Sorry, Richard - we appear to be shouting across a great divide.
This could take some time
I have no idea what you are talking about other than you cannot understand plain English. My commenta are against Original Sin not life. Lif is what it is.
it has noting to do with YEC. (and you know I am not one)
Only if you are taking it literally.
he didnāt.
That is your claim and it is false.
I reserve the right to assert as you do. it goes with the territory
Of course.
stupid assertion. Of course tit is steeped in Judaism
Irrelevant. Language is just the tool used.
How did I know you would make that claim sooner or later?
Thank you
You are making it History which it is not. Technically Historical documents are not āLitteratureā they are facts. There are no literal facts in the Garden narrative.
I already proved that to @mitchellmckain Go fish
it is over the top (also in the above answers)
No it is an insult (and you know it)
Again you fail to understand that I am talking about the consequences of your evil doctirne.I do not beleive God is a tyrant.and that is the whole point.
Nowhere have I ever claimed that.
woah! You are atributing the words so say from the gods (yes plural) not me.
I say no such thing Sentience is a gft from God not a leveller.
How do you work that out?
God has given us the freedom to choose. So let humanity choose! (Like God does)
I have no idea how you make that connection (See replies to @JoelHinrichs above)
The God is incompetantā¦ If humanity is capable of corrupting Godās creation that makes humanty stronger and greater than God (Which is what you accuse me of!)
Give it a rest!. Philosophy is valid wherever. It doesnot userp or question Scripture in the way you claim.
Perhaps it is beyond your comprehenson? Or just contrary to your ālearnningā
From a warped perspective. Spare the rod and soilt the child? That went out years ago!
Look up 1 Cor 13 and see what it says about anger.
That is your warped view. it is not reality.
Love lets people live without constraint or dictation. You are dictating, not God
What is frgiveness then? Forgiveness encompasses all, includng killing, injury, and ā¦
You are talking about hman justice not God.
Tr looking aqt the bigger picture for once.
Well I know you find concepts difficult but this statemwnt of yours is ridiculous.
The flood wiped out the whole of humanity excet one family deemed rghteous. Therefore Original Sin is cancelled (if it ever existed)
What happened to the Bible being coehesive? And this is still the same book!Ā¬
Yes, they treat it theologically not literally. It is your insistance on the literal that I criticise not the inclusion of them in Scripture! They belong but not with your usage or understanding.
Wrong setance
The Devil then explained that it would give them the knowledge of good and evil. you are deiberately ignoring that.
You do come out with the most ludicrous examples that do not apply.
Call it what you want. It is just not reality (or science)
Figuratively maybe. Reality, no. Ad it does not prove Origianl Sin as the doctrine you claim.
No. I just claim different to your view. Whart makes your view correct!
It is certainly not universal
And you have conveneintly ignored the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah! (You know what I am talking about) They deny the ecistence of an inherited sin of any Kind. You make all society pay for the sin of Adam! That is denied by Scripture! And you cannot deny that.
So get off your high and mighty horse. You are ignoring a direct quote from God by two prophets written in the scripture you hold so high.
Original Sin does not exist in any shape or form. it is an evil doctrine.
Richard
Again, you and the YECers ā they refuse to admit that their methods are exactly like those of flat-earthers, and you refuse to admit that yours are just like those of YEC>
No, only if you are taking it as human literature.
The difference being that I rely on the inspired text and you rely on nothing but yourself.
So, what ā they just appeared one day, out of nowhere?
Judaism didnāt exist yet. Your anti-Jewish prejudice is showing again.
Because you and the YECers major in making stuff up rather than reading literature for what it is. You both force your preferred human philosophy onto the text.
No, Iām making it literature, which has a historical context.
No, like a YECer, you asserted it ā you proved nothing but your own idea, not anything about the text.
You approach everything so subjectively Iām not surprised you feel that way, but it was objective assessment.
