The fall of man; Free will

[waitasec]

God did not create man to be like a pet.
God procreated, Adam is God's son.
God procreated; His desire, expressed in the act of procreation, is for a family.
　
The pet analogy falls flat in the face of this fact.
Your dog, my dog, will only ever be a dog. Adam had (and we have) the potential to grow beyond this human nature into God's immortal nature.
　
In the Bible there are 2 ways in which a mortal body can become an immortal body.
The most familiar is through death and resurrection.
The second is by being 'changed' in an unknown but direct manner that does not require a passage through death (as for those who are alive at Christ's return),
So death was optional to the process from the beginning.
　
Death was an option in the process, not a certainty. It became a certainty, for the aggregate of humanity, only after the 'fall'.
　
God could exercise dominion over our free will if He so chose to.
There are instances in the Bible where he did just that and used people as a puppetmaster his puppets to further His interests. They are rare but significant and show that 'free will', as it is often talked about (as being an inviolable absolute) is an illusion.
The fact that He so rarely chooses to do so is indicative of His desire that humans develop to maturity by excercising the facilities for reason, empathy, compassion etc that we possess.
　
As I understand it, and not to discount the idea of God's jealousy, it should be noted that most occurences of the word, in the English, are a mis-translation for the idea of zeal.
God is a zealous (intensely enthusiastic) God.
The actual jealousy (bitter rivalry) is for His children or His nation and directed against those who would interpose themselves between God and the object of His affections. As a man is jealous for his wife or a parent jealous for their child.
　
God is not jealous of your free will, you have free will through His granting it and could lose that free will at any time He chose.

explain to me why god says he is a jealous god
what does god have to be jealous of?

Exodus 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth: {5} Thou shalt not bow down thyself to THEM, nor serve
them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me; {6} And showing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 6:3 Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. 16 Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.
if god is the creator of everything, he would know there are no other gods

this jealous and zealous thing doesn't hold any water...
what language was the OT translated from...? look at the context first
i know it is easy to read into these things, but why bend the words to aspire them to fit your need for a loving merciful god that clearly isn't in there?

but then you will say, 'yes but you make yourself as a god'

how because of my FREE WILL? looks like the god in your bible is jealous of my free will? the same free will that adam had when he partook of the forbidden fruit?

if it is not my free will, what is god jealous of?

 

[dmgdnooc]

point out the scriptures that refers to these things you claim in the genesis story ...
i'll make it simple for you; about the fear and the disconnection...

who is reading into these scriptures? you are adding onto what the bible says in order for it to fit your view of god
you want your god to be loving
you want your god to be your champion
you want your god to guide you
you want your god to be everything you are not that you strive to be
whatever that may be...

They were afraid that they would die when God found them out.
Genesis 2.17 'in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die'
Through a normal understanding of the language they should have died that same day, it is no stretch to reason that they thought this would be the case.
　
Paul in Hebrews 2.15 'deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage'. I understand this to mean that the 'fear of death' is the overriding emotional impulse governing humanity. Fear of death is our primal fear and I find it no stretch to ascribe it to this primal scenario.
　
That they also feared God is clear in the fact that they sought to hide from him.
Previously they had an intimate relationship with their maker, now they sought distance from His presence, from His gaze.
That they draped themselves in leaves (from trees) and thought to hide amongst the trees indicates to me that they felt a close relationship to the trees.
Whereas previously they had been in God's company and eshewed to even touch the Tree now they eschewed God's company and found close affinity with the trees.
It is significant that they did not seek to hide in the water or in a cave or amongst the animals, they sought to hide amongst the trees.
Sinning (in the matter of the Tree) had created (in their minds) an association of themselves with trees and that association played itself out in their actions
　
If I say the things that I say because I 'want' God to be this or that; then is it true that you say the things that you say because it is what you 'want' God to be.
Not your loving parent
Not your champion
Not your guide
Not what you strive to be
I'm comfortable with the way I approach the Bible, it is, imo, the best way to approach it.
　
I have noticed, and many others too, that what ever 'holy' book one reads there is a universal reaction.
The reaction being that whatever one takes to the reading will be reflected back to the reader.
If one takes love, one will find love reflected back.
If one takes violence, one will find violence reflected back.
The purpose of 'holy' books is to show us, in the first instance, ourselves.
That is how a person can read the Bible and become a Mother Theresa or a Grand Inquisitor.
How a person can read the Q'uran and become a tireless saint or a rabid terrorist.
How a person can read the Upanishads and so on etc.
I think that what one takes to the Bible when reading it is merely being reflected back, but some fail of recognising themselves in the reflection.
　

