especially if the parents do not care for them, and leave them alone after the delivery at someone else’s doorstep? Because that is what God does. He does absolutely nothing for us in this existence.
Some evidence for this would be appreciated. As is, I simply cannot take it seriously.
A
AndyF
Guest
R Daneel:
Here logic seems to be the answer.
Recall that heaven was once populated by every created being. Heaven could only be a place of complete trust, it being a place of ultimate perfection, the Seat of the Royal Domain, it would be the epitomy of trust. No fear of back stabbers or fear of anything.
Now God also wanted creatures to have free will so he granted that. I like to think he was reluctant to do so, has it was possible for them to err and he knew the consequences. He didn’t want zombies in heaven, and he would rather give us the benefit of the doubt in trust. As we know the seed for evil entered satan who convinced other spirits to err. This created a technical problem in that in order for heaven to remain perfect in trust he must exile those who desired imperfection.
So keeping heaven cleansed has practical reasons. What’s the sense of offering the reward of an imperfect heaven to those who strive for perfection in an imperfect world? He wants people who have their focus in the right place. He wants the “John’s” of this world who are “without guile”.
Andy
Here logic seems to be the answer.
Recall that heaven was once populated by every created being. Heaven could only be a place of complete trust, it being a place of ultimate perfection, the Seat of the Royal Domain, it would be the epitomy of trust. No fear of back stabbers or fear of anything.
Now God also wanted creatures to have free will so he granted that. I like to think he was reluctant to do so, has it was possible for them to err and he knew the consequences. He didn’t want zombies in heaven, and he would rather give us the benefit of the doubt in trust. As we know the seed for evil entered satan who convinced other spirits to err. This created a technical problem in that in order for heaven to remain perfect in trust he must exile those who desired imperfection.
So keeping heaven cleansed has practical reasons. What’s the sense of offering the reward of an imperfect heaven to those who strive for perfection in an imperfect world? He wants people who have their focus in the right place. He wants the “John’s” of this world who are “without guile”.
Andy
R
R_Daneel
Guest
This is a pretty good argument. However, the question arises: “what about the incredible amount of eternal suffering for those who ‘did not make it’ make is worth this process?”. The eternally damned would not say so. And if the ones, who finally make it to heaven are aware of this suffering, (and since they are good and compassionate people) would this knowledge not “spoil” their “bliss”? Unless they would be “brainwashed”, I am pretty sure it would.
A
avflf
Guest
No need to apologize and you should not shy away from your belief or get concerned they wont read your sources. You’ve identified yourself as a Jehovah Witness so it is expected of you to quote from your publications as the Catholics quote from their Catechism. As you’ve realized, I’ve got your books. Had JW friends too.dj dave;6614139 [QUOTE said:
Not necessarily Egyptians but possibly other captives/slaves such as the Nubians. The fact remains that Egypt did not abandoned their god for Jehovah. As nothing more is said about this multitude one expects they went back to their own countries, or maybe even back to Egypt like the Israelites wanted to when the journey became too much for them. Some scholars believe this group of people were Canaanites which lived within Egypt’s domain
Only because the Egyptians were not offer the same means of avoiding the slaughter. So it was premeditated. Moses only speaks to the elders of his own people and not a word to the Egyptians. It was Top Secret.
Verse 13 explains what Jehovah meant as “sanctify”. Asses could circumvent their fate if a lamb was offered instead but if not the donkey would have its neck broken. Humans wouldn’t be sacrificed either, if they were redeemed - five shekels to the priesthood (Num. 3:47). Good business.
Even heathens?
Like Bill Cosby once related what his father said to him : "I brought you into this world and **I **can take you out "
A
avflf
Guest
If I may interject, this is not a good argument at all. The God of the Bible is portrayed as a shoddy Creator. Twice he created beings and twice these creatures rebelled against him. The human pair did not know if disobeying God was a sin or not as they did not know right from wrong until they ate the fruit. By them, of course, it was too late. It seems God had a warped sense of humour, to put a stumbling block when he knew they would fall over.