My only ādoctrineā involved is that scripture is both ancient human literature and inspired. You keep objecting to both.
Your positions regularly require it! Only between equals is āNoā a legitimate response.
No, itās singular ā ×¢Ö¶×Ö°×Ö½×Ö¹× is not plural.
And suffer the consequences.
Then you do not understand the Cross ā it was all about getting everyone back to āthe family businessā.
Only in shallow, binary, linear thinking.
Living in Creation is not a wrestling match ā breaking things God made does not make anyone stronger than God.
I donāt claim it, I point out that thatās what youāre doing: you are taking your personal philosophical precepts and demanding that the Holy Spirit had to conform to them, and declaring that since in your opinion He didnāt then those sections of the scriptures are invalid.
So in your view if a teenager jumps off a balcony and breaks both legs that is āthe rodā?
God wants humanity to grow and mature ā you think God should let humanity devolve into deviltry and rescue us from any consequences.
I donāt have to look ā anger (į½ĻĪ³Ī®) isnāt mentioned. But Paul does talk about anger in Ephesians, and it is not forbidden.
It is what scripture says.
Why do you set yourself about scripture?!?
Not according to the Cross.
Love warns of consequences. Love spells them out. Love aims to rescue from consequences.
Your cheap grace insults the Cross.
Your version of forgiveness is Hell ā forgiveness is not deliverance from consequences.
Your big picture makes God a cruel, uncaring owner who thinks that falling off a cliff is just fine for people.
Which is defined for us by the inspired writer when he says that Noah was righteous āby faithā ā the only way any human is righteous.
I insist that the words mean what they say ā that is how theology works.
Yes, he said that they would experience the difference between good and evil ā and the difference was that by choosing evil they chose death.
It absolutely applies: you want to pronounce something contrary to science and reality yet without anything to support it. Your denial is no different than that of those French academics: their denial rested on their inability to imagine something, and yours is the same.
Repeating a logical fallacy does not strengthen the argument.
Stop trying to change the subject.
1 Like
That i the subject. it is the root of your evil view of humanity.
ANd you ignored the lst part, I will remind you
Get out of that!
You can twist the Garden narrative as much as you want but Godās words remain
He will no longer punnish for the crimes of the father (ancestors).
No one will be punished for Adamās sin (if it actually happened) and that includes any so called punisheent in Genesis 3
They are not punishements, they are life.
And your so called repercussion was never part of it. You are wrong.
Original Sin and any suppplementary beleif about humannity is wrong. it never eisted and paul never claimed it.
You are wrong
Richard
And that is the typical rational by which people have always used the Bible to support any sort of evil like slavery and genocide. Certainly atheists are perfectly willing to make such an all or nothing choice like that and toss all of Christianity in the bin. But the very notion just makes me laugh because you can apply it to everything ad absurdumā¦ Canāt take what you want from religionā¦ canāt take what you want from scienceā¦ like somehow in order to see value in anything you have to throw out all judgement and discernment. What nonsense! OF COURSE we only take what we want from EVERYTHING as it SHOULD be for any intelligent responsible people!
That is only if you assume this is really a magical tree which can be added by God at any time and not a fundamental feature of human existence. Take the typical commandment, ādonāt play in the street or you will die.ā Why canāt the parents just add the streets later when the children are ready to be responsible (like looking both ways)? LOL ā¦becauseā¦ the truth is that their very existence is likely to depend on those roads by which the parents support the children and keep them alive in the first place (even giving them birth for Pete sake). Though I think the forbidden tree represents something even more fundamental.
Itās a subject you insist on talking about whether it is relevant or not.
And it has nothing to do with ā[my] evil view of humanityā.
Off you go again, talking about something else. Your fixation on that one topic skews everything you read, so you talk about it whether itās there or not.
They are consequences ā youāre the one who keeps calling them punishment.
Now you are spltting hairs or playing linguistics. .