 

[dmgdnooc]

what makes you think they didn't already eat from the tree of life
this is absolutely absurd...
to me it is a fairy tale
to you it is your life

say hi to peter pan for me

They had not already eaten of the tree of life.
Gen 3.22 'lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life' .
　
You really are not familiar with the story; not even with its principal elements.
That hasn't stopped you in setting yourself up as an authority on it.
And why should it?
　

 

[waitasec]

They were afraid that they would die when God found them out.
Genesis 2.17 'in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die'
Through a normal understanding of the language they should have died that same day, it is no stretch to reason that they thought this would be the case.
　
Paul in Hebrews 2.15 'deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage'. I understand this to mean that the 'fear of death' is the overriding emotional impulse governing humanity. Fear of death is our primal fear and I find it no stretch to ascribe it to this primal scenario.
　
That they also feared God is clear in the fact that they sought to hide from him.
Previously they had an intimate relationship with their maker, now they sought distance from His presence, from His gaze.
That they draped themselves in leaves (from trees) and thought to hide amongst the trees indicates to me that they felt a close relationship to the trees.
Whereas previously they had been in God's company and eshewed to even touch the Tree now they eschewed God's company and found close affinity with the trees.
It is significant that they did not seek to hide in the water or in a cave or amongst the animals, they sought to hide amongst the trees.
Sinning (in the matter of the Tree) had created (in their minds) an association of themselves with trees and that association played itself out in their actions
　
If I say the things that I say because I 'want' God to be this or that; then is it true that you say the things that you say because it is what you 'want' God to be.
Not your loving parent
Not your champion
Not your guide
Not what you strive to be
I'm comfortable with the way I approach the Bible, it is, imo, the best way to approach it.
　
I have noticed, and many others too, that what ever 'holy' book one reads their is a universal reaction.
The reaction being that whatever one takes to the reading will be reflected back to the reader.
If one takes love, one will find love reflected back.
If one takes violence, one will find violence reflected back.
The purpose of 'holy' books is to show us, in the first instance, ourselves.
That is how a person can read the Bible and become a Mother Theresa or a Grand Inquisitor.
How a person can read the Q'uran and become a tireless saint or a rabid terrorist.
How a person can read the Upanishads and so on etc.
I think that what one takes to the Bible when reading it is merely being reflected back, but some fail of recognising themselves in the reflection.
　

Gen 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. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

did the word death come up?
how do you see this as he was afraid because god was going to kill him?
where does that come up here?

well if you think "The reaction being that whatever one takes to the reading will be reflected back to the reader."
than, i am not a person who is easily persuadable, rather; i am a person who thinks, i am a person who reasons, i am a person who applies logic, i am a person who questions...i am not sheep nor will i follow the pied piper
because i follow the beat of my OWN drum, most importantly
i am not led by fear

 

[waitasec]

They had not already eaten of the tree of life.
Gen 3.22 'lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life' .
　
You really are not familiar with the story; not even with its principal elements.
That hasn't stopped you in setting yourself up as an authority on it.
And why should it?
　

do you understand it as; when god told them they will surely die
are you taking that to mean they were already eternal beings?

or 'you will surely die' as the consequence of the tree being guarded after the fact?

both trees were never guarded
the tree of life did not become guarded until after they ate the fruit, right?


you are mistaken, my friend
i had spent 15 yrs in this and i was going into the ministry.
it wasn't until i studied in bible college to prepare myself for the ministry did i realize...there is no fear in freedom...why use fear as a tool for control...?

