|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
Bibleman
|
03/29/2011 07:03 |
by this point, TRW, I think the main reason most of us have abandoned this thread is not because you hold your own view, but because you've called us all wrong. I can't come up with any hard - and - fast scriptures right now, but God is, I'm quite sure, against such dogmatism in mere theology.
|
| |
Ted C
|
03/29/2011 09:03 |
Regarding the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:
1 John 4:8b "God is love."
Genesis 1:27 "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
2 Samuel 7:22a "For this reason You are great, O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You."
Isaiah 43:3a "For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel..."
I believe the sum of God's attributes and image can be called "Holy", and I believe God created us for the purpose of having someone to have a love relationship with. Now, if God had created us like a computer program just flashing the words, "I love you... I love you..." across a screen, it wouldn't really be love, because love ultimately is a choice. The only way we could choose to love God is if we were given a true, independent free will. And so we have been created as independent agents. I generally think of sin as being anything against God's nature and image. In fact, the reason, "the wages of sin is death," is because when I sin I destroy God's image, which I was created in, and if I destroy God's image, I destroy me. I also think this is why there is a faith requirement to our current relationship with God and He doesn't just crack the sky and say, "Here I Am!", because if He did this it would strip us of the ability to relate to Him out of love; we would only be able to relate to Him out of His Awesomeness and Majesty. Back to the Garden: I believe the reason there was a "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" was simply so that there could be a choice, without which we would not have the option of choosing to love God: I believe the tree was just an ordinary fruit tree. It became the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by virtue of the fact that God had asked man not to eat from it, and if man ate of it man was exercising the opposite choice of love and choosing to go against God. Once man did this, man knew evil because they had actually committed it. By the way, God knows evil, but God is not evil and is not the author of evil (James 1:13). Now, it was perilous for God to create man as an independent agent, especially when God is Love. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. God must have known what was going to happen, and chose ahead of time that He Himself would pay for our sins through the Blood of Himself - of The Son, Jesus - so that we could still have the choice to respond to Him out of Love if we decide to.
|
| |
Marcie in MO
|
03/29/2011 17:45 |
I have been following this topic for quite some time now. TR, I get more and more confused by your logic and the cartwheels you do to pull scripture from here and there to make it say what you believe it should say. I don't believe GOD would make it so difficult to figure out. He loved, He gave, we believe, we live.
|
| |
John T
|
03/29/2011 19:29 |
I agree. I am thoroughly confused. I don't think you're even answering questions as much as asking new ones.
|
| |
TRWord
|
03/30/2011 04:17 |
Ted
You began with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but again you ended with a forbidden fruit.
Ted there are two ways that we can interpret scripture, by the letter or by the spirit. I can tell that you are interpreting by the letter. There are three elements to “ the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” There is “the tree”, “the knowledge” and there is “good and evil.” You read this statement and come away with just “the tree” because the only part of the statement that readily makes sense to your human mind is “the tree.”
As you said; “I believe the tree was just an ordinary fruit tree.”
Actually “the tree” is the least import part of the statement. “The knowledge of good and evil” is what you need to see and which you always miss. Missing “the knowledge” is what leads to the misconception that God is testing Adam.
As you said; “It became the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by virtue of the fact that God had asked man not to eat from it, and if man ate of it man was exercising the opposite choice of love and choosing to go against God.”
This was not a test. God was alerting Adam of the danger of “the knowledge.”
What knowledge?
The knowledge of “GOOD AND EVIL.”
I have been repeating “GOOD AND EVIL” again and again hoping that you would eventually see it, but you miss it each time.
Saying;
TR,
If simply believing in evil produces actual evil, wouldn't it be a disconnect from reality to not believe in the evil which actually exists; the evil that flows from believing in evil? In other words, do you not believe in evil yourself when you say, in effect, that believing in evil results in actual evil?
GOOD AND EVIL is a pair of opposites like LIGHT AND DARKNESS.