Ah well, canāt ague with someone who refuses to see what he actaully beleives
Richard
Edit.
Consequences are actually worse. It means God made it so. Humanity fell because they were always going to. God made it that way. That is the meaning of consequence. It is what happensā¦ Adam is just a patsy. The first one into the trap.
That means, life is a tightrope. God says do not fall. In theory we can cross aafely and God has even given guidelines, but in practice. We sin. We fall. There is a safety net , but only if you are a genuine believing Christian.
And what about forgiveness? It is irrelevant.
You tell your son not to play withfire. He disobeys and gets burnt. What good is forgiveness here? The damage is done!.
Even worse, you tell your child not to run across the roaf. They disobey and get killed. What good is your forgiveness now?
Consequences are not the answer.
Think again
Richard
This is the most absurd nonsense I have ever heard.
So everyone who falls to their death means God made it so. And they fell into a trap??? This is the Deist watchmaker god. Everything is a machine and God is the designer. I see no reason to believe in a God like that. It is far easier to believe in the machine of natural laws and āGodā is an unnecessary meaningless addition which serves no purpose except to line the pockets or fill the bellies of clergy.
Balderdash. The implication of the tightrope is there is only one (or at most two) directions to go. That isnāt life at all. It would be closer to say life is the top of a building with freedom to go in many directions but if you stupidly march in one direction without any thought or discernment then you will fall. That is all that the word consequences means ā that there are limits and things happen if you donāt watch out.
The point is learning from your mistakes and not doing it again. But yes sometimes it is too late for this life anyway. That is why you are given dire warnings in the first place. But even if it is too late for you this life, others can learn from your mistakes.
So Jesus said, āYour sins are forgiven, so go and sin no more.ā It is the second part of this which is the whole point. It means, donāt obsess over your mistakes, learn from them!
Your basic indulgence entitlement Xtianity.
I donāt believe in that. The lesson of life is that there is no safety net.
Not the answer to what??? Consequences are real. Consequences are how life works.
It is forgiveness which is not the answer.
1 Like
Consequences are what come when youāre on a path that really goes somewhere. A path without consequences isnāt worth even looking at, let alone walking. The kid who joins the wrestling team faces lots of potential consequences, especially when doing something wrong; the kid who just sits on his ass at home doesnāt face any of those.
The fact that God put them where there could be consequences is a matter of grace ā it indicates they were meant for a magnificent path.
1 Like
Or the mountain Iāve climbed almost a dozen times in my life, only twice taking the same path (except for a section where itās either a harsh slog up a cinder ridge or a technical climb; I always took the slog). It really didnāt matter which path we used, though; since all went uphill there was always the possible consequence of slipping, falling, tumbling, two of which I did fairly often because I was determined to sustain a good pace (okay, there was a little competition most of the time). The only way to avoid consequences was to sit in the van at the trailhead and not even backpack in to base camp.
1 Like
I agree. I am not claiming it. i am claiming that is the āconsequenceā of what Roymond said. He said that the fall was a "consequence " of sin. if that is so then what i said applies.
Read what Roymond said! I am answering him!
Richard
That is not the point.
Consequwncws are pre-ordained. They are self governed, they are part of the fabric of creation. If falling is a consequence of sin that means God ordained it.it is part of His creation> we were doomed from the word go. Is that what you beleive? because that is what you are saying.
Richard
Only to a shallow, linear, binary way of thinking.
Is that your only way of answering when you have no real answer?
Answer the whole post not just the part you can insult!
You are claiming the fall was a consewuence, but refuse to understand what a consequence means!
You appear to be claiming a higher form of thought?
Then show me your reasoning
Adam ate and?
If humanity fell at that point why?
Explain yourself instead of insulting me!
Richard
I
It has been a while since the discussion actually addressed the posted topic, so feel it is time to close. If any of the side discussions merit a topic post, please feel free to start one so that the discussion can relate to the post.