Freedom to Choose God (page 51)

Deputy Dog

LT

That was the only law where there was an explicit death-sentence associated with it.

That was the only law where there was any punishment ( if it wasn't the only "Law" . ) at all. Wow

To not have had that choice would have meant that everything is entirely clockwork, and that any glory He received from his "creation" would surely be entirely mechanical and self-obtained?

So tell us LT, just how much of His Glory do you think you helped Him get. How much do you think you or anyone else should get credit for? D Dog

ellderwho

LT: Why do you call the tree a "sin catalyst"?
Surely Adam could have just as easily broken God's law by not tending for the garden, or by not having children?
Where there is law there is responsibility to uphold it.

We have to agree Adams relationship with the Father prior to the fall was what it should have been.

My point is, not tending of the garden or filling the earth couldnt reveal "good and bad." To become "like us" knowing good and bad reveals something more.

Genesis 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

To have an "object" of knowing something, like the tree, is telling in that this "evil" was present and alive and well. And obtainable.

Did God make sin available? Why put the tree there anyway?

E.

LittleToe

OBND:Most Christians wouldn't place Mormons and JW's in the bracket of "Christian" at all.
Just because someone assumes a title, doesn't mean it really applies.

In your own case you assume a title of agnostic. Would it be appropriate to retain it if you came to the concusion that there is a God, but you don't agree with all the contemporary belief systems? I think probably not. You would then surely be a theist of some description?

DDog:
Dont worry about the delay. Life has a habit of catching up on us all

I agree that God is in total control. Even in the case of "permitting" things, they are bound within limits. Further, there's an additional watch of care over the Elect.

I don't believe God makes or creates anything unholy at all (how are you defining "holy" here?).
He might manipulate the lump, just as he manipulated Pharoah's life, but that's another matter that is only indirectly connected to creative acts.

So tell us LT, just how much of His Glory do you think you helped Him get. How much do you think you or anyone else should get credit for?

None at all. That wasn't my point.
He has created being that can love from the heart, rather than just act in a perfunctory manner.

EW:
Was the tree a catalyst, or were the ingredients thereof such that created a reaction in the soul of man by combination?
Hydrogen and Oxygen are great chemicals, with nothing evil in them, until you put them together near a naked flame.
You'll excuse me if I point out that we are delving into completely unknown and unknowable territory...

Btw, where has UnDis gone?
I'm spending most of my posting limit answering multiple biblical/doctrinal/religious questions, these days. That's not like me!!!
LOL

ellderwho

Was the tree a catalyst, or were the ingredients thereof such that created a reaction in the soul of man by combination?

Comments to come.

LT, and others, you'll have to excuse me at this time, for a brief examination of my life. You see I turn 40 on Sunday.

E.--orty

Deputy Dog

EW

Don't worry! It only hurts if you laugh too hard.

D Dog

Deputy Dog

LT

It seems to me that as soon as you allow choice, you allow a statistical probability that all options will be explored. Maybe, from that perspective, sin was inevitable and the route that ensued was deemed the best fit.

If this is true though, God aproved this plan (or "route") with sin in it. This is a level at which God is responsible for sin.

(how are you defining "holy" here?).

Holy - Sacred, pure D Dog

LittleToe

DDog:

If this is true though, God aproved this plan (or "route") with sin in it. This is a level at which God is responsible for sin.

Agreed.

Another point struck me when considering all the alternative options if sin was inevitable.

Which is the fairer: Letting the first couple sin, putting the whole of mankind in the same boat; or leaving it until a few generations go by, hence setting up a two tier system of cohabiting haves and have-nots?

myelaine

LittleToe,

Which is the fairer: Letting the first couple sin, putting the whole of mankind in the same boat; or leaving it until a few generations go by, hence setting up a two tier system of cohabiting haves and have-nots?

Are you separating these two ideas as something that God didn't do already?

DDog,

This is a level at which God is responsible for sin. I disagree. Free will or choice is a gift, we used the gift wrong. God should not be held at all responsible for our misuse of our gift. I would say that because He foresaw that we would sin, He was still the "good" gut because He provided a means to wash the sin away before A & E even sinned. And in doing so He was not easing His guilt for creating or letting us sin, but as a "safety" for us.

michelle

outbutnotdown

What is sin? It is one thing to one human, a totally different thing to another human. It is one thing to one religion, and a totally different thing to another religion. It is one thing to one generation, a totally different thing to another generation.

How can it be argued only from a Christian opinion. And, of course, other non-Christian faiths are just as positive that it should be argued only from their religions' individual beliefs as well.

LT,

You said:

Which is the fairer: Letting the first couple sin, putting the whole of mankind in the same boat; or leaving it until a few generations go by, hence setting up a two tier system of cohabiting haves and have-nots?

Myelaine commented that God has also already done the latter as well. I'm suggesting that he has done neither, but simply that both still DO exist. SIN, if you want to call it that, is just there, and allows us, with our imperfections (which are also just there), to condemn and judge other people.

Love has just as solid a station in the history of the world as sin or imperfection, but with virtually no side effects. I'm exactly like every other human on this planet, but my life is happier since I have based my decisions on whether it is a loving thing or not, instead of "would it be the Christian thing to do."

Brad

myelaine

outbutnotdown,

Are you saying that we use sin as the barrometer to condemn or judge people?

I would say that we should use love as our barrometer. We are told not to judge or condemn people, but if we use love as our barrometer to help us decide who we have assocations with, we would be better able to judge good assocations.

If we used sin, we would have to have some universal "measurement" by which sin would be weighed. we would have to agree on what sin is worst, which can be let go, punishments etc. We can't come to agreement on these things, as witnessed by all the different religions, faiths, punishments...

With love as a barrometer we set our own personal measurement to be used to the degree that we want to use it. You will quickly see if your associations use the same barrometer and if they use it in the same measure even.

no reason to hide your love. VS every reason to hide your sin

michelle

Freedom to Choose God

Share this