Hands up if you're a Christian - Page 2

Hey all....I'm Christian too.....

Adam and Eve were decieved by the "old serpent" the devil himself....he discuised himself as one of Gods created creatures...(snake) and changed mankind ........sin entered through one man ...Adam......through his disobediance... the devil...as we all know can be very convincing....

But....just as one man brought sin into the world....through Jesus comes forgivness and eternal life in paradice right? I mean there is a solution to the problem....we ...as Christians are still sinners....but now we are saved by grace....totally undeserved .....never the less....here we are.....

Who made sin? A rebellious angel...who originally was in heaven with God and all the angels.....thought he would do it alone ( actually he was really good looking and was in charge of all the music there)... I think maybe it went to his head ..........in the end....he was cast down and 1/3 of the angels in heaven were cast down with him ( they occupy the heavenlies as well) .....nothing sinful is allowed in heaven....that's what we look forward to .....one day.

This is my understanding....please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is something I've been asking, did Lucifer have free will, free thought and emotion? From what I understand he did not, as angels are without souls.

And to blame an innocent and ignorant first man alive with the fault of common disobediance and childlike curiosity and naivity, that is blamed for the dooming of all mankind to inevitable sin,seems to me to be simply ludicrous.

Do you think a child knows better or is learning, if Adam and Eve were without learning how can they be faulted?

Even with God's claimed direct invovlement at any point claimed in history, I've seen no outcome but sin, confusion, and war, with some love interspersed.

At what point does the creator of all things take some responsibility for his actions? He builds creatures like angels and man apparently broken and imperfect, then blames them for being such. Even eternally damning many.

There is a difference between a wrong act and an act that cannot ever be right by design. Like a system that produces evil isn't necessarily evil because all people are evil, but because the system is designed to promote it.

If you make man capable of sinning, while making him curious as well, then call learning a sin, what do you expect? Disobedience is not the sin to me, tempting the innocent and blaming them for not understanding consequence untill they actually learn it is simply wrong and more of a sin to me.

Well actually, it's what we do with our imperfection and how we use our free will that matters.
But yes, it wud take a good amount of brain washing right from an early age to even begine to take the stroy literally!

Well actually, it's what we do with our imperfection and how we use our free will that matters.
But yes, it wud take a good amount of brain washing right from an early age to even begine to take the story literally!

I am a Christian thanks to God's grace. And I think yinluan summed it up better than I could have!

"This is something I've been asking, did Lucifer have free will, free thought and emotion? From what I understand he did not, as angels are without souls"

Of course there is still much mystery regarding the nature of the angelic realm. You are incorrect in saying that they do not have souls. I think you meant they have no physicality. It is also believed, if I am correct, that Angels had free will.

"And to blame an innocent and ignorant first man alive with the fault of common disobediance and childlike curiosity and naivity, that is blamed for the dooming of all mankind to inevitable sin,seems to me to be simply ludicrous."

It would be ludicrous if he was, like you wrongly state, innocent and ignorant. According to all accounts, Adam and Eve had full knowledge of what they could not eat. In fact they were told: 'eat of that apple and you surely will die'!

"At what point does the creator of all things take some responsibility for his actions?"

Actually, if you were being truly honest with yourself, you would have to admit that the Creator owes his fallen creation nothing but justice. As for the Creators merciful actions on behalf of his rebellious creation I can sight numerous examples. But I think you are well aware of Jesus and his claim of being God and his sacrifice for your sins. That's a pretty huge action on God's part.

"He builds creatures like angels and man apparently broken and imperfect, then blames them for being such. Even eternally damning many"

Actually it states they were created perfect knowing good but given the ability to choose. If you are wishing that God had created you without a free will then I think you are going to be very lonely as most would prefer to not be mere robots.

"If you make man capable of sinning, while making him curious as well, then call learning a sin, what do you expect? Disobedience is not the sin to me, tempting the innocent and blaming them for not understanding consequence untill they actually learn it is simply wrong and more of a sin to me."

God did not call learning a sin. God said :"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Adam was perfect and knew only goodness. Adam had everything he could possible need and knew no pain or suffering. God had given Adam one command and one command only.

You blame God for allowing Adam to be tempted but in truth mankind will benefit far more from that gift of God than you can possibly imagine. By allowing the temptation God has created a being that will now be capable of being vastly more than the original design and someone God calls friend. Because man will now have a knowledge of evil the future experience of goodness will be infinitely better. Also, man will be able to love God willingly and remember what it was like to live without any love for God, thus making love infinitely more enjoyable. How can one truly know what happiness or goodness is without first knowing what sadness and pain is?

.

"It would be ludicrous if he was, like you wrongly state, innocent and ignorant. According to all accounts, Adam and Eve had full knowledge of what they could not eat. In fact they were told: 'eat of that apple and you surely will die'! "

They did not know, like no man today as well, what death is, nor its consequence.

I argued that the concept of the first people to exist's mentality is going to be limited in concepts such as consequence. Every child disobeys because instincts and curiosity overrides man's own ability to control especially when emotionaly, mentally, and physically undeveloped. But even once grown. This is why disobedience, which is also an American tradition when civil, is not a sin to me.