 

[luvuyesua]

Adam and Eve being asked about the disobedience, did not say they were sorry at the moment they obviously knew they disobeyed, Eve blamed the snake and Adam blamed Eve and his father, they didnt account to it. (they knew who they were talking to, Daddy)
The garden of Eden was a place for eternity, that is what they lost. Death was born, thorns on bushes were born the first sacrifice, and the womb of Eve was sentenced to bleed every month, and if you look at the part of the womb that is also a death that happens each month (ovulo) so it may be that the womb was meant to bare immortal and we have mortal now.

may you find yourselves in a blessed position

 

[jonman122]

Adam and Eve being asked about the disobedience, did not say they were sorry at the moment they obviously knew they disobeyed, Eve blamed the snake and Adam blamed Eve and his father, they didnt account to it. (they knew who they were talking to, Daddy)
The garden of Eden was a place for eternity, that is what they lost. Death was born, thorns on bushes were born the first sacrifice, and the womb of Eve was sentenced to bleed every month, and if you look at the part of the womb that is also a death that happens each month (ovulo) so it may be that the womb was meant to bare immortal and we have mortal now.

may you find yourselves in a blessed position

god never mentions the womb at all, only that child birth will be painful. It also does not say who they blamed, and they did account to it, they said they ate from the tree right to god when he walked up.

people who take the genesis story to be fact need to see a psychiatrist, even most christians think it's a fantastic story and nothing more. You honestly believe there is a flaming sword floating around somewhere guarding eden? and that we couldnt just roll it over with a tank (if eden even existed that is, and it does not exist so..)

 

[dmgdnooc]

explain to me why god says he is a jealous god
what does god have to be jealous of?

Exodus 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth: {5} Thou shalt not bow down thyself to THEM, nor serve
them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me; {6} And showing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 6:3 Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. 16 Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.
if god is the creator of everything, he would know there are no other gods

this jealous and zealous thing doesn't hold any water...
what language was the OT translated from...? look at the context first
i know it is easy to read into these things, but why bend the words to aspire them to fit your need for a loving merciful god that clearly isn't in there?

but then you will say, 'yes but you make yourself as a god'

how because of my FREE WILL? looks like the god in your bible is jealous of my free will? the same free will that adam had when he partook of the forbidden fruit?

if it is not my free will, what is god jealous of?

A husband is jealous on behalf of his wife against a rival for her affections.
A wife for her husband also.
A parent for their child, the child for his/her parents.
　
Jealousy is a normal emotional default state in human beings.
It is an emotion that we share with God and is related to, an aspect of, intense love.
　
God is jealous for his children and against those who would come between Him and His children and diminish or destroy the love that they share.
Against those who would beguile, or seduce, His children out of their bonds of affection.
If you are a parent you should understand the emotion.
You are married and I am surprised that you do not recognise that jealousy is an associate emotion of love. That it operates for the protection of that love against an interloper who threatens that love.
　
The OT was written, for the most part, in Hebrew.
It appears that exact translation into English is an impossibility.
Perhaps there is a Hebrew speaker reading that can add to this conversation.
　
It looks to you that God is jealous of your free will (although He could remove it at His will).
It looks to me that He is jealous for His children against His rivals for their affections. Even if, or especially if, those rivals are foreign conceptions of divinity.

 

[waitasec]

A husband is jealous on behalf of his wife against a rival for her affections.
A wife for her husband also.
A parent for their child, the child for his/her parents.
　
Jealousy is a normal emotional default state in human beings.
It is an emotion that we share with God and is related to, an aspect of, intense love.
　
God is jealous for his children and against those who would come between Him and His children and diminish or destroy the love that they share.
Against those who would beguile, or seduce, His children out of their bonds of affection.
If you are a parent you should understand the emotion.
You are married and I am surprised that you do not recognise that jealousy is an associate emotion of love. That it operates for the protection of that love against an interloper who threatens that love.
　
The OT was written, for the most part, in Hebrew.
It appears that exact translation into English is an impossibility.
Perhaps there is a Hebrew speaker reading that can add to this conversation.
　
It looks to you that God is jealous of your free will (although He could remove it at His will).
It looks to me that He is jealous for His children against His rivals for their affections. Even if, or especially if, those rivals are foreign conceptions of divinity.

as i see it jealousy is a result of fear and insecurities
is your all knowing/powerful god insecure?

 

[dmgdnooc]

Gen 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. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

did the word death come up?
how do you see this as he was afraid because god was going to kill him?
where does that come up here?

well if you think "The reaction being that whatever one takes to the reading will be reflected back to the reader."
than, i am not a person who is easily persuadable, rather; i am a person who thinks, i am a person who reasons, i am a person who applies logic, i am a person who questions...i am not sheep nor will i follow the pied piper
because i follow the beat of my OWN drum, most importantly
i am not led by fear

The word 'death' came up in Genesis 2.
You suppose that they had forgotten, and remained forgetful, that 'in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die'.
That doesn't seem to be a thing that I would have forgotten; and if I had pushed it to the back of my mind, then eating would have pushed it forward in a most uncomfortable manner.
　
He was afraid that he would, that very day, die as a result of eating of the tree.
I don't know if he thought God would kill him, I doubt it.
He was an intelligent being able to reason soundly.
I doubt that when God said 'thou shalt die' that he heard 'I will kill you'.
　
You must be an exceptional person.
Surely you realise that fear of this and that is how the mass of people are manipulated by political concerns.
How's the health budget in your part of the world?
Rising I take it, as it is here, surely that's an indication of the true extent of the fear of death in the mass of people.
　
Fear of death is at the root of Adam's fear, as Paul says, its primal force drives the mass of people.
It is fear not shame that caused him to hide, he said so, and we should take him at his word and not exercise verbal gymnastics to make shame equal fear.
His disguise was of 2 parts, the apron (made of leaves) and the trees amongst which he hid.
He disguised himself because he was afraid.

 

[dmgdnooc]

as i see it jealousy is a result of fear and insecurities
is your all knowing/powerful god insecure?

You misunderstand 'jealousy'.

 

[jonman122]

The word 'death' came up in Genesis 2.
You suppose that they had forgotten, and remained forgetful, that 'in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die'.
That doesn't seem to be a thing that I would have forgotten; and if I had pushed it to the back of my mind, then eating would have pushed it forward in a most uncomfortable manner.
　
He was afraid that he would, that very day, die as a result of eating of the tree.
I don't know if he thought God would kill him, I doubt it.
He was an intelligent being able to reason soundly.
I doubt that when God said 'thou shalt die' that he heard 'I will kill you'.
　
You must be an exceptional person.
Surely you realise that fear of this and that is how the mass of people are manipulated by political concerns.
How's the health budget in your part of the world?
Rising I take it, as it is here, surely that's an indication of the true extent of the fear of death in the mass of people.
　
Fear of death is at the root of Adam's fear, as Paul says, its primal force drives the mass of people.
It is fear not shame that caused him to hide, he said so, and we should take him at his word and not exercise verbal gymnastics to make shame equal fear.
His disguise was of 2 parts, the apron (made of leaves) and the trees amongst which he hid.
He disguised himself because he was afraid.

i'm actually tired enough i have become distressed by how you ignore simple statements, things so simple i could tell them to a 5 year old and they would interpret it as it is. such as:

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

if i told a 5 year old "so this guy said, 'i was afraid because i was naked,' why was he afraid? tell me." they'd answer "well um i think its because he was naked i think probably " because kids are cute. But you take this and you say "he was afraid of god, therefore he hid and it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was naked, regardless of whether or not the word naked is used or not."

 

[dmgdnooc]

do you understand it as; when god told them they will surely die
are you taking that to mean they were already eternal beings?

or 'you will surely die' as the consequence of the tree being guarded after the fact?

both trees were never guarded
the tree of life did not become guarded until after they ate the fruit, right?


you are mistaken, my friend
i had spent 15 yrs in this and i was going into the ministry.
it wasn't until i studied in bible college to prepare myself for the ministry did i realize...there is no fear in freedom...why use fear as a tool for control...?

They could not have been eternal beings.
If they had been eternal beings then there would have been no need to eat of the tree of life in order for them to live forever. And Gen 3.22 would be redundant.
I take it that 'thou shalt surely die' is a statement of the certainty of the death that they would experience.
　
Agreed, the trees were not 'guarded' until after the expulsion.
　
My comment was based on your having missed Gen 3.22, that you didn't realise that they had not eaten of the tree of life. Which seems to me to be a fundamental aspect of the story.
　
God didn't use fear as a control mechanism over them.
I do not think that they feared death until after death became a certian prospect to them.

 

[DarkSun]

... Well this thread exploded...

 

[dmgdnooc]

i'm actually tired enough i have become distressed by how you ignore simple statements, things so simple i could tell them to a 5 year old and they would interpret it as it is. such as:

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

if i told a 5 year old "so this guy said, 'i was afraid because i was naked,' why was he afraid? tell me." they'd answer "well um i think its because he was naked i think probably " because kids are cute. But you take this and you say "he was afraid of god, therefore he hid and it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was naked, regardless of whether or not the word naked is used or not."

Your hypothetical 5 year old may be credulous enough to believe you, that is no reason to suppose that I would.
　
Language is a more complex prospect than your simplistic approach allows for.
All words have a range of meanings, naked does not just mean 'bare skinned' it also carries the ideas of 'open', 'helpless'. 'uncovered' etc.
And it should be noted that the word translated as 'naked' in Gen 3 is a quite different word to the one translated as 'naked' in Gen 2.
The word in Gen 2 carries the implication of shame and apparently relates to the genitals in a way that the word in Gen 3 does not.
Look it up for yourself in Gesenius or Englishman's.

I will hold to my original view, in the absence of a genuine Hebrew speaker, as supported by the recognised scholarship of the above references.
　
You are a literalist, in regards the Bible, and stuck firmly into the English translation in a way that many fundamentalists would admire.
Hardly surprising if your conversations, to date, have been restricted to 5 year olds.

 

[Thief]

Your hypothetical 5 year old may be credulous enough to believe you, that is no reason to suppose that I would.
　
Language is a more complex prospect than your simplistic approach allows for.
All words have a range of meanings, naked does not just mean 'bare skinned' it also carries the ideas of 'open', 'helpless'. 'uncovered' etc.
And it should be noted that the word translated as 'naked' in Gen 3 is a quite different word to the one translated as 'naked' in Gen 2.
The word in Gen 2 carries the implication of shame and apparently relates to the genitals in a way that the word in Gen 3 does not.
Look it up for yourself in Gesenius or Englishman's.

I will hold to my original view, in the absence of a genuine Hebrew speaker, as supported by the recognised scholarship of the above references.
　
You are a literalist, in regards the Bible, and stuck firmly into the English translation in a way that many fundamentalists would admire.
Hardly surprising if your conversations, to date, have been restricted to 5 year olds.

Remind me to give you frubals for this ...later.

 

[jonman122]

Your hypothetical 5 year old may be credulous enough to believe you, that is no reason to suppose that I would.
　
Language is a more complex prospect than your simplistic approach allows for.
All words have a range of meanings, naked does not just mean 'bare skinned' it also carries the ideas of 'open', 'helpless'. 'uncovered' etc.
And it should be noted that the word translated as 'naked' in Gen 3 is a quite different word to the one translated as 'naked' in Gen 2.
The word in Gen 2 carries the implication of shame and apparently relates to the genitals in a way that the word in Gen 3 does not.
Look it up for yourself in Gesenius or Englishman's.

I will hold to my original view, in the absence of a genuine Hebrew speaker, as supported by the recognised scholarship of the above references.
　
You are a literalist, in regards the Bible, and stuck firmly into the English translation in a way that many fundamentalists would admire.
Hardly surprising if your conversations, to date, have been restricted to 5 year olds.

you say i'm a literalist in regards to the bible, but you genuinely believe the genesis story to be true? or should i say, your interpretation of the genesis story :cover:

 

[Willamena]

you say i'm a literalist in regards to the bible, but you genuinely believe the genesis story to be true? or should i say, your interpretation of the genesis story :cover:

"Literal" needn't equate to "true". A story can be non-literal and true.

 

[it's_sam]

"Literal" needn't equate to "true". A story can be non-literal and true.

I think the saying goes, there is a spark of truth in every story.

 

[Thief]

I think the saying goes, there is a spark of truth in every story.

Frubals for you too.