The Truth when dealing with a pair of opposites is; ONLY ONE HAS SUBSTANCE.
DARKNESS has no substance.
DARKNESS is the absence of LIGHT.
GOOD AND EVIL is the same.
Evil is the absence of Good or the absence of God.
Evil is not a truth. It’s a belief in the human mind because God is omnipresent.
THERE IS NO ABSENCE OF GOD.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. (Psalms 139:6-8 KJV)
|
| |
Bibleman
|
03/30/2011 07:34 |
May I suggest that consuming the forbidden fruit was actually a step we had to take on the road to the resurrection?
The fruit was divine knowledge - too great for man to posess unharmed. We received death, and right then God walked in the garden (Jesus...) and declared that he would die for humanity (in a concealed sense, only revealed later) (Genesis 3:15) and then be resurrected to signal the resurrection of humanity?
I don't view either here or heaven as eternal states of idleness. I believe things will always be changing. The core promises remain eternal, of course, but much is unspoken or hinted at - will we be divine administrators or lieutenants? I know not.
TR, you raise questions, at least, and some can feel free to attempt to answer them.
The fruit, however - is it really BAD? In the end, it turns out for good, even though now it works for bad.
|
| |
Amanda
|
03/30/2011 10:54 |
I feel like I am in a philosophy class... all i have to say is...
1 Cor. 1:18-19 "...For it is written: I will destroy wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
God didn't hide his word in levels of philosophy or theology. It is as simple as can be.. but yet we are complicating it with meaningless garb.
You all have fun with this debate I'm out.
|
| |
Ted C
|
03/30/2011 11:50 |
Warning: Very Mature Content. Please do not continue reading if you're squeamish.
So I only believe that the actions of Josef Kramer, the Beast of Belsen - were evil when he starved and murdered victims in a Nazi concentration camp? His actions were actually part of the good and part of God, as everything is?
I only perceive that Jefferey Dahmer was evil when he lured men to have sex with him, bludgeoning and poisoning them to death, killing one victim each week and experimenting with trying to turn live victims into zombies by drilling holes in the front of their heads and inserting hydrochloric acid? And then leaving victims remains in pieces rotting around his house and eating them? That was part of God? That wasn't evil?
The Kristallnacht was not evil, when 90 men were killed outright and 30,000 more were put in concentration camps where many were tortured for months? Nor the Holodomor, nor the Rape of Nanking?
Tell me that these men's actions and these events weren't the result of pure, blackest evil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Kramer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krystalnacht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
03/30/2011 12:18 |
"This is the thread that never ends"!
And I agree that TRW's postings DO seem evasive at times,
and invite interpretation in ways I do not THINK he intends...
though he is awfully hard to pin down,
and when I THINK I understand what he's saying,
he goes in another direction!
Personally, I still think the root of the problem
is the definition of words,
and the distinction between "evil" and an "evil being,"
and while in one answer he seems to making that distinction,
in the next answer he starts equating them.
So I won't even TRY to speak for him any more,
and had pretty much abandoned this whole thread.
Personally, since I have questioned the existence of an "evil being,"
in part because it's too easy to pass the buck and say "the devil made me do it,"
the existence of evil ACTIONS is undeniable.
The examples you gave, Ted, are only a few examples
of unadulterated evil.
But do we have to say that an evil being made these monsters act as they did,
or was it free will gone terribly awry,
or mental illness, or something genetic,
or something else?
I don't think we can answer that with any certainty.
But in any case, if we don't blame it on "the devil,"
we most assuredly can't blame it on God,
except insofar as it was God who created us with free will
and hence the capacity for evil.
|
| |
Amanda
|
03/30/2011 12:25 |
Ok... so I have unchecked the box email me when someone else adds a comment... in hopes I can stop getting e mails about this thread! I hope it works.
Lanny your right ... "this is the thread that never ends! It goes on and on my friends!"
I hope it is a good discussion for those who would like to stick around... I just can't devote any more time to it because it seems as if it is stuck in a loop.
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9)
|