To tell the first two people to exist that they if they eat that apple they will die, means nothing as they do not know what human death is, like no one does today, this is a flaw, and they cannot understand the consequence of learning good and evil nor death nor why god would allow them to be tempted, nor why god would have evil and good exist or not or both as not existing but existing in an apple like others they are meant to eat.

This is why this story is symbolism as well, but one that suffers from the same problems as anything trying to explain concepts beyond the mind of mortal men. It cannot.

I've heard much in respect to angels not having souls so look more into that one, I will as well, that that is a reason for jealousy by angels, and I would like their free will issue clarified.

"Because man will now have a knowledge of evil the future experience of goodness will be infinitely better."

This is quite an assumption. If they were able to know goodness without evil than evil was not necessary, to claim a scale of goodness is to claim to know the goodness Adam knew, you cannot know this. Past that you are rationalizing beyond your capacity.

And thinking this way also allows, accepts, and even encourages the existance and persistance of evil. That could make you evil by proxy.

And as for the problem with hell, experience of endless pain and true suffering is neither necessary nor just, and if you have truly sufferred then you would wish such a thing on no one. And it symbolizes a vengeful god of cruelty and injustice for allowing it to exist. Punishment has purpose and ends, hell is torture without justification or redemption and serves no purpose but to scare into submission, which is terrorism.

And last I heard that was a bad thing.

"They did not know, like no man today as well, what death is, nor its consequence."

That is an assumption. We do not know to what extent they understood death. However, they knew it was a punishment and that it was wrong to eat of that one tree.

"why god would have evil and good exist or not or both as not existing but existing in an apple like others they are meant to eat."

The knowledge of evil did not exiist in that apple. All God had to do was say dont eat that apple and by eating it they gained the knowledge of evil because evil is doing what God commands you not to do.

"This is quite an assumption. If they were able to know goodness without evil than evil was not necessary, to claim a scale of goodness is to claim to know the goodness Adam knew, you cannot know this. Past that you are rationalizing beyond your capacity."

Actually evil is not a thing in the sense that I think you are implying it is but is a lack of a thing. Yes Adam knew goodness, in fact it was all he knew. Then Adam knew goodness in light of evil. I do think I can rationalize the scale because now there is a scale where before there was none. And we have all experienced this ourselves through pain and the relief of pain.

The argument I heard about the jealousy of angels had to do with the knowledge they were given that God would become man and that men would judge angels. Of course the jealousy theory is extra-biblical I do believe.

Hell is nothing more than the seperation from God. No one will go to Hell who does not wish to go there. Read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.

"I do think I can rationalize the scale because now there is a scale where before there was none. And we have all experienced this ourselves through pain and the relief of pain.

The scale is in comparison to information you do not and apparently cannot posses, the goodness without the evil.

"That is an assumption. We do not know to what extent they understood death. However, they knew it was a punishment and that it was wrong to eat of that one tree."

Though their knowledge of death in respect to their knowledge of consequence may be irrelevant, if it does not differ from our own knowledge of death or of that of a child than we can make assumptions. Either way it is important information that we should know.

Past that again you cannot make assumptions on their understanding of punishment and consequence, and that is direly important when passing any judgement on competence let alone accountability.

"Actually evil is not a thing in the sense that I think you are implying it is but is a lack of a thing."

This I don't quite follow, a lack of what thing, itself? And what relevance does the point have. Because it doesn't play into our ability to understand good without evil.

"The scale is in comparison to information you do not and apparently cannot posses, the goodness without the evil."

Again you are describing evil as if it is something - as if it exists in the same manner as goodness. Evil is nothing more than the corruption of something good. Nothing evil exists on its own - there are no evil virtues as CS Lewis puts it.

" if it does not differ from our own knowledge of death or of that of a child than we can make assumptions. Either way it is important information that we should know. "

I dont really see why. God said dont do it - that really should be enough.

Not when you are talking about learning creatures, that was the first thing they were told not to do, they might not even understand the concept and that is essential when when placing blame and issuing consequence, especialy a one time deal with unatlerable consequence.

You may eat the fruit of all the trees except this one. Pretty cut and dry.

"You may eat the fruit of all the trees except this one. Pretty cut and dry."

Actually, there is plenty of room for a grey area, firstly, obviously they could eat from the tree, god did not stop them, secondly, again, the consequence is assumed understood under vary shaky circumstance (do they no what no means, how are the first people on the planet supposed to understand god's first rule when there have been no others, or what a rule is, or what consequence is to unfortunately have to repeatedly repeat myself)

Shit, if its in an orchard, even then your cut and dry answer poses serious problems.

But the story goes with another convicing innocent beings to disobey, which they are bound to do anyway if they are like any other human creature at all, even without coaching.

Notice how we didn't have to go through childhood with Adam and Eve, did we even get the teenage years? Talk about disobediance.

There is no room for grey area. This is where I generally would bring up the word sophism. lol

It is extremely cut and dry.

No room for a grey area, is sophism at its greatest, the reality of the universe is its all a grey area, man knows nothing for certain.

Your point is highly ignorant and arrogant. Not to be offensive, because those words hold grey area induced stigma's that actually have nothing to do with the words themselves, but that isn't true either right?