I would have to ask how a Zbroznoks could also be a Qwifflenubbins and a smalrvy at the same time as being a Zbroznoks. It sounds pretty illogical to me that they have three identities.
You're obviously not a Trinitarian then, yes?
Click the link, if you please.
Premise 1: God is all-knowing. -
God only knows that which can be known
So he doesn't know that which is unknown? There are things that can be unknown to God?
Premise 2:God is perfect. Depends how you define "perfect"
How would a good Christian define it?
Premise 3: God created. - again, it depends how you define "create". Something from nothing or something from element.
I'm not going to quibble over the "how." It's enough to have created, isn't it?
are you suggesting that God changed from perfection to an imperfect man and then back again.
Nope. I'm suggesting that he intentionally created beings that he knew would sin (because he would have foreseen it prior to the act of creation) and then blamed his creation for doing what he'd intended.
Tales like that give Christianity the name of a fairy tale and is false doctrine
And why gild the lily, right?
And meanwhile, to assert that Man's Fall was what God intended all along (see your conclusions below) is perfectly sound Christian doctrine?
All of your premises are garbage.
Are they mine, or are they straight out of Christian theology? We can examine them each in turn if you'd like and you'll be free to explain how they're not. If you like.
You obviously do not have a comprehensive knowledge of Christianity so why are you critiquing that which you are ignorant of?
You have not demonstrated that. You've merely asserted it.
When the hid themselves and felt shame they were no longer perfect, they had already fallen.
So your definition of perfection encompasses a lack of shame at one's god-given nudity?
Why do you think that perfection excludes the pleasure of desire. Adam and Eve where created so that mankind could be.
Is it at all remarkable that the Bible shows Adam & Eve sampling the Arbitrarily Forbidden Fruit before they could get around to the "be fruitful and multiply" bit?
I think you eventually get around to offering a post-hoc rationalization of this later.
Adam and Eve were not perfect when they covered themselfs, plus, the were physically perfect not intellectually perfect.
They didn't cover their intellect. They covered their (as you've put it) "physically perfect" bodies.
That would put and end to free will. Remember, they chose to eat of the fruit whilst perfect, which was a sin.
Did God know in advance that they'd eat the forbidden fruit or not? Is he omniscient or not?
If you're willing to assert that he didn't know what Adam and Eve would do, you'll need to explain what the Bible means when it states that God knows all.
You question are based on false doctrine and ignorance. I cannot answer them. May I suggest reading up on the plan of redemption to get a better idea as to what it is all about. As it stands you are making no sense.
Rather than lamely offer up unsubstantiated accusations, could you please explain which false doctrine(s) they're based on? Thanks in advance.
Genesis 2
16 And the Lord God commanded ... Meaning that if they left it alone they would live forever
But remain unable to breed (see below).
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Meaning that if they left it alone they would live forever
According to what you eventually get around to claiming below, they'd be immortal ... but sterile. Correct?
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
All the time they were perfect they were unaware of their reproductive organs
And yet God had already blessed them and urged them to be fruitful and multiply? Please explain how humans can do that without an awareness of their reproductive organs.
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
He was now mortal and would eventually die
So you're arguing that God had created man immortal? And urged him to reproduce? That's a population disaster in the making.
And what are we to make of a verse like the following if we accept that God had made mankind immortal? Observe:
"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." ~
Genesis 3:22
Sorry my friend. It isn't so much that you aren't making sense (although you most certainly aren't) ... it's that the poorly cobbled together hodgepodge of religious mythology that you adhere to makes no sense.
All these scripture talkabout the fall from immortality to mortality, from perfection to imperfection. It is a crucial requirement for the plan to work
So you're saying that man's fall was part of the plan? Or was God surprised by it?
And as we'll see ... you're claiming that the fall of mankind was part of The Plan®, right?
God said "This man has become like one of us"
Q. - Which "one of us," exactly?
God is perfect both physically and intellectually. He is omnipotent and omniscient.
So he exists physically? And of course, if he is omniscient, then please explain how he didn't know in advance that humankind would eat the forbidden fruit.
He cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection.
Yet he's willing to extend grace to an undeserving humanity via the blood sacrifice of his human manifestation so that they can spend eternity together basking in his all-round swellness?
Where exactly can I find that word in the Bible and which version? Is that New Revised Baloney, or Fundamentally Extracted Standard?
A celestualised body does not need to reproduce as it will live for an eternity.
Yet prior to the fall, God had urged mankind to reproduce? Sorry. Your religion's creation myth breaks down upon scrutiny.
Adam had to fall and become mortal to fulfil Gods commandments to go forth and multiply and replenish the earth.
So you're willing to concede that the fall of humanity was all a part of the plan? If that's so ... how could God hold it against Adam and Eve if they were simply fulfilling The Plan®?
It sounds to me as if sin was a necessity. No sin = no plan. Correct?
God could not tell Adam to sin as that would be bearing false witness which would instantly render him imperfect.
But he could allow his creations to sin and in fact The Plan® required it? I'm not sure if you realize what you're shovelling here .. but it smells foul.
So, God gave him two commandments. 1. Go forth and multiply and replenish the earth. 2. Do not eat from the fruit of the tree as you will surely die. Can you see the subtlety in these two commandments.
Based on what you've already offered up, I see that it would have been impossible for humanity to procreate prior to the fall, and the only way to adhere to Commandment #1 would be to break Commandment #2.
Do you see why what you're saying sounds like complete and unvarnished BS?
You're saying that God's second command to his creation was to to break the first. Right?
In order to gain knowledge of procreation they needed to eat from the tree. In order for them to multiply they had to fall to mortality giving them the physical ability to reproduce.
So sin was all built into the plan. In fact, The Plan® required sin to be implemented ... and Jesus (temporarily) dying on the cross to redeem mankind was preordained from the beginning.
So it wasn't much of a sacrifice. It was more of a gambit.
And to add salt to the wounds, they had no idea that they had to eat from the fruit of the tree in order to sin and fall into mortality, at whichpoint they could obey the commandment to multiply. They had to genuinely sin and didn't know it. Satan thought he was thwarting Gods plan but he was essentual in the role that he played in it all.
Actually, based on what you're saying, it seems like the serpent was God's chosen instrument in orchestrating the fall.
No tempter, no circuming to temptation, therefore, no sin. No sin, no me and you. A perfect plan, in every way, was set in motion.
How utterly laughable.
Could you please cite a few sources that echo your stated views on all of this? I'd love to see if what you're apparently advocating here is truly representative of Christian theology, or if it's just your own personal fever dream.