D
dj_dave
Guest
[SIGN]
You have the following in your “Insight” book…
*** it-2 pp. 963-964 Sin, I ***
God’s will as expressed to Adam and his wife was primarily positive, setting forth things they were to do. (Ge 1:26-29; 2:15) One prohibitive command was given to Adam, that forbidding eating of (or even touching) the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3) God’s test of man’s obedience and devotion is notable for the respect it showed for man’s dignity. By it God attributed nothing bad to Adam; he did not use as a test the prohibition of, for example, bestiality, murder, or some similar vile or base act, thereby implying that God felt Adam might have some despicable inclinations residing within him. Eating was normal, proper, and Adam had been told to “eat to satisfaction” of what God had given him. (Ge 2:16) But God now tested Adam by restricting his eating of the fruit of this one tree,**(A Must see luke 16:10) ** *God thus causing the eating of that fruit to symbolize that the eater comes to a knowledge that enables him to decide for **himself *what is “good” or what is “bad” for man. Thus, God neither imposed a hardship on the man nor did He attribute to Adam anything beneath his dignity as a human son of God.
The woman was the first human sinner. Her temptation by God’s Adversary, who employed a serpent as a medium of communication was not through an open appeal to immorality of a sensual nature. Rather, it paraded as an appeal to the desire for supposed intellectual elevation and freedom. After first getting Eve to restate God’s law, which she evidently had received through her husband, the Tempter then made an assault on God’s truthfulness and goodness. **He asserted that eating fruit from the prescribed tree would result, not in death, but in enlightenment and godlike ability to determine for oneself whether a thing was good or bad. **This statement reveals that the Tempter was by now thoroughly alienated in heart from his Creator, his words constituting open contradiction plus veiled slander of God. He did not accuse God of unknowing error but of deliberate misrepresentation of matters, saying, “For God knows . . . ” The gravity of sin, the detestable nature of such disaffection, is seen in the means to which this spirit son stooped to achieve his ends, becoming a deceitful liar and an ambition-driven murderer, since he obviously knew the fatal consequences of what he now suggested to his human listener.—Ge 3:1-5; Joh 8:44.
As the account reveals, **improper desire **began to work in the woman. Instead of reacting in utter disgust and righteous indignation on hearing the righteousness of God’s law thus called into question, she now came to look upon the tree as desirable. She coveted what rightly belonged to Jehovah God as her Sovereign—his ability and prerogative to determine what is good and what is bad for his creatures. Hence, she was now starting to conform herself to the ways, standards, and will of the opposer, who contradicted her Creator as well as her God-appointed head, her husband. (1Co 11:3) Putting trust in the Tempter’s words, she let herself be seduced, ate of the fruit, and thus revealed the sin that had been born in her heart and mind.—Ge 3:6; 2Co 11:3; compare Jas 1:14, 15; Mt 5:27, 28.
Adam later partook of the fruit when it was offered to him by his wife. The apostle shows that the man’s sinning differed from that of his wife in that Adam was not deceived by the Tempter’s propaganda, hence he put no stock in the claim that eating the fruit from the tree could be done with impunity. (1Ti 2:14) Adam’s eating, therefore, must have been due to desire for his wife, and he ‘listened to her voice’ rather than to that of his God. (Ge 3:6, 17) He thus conformed to her ways and will, and through her, to those of God’s Adversary. He therefore ‘missed the mark,’ failed to act in God’s image and likeness, did not reflect God’s glory, and, in fact, insulted his heavenly Father.
(Deuteronomy 32:4-5) 4The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he. 5 They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own… . .
[/SIGN]
You have the following in your “Insight” book…
*** it-2 pp. 963-964 Sin, I ***
God’s will as expressed to Adam and his wife was primarily positive, setting forth things they were to do. (Ge 1:26-29; 2:15) One prohibitive command was given to Adam, that forbidding eating of (or even touching) the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. (Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3) God’s test of man’s obedience and devotion is notable for the respect it showed for man’s dignity. By it God attributed nothing bad to Adam; he did not use as a test the prohibition of, for example, bestiality, murder, or some similar vile or base act, thereby implying that God felt Adam might have some despicable inclinations residing within him. Eating was normal, proper, and Adam had been told to “eat to satisfaction” of what God had given him. (Ge 2:16) But God now tested Adam by restricting his eating of the fruit of this one tree,**(A Must see luke 16:10) ** *God thus causing the eating of that fruit to symbolize that the eater comes to a knowledge that enables him to decide for **himself *what is “good” or what is “bad” for man. Thus, God neither imposed a hardship on the man nor did He attribute to Adam anything beneath his dignity as a human son of God.
The woman was the first human sinner. Her temptation by God’s Adversary, who employed a serpent as a medium of communication was not through an open appeal to immorality of a sensual nature. Rather, it paraded as an appeal to the desire for supposed intellectual elevation and freedom. After first getting Eve to restate God’s law, which she evidently had received through her husband, the Tempter then made an assault on God’s truthfulness and goodness. **He asserted that eating fruit from the prescribed tree would result, not in death, but in enlightenment and godlike ability to determine for oneself whether a thing was good or bad. **This statement reveals that the Tempter was by now thoroughly alienated in heart from his Creator, his words constituting open contradiction plus veiled slander of God. He did not accuse God of unknowing error but of deliberate misrepresentation of matters, saying, “For God knows . . . ” The gravity of sin, the detestable nature of such disaffection, is seen in the means to which this spirit son stooped to achieve his ends, becoming a deceitful liar and an ambition-driven murderer, since he obviously knew the fatal consequences of what he now suggested to his human listener.—Ge 3:1-5; Joh 8:44.
As the account reveals, **improper desire **began to work in the woman. Instead of reacting in utter disgust and righteous indignation on hearing the righteousness of God’s law thus called into question, she now came to look upon the tree as desirable. She coveted what rightly belonged to Jehovah God as her Sovereign—his ability and prerogative to determine what is good and what is bad for his creatures. Hence, she was now starting to conform herself to the ways, standards, and will of the opposer, who contradicted her Creator as well as her God-appointed head, her husband. (1Co 11:3) Putting trust in the Tempter’s words, she let herself be seduced, ate of the fruit, and thus revealed the sin that had been born in her heart and mind.—Ge 3:6; 2Co 11:3; compare Jas 1:14, 15; Mt 5:27, 28.
Adam later partook of the fruit when it was offered to him by his wife. The apostle shows that the man’s sinning differed from that of his wife in that Adam was not deceived by the Tempter’s propaganda, hence he put no stock in the claim that eating the fruit from the tree could be done with impunity. (1Ti 2:14) Adam’s eating, therefore, must have been due to desire for his wife, and he ‘listened to her voice’ rather than to that of his God. (Ge 3:6, 17) He thus conformed to her ways and will, and through her, to those of God’s Adversary. He therefore ‘missed the mark,’ failed to act in God’s image and likeness, did not reflect God’s glory, and, in fact, insulted his heavenly Father.
(Deuteronomy 32:4-5) 4The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he. 5 They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own… . .
R
ricmat
Guest
Does the pot criticize the artist who makes it?
Human parents don’t “make” children. We can make soup, or make cars, or make computers. We beget children. And God gives them souls, not parents. Do we have a responsibility to the car we bought (perhaps to wash it once a week?) Or an obligation not to make the soup too spicy?
“When we shall be like God…” My my. Are you trying to yank some chains here? Genesis 3, the original temptation promoted by the father of lies. And who the heck are you, R Daneel that you think you deserve this?
God holds the universe in existence, why?
God gives us the capacity to see beauty in art, music, science, other people. Why?
God has adopted us as his children, with “inheritance rights” to heaven, where eternal and infinite joy, beauty, and love await us. Why?
We deserve none of this. God gives it to us
R Daneel - I suspect that this has been suggested to you before (if so, I apologize for repeating)… Answer the question “Why am I (RD) here?” There are many ways to read that question, and your answers could be “Because I’m killing time between lunch and dinner and the computer was handy.” or “Because I want to talk those silly folks out of this whole “God” thing.” Or “Because nature randomly conspired to create humans, and…well, here I am.”
The second scenario is where I’m personally curious as to “Why are you here?”
R
ricmat
Guest
So that when we look back through the history of God / the World / Salvation we would see that God is merciful.
Huh?
They knew God created them. They knew that God said don’t do it. They did it. They didn’t know it was “wrong”? LOL
Desiring the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of desiring to define good and evil. That is something that only God can do. Eve saw the fruit, that it was good to eat (lust of the “flesh”), pleasing to the eye (lust of the eyes), and desirable for gaining wisdom (the pride of life). She ate it hoping “to become like Gods.”
True, they had no previous experience of evil. But they understood “don’t do it.”
- Status