I think more important is the fact that the Original sin gave us intelligence. I think God wanted us to choose for ourselves between the existence of a rich spoiled pet, or the chance to work for ourselves, to make it on our own.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
. . . so God was just pretending to be irate when Adam and Eve sinned? And satan was telling the truth. . . interesting. "You will not surely die, . . . for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Ge. 1:4) And God's injunction that man must not be allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever in his current state doesn't reflect his feelings at all on this?
I dunno. I don't think God wanted man to fall. I don't think it was a good OR necessary thing. I don't think I'm given enough information from the Bible to argue as to its necessity, but as to its goodness. . . if God set it up so that we would sin in order to make the sacrifice of Christ . . .what kind of God is that? If there had been any other way to save us other than the cross of Christ, he would have done it. That's what we learn when Jesus begs that if there is any other way, do that. And God doesn't. So either he's a heartless God who wouldn't save his own son (and therefore couldn't care a whit about you), or the sacrifice of Christ was absolutely necessary.
But if God set it up so man would fall, he made it so that Christ had to die. Doesn't compute. I'm not trying to be obnoxious; I just don't understand how God could have wanted us to fall, knowing the cost. Jesus certainly didn't.
posted
I'm Catholic and have never heard the term "fortunate fall." Maybe it's a guilt thing, but I learned to lament it and the need for God to send His son, even though it was awesome of Him to do so. IMHO, God's plan makes up for how we humans constantly try to mess things up with our free will.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: . . . so God was just pretending to be irate when Adam and Eve sinned?
Depends completely on your point of view. To me it seems that God is not irate but is rather explaining the consequences of their actions to them.
quote: And satan was telling the truth. . . interesting. "You will not surely die, . . . for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Satan was telling a partial truth. Their eyes were opened so that they comprehended the difference between good and evil, just like God. However, just as God had warned them, the consequence of their actions meant that they would surely die (become mortal).
quote:And God's injunction that man must not be allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever in his current state doesn't reflect his feelings at all on this?
To LDS this injunction was a pure statement of fact. If Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life after having eaten of the knowledge of good and evil it would have ruined God's whole plan which included experiencing mortality and the later redemption from death by the resurrection. As Alma put it:
quote:And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.
quote: I dunno. I don't think God wanted man to fall. I don't think it was a good OR necessary thing. I don't think I'm given enough information from the Bible to argue as to its necessity, but as to its goodness. . . if God set it up so that we would sin in order to make the sacrifice of Christ . . .what kind of God is that?
If God set up a plan for man that did not include man falling from the Garden of Eden then the conclusion is that God did not know what man was going to do. That's a pretty bold position for your average Christian to take.
In our theology the reason that God set it up so that Adam and Eve HAD to sin was deeply tied to the whole reason for existence. Man needs to be outside of the presence of God in order to learn to choose between good and evil without restraint or coercion. In order for that to occur man had to choose to leave the presence of God. This was done by choosing to sin.
quote: If there had been any other way to save us other than the cross of Christ, he would have done it.
Right, there was no other way that the plan could be set in motion which would not require an expiatory sacrifice.
quote: But if God set it up so man would fall, he made it so that Christ had to die. Doesn't compute. I'm not trying to be obnoxious; I just don't understand how God could have wanted us to fall, knowing the cost. Jesus certainly didn't.
Again, God must have known from the creation of man that this would be the case, otherwise he is not omniscient. So basically, yeah, God knew from the start that it would require the sacrifice of Christ in order for things to work. Christ knew that too, as did the prophets before Christ. As an example, Isaiah said:
quote: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
quote:If God set up a plan for man that did not include man falling from the Garden of Eden then the conclusion is that God did not know what man was going to do.
That's not true. Just because I know something will or will not happen doesn't mean that I put it into place or didn't.
As to the rest of your post, I'll answer it when I can give it the attention it deserves.
quote:That's not true. Just because I know something will or will not happen doesn't mean that I put it into place or didn't.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. My first thought is that the great difference here is that you never created anything from the beginning.
My second thought is that maybe you think I mean that God's foreknowledge caused Adam to sin. I don't mean that at all. What I am trying to say is that if God KNEW that Adam would sin before he did it then there really was never any other option to the sacrifice of Christ.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way you worded your statement implied (actually, explicitly said) that God's plan for man included the fall - that God planned the fall.
That's what I was objecting to - that knowledge of man's fall does not mean that he planned it or even thought it beneficial. And that's all I meant; I really didn't think it was that confusing.
quote: The way you worded your statement implied (actually, explicitly said) that God's plan for man included the fall - that God planned the fall.
Ah... I see. Well, then on this I guess we agree to disagree, because I do indeed believe that the Fall was an integral part of God's plan.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For proof that the devil was not lying 100%:
quote:Gen. 3: 22 22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
God used the same wording that satan used to describe part of what happened to them--"become as one of us"--while maintaining that the other part was a lie, that they were now subject to death.
If satan could only lie, he'd be pretty easy to outthink, while with part-truths he can really muddle us.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hold that Satan actually thought he was foiling God’s plan by getting Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. He tempted them any way he could. If they fell, then they would be in his power and not in God’s, and no longer able to be saved.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saying that I think that if God hadn't wanted to test us, to see what kind of creatures he'd created, he wouldn't have created the tree at all.
Not that it's my place to judge the motives of God, but perhaps he didn't put the tree there just to test whether we'd listen to him, maybe he put it there knowing that we'd disobey him, wanting to know what would happen afterwards.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even begin to understand the mind of God, so I don't know why he did what HE did, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Adam just ate the fruit because it looked good. God didn't say, "If Eve eats the fruit, she has to leave Eden." He said, "If you eat the fruit you will die." Adam wasn't afraid Eve would have to leave and so therefore they couldn't multiply or whatever. He just saw that she didn't die, so he ate it too. The Bible says the fruit was "pleasing to the eye." I think it was temptation enough for Adam that he just ate it, believing that God was wrong. It's not like there were a lot of babes or porn or anything else to tempt him. Tasty looking fruit was about as good as it got.
(Referring to the beginning of the post.)
Posts: 113 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If satan could only lie, he'd be pretty easy to outthink, while with part-truths he can really muddle us.
My feelings exactly.
Let's think of Satan as a general in God's army. He was present at all the strategic planning sessions and then defected to the otherside. Satan uses these truths learn at God's knee to feed us just enough, that we recognize, but not enough that we question. That's were study, prayer, experience and the spirt come into play.
But doing these things takes humility. I was alway puzzled by the scripture, "... less than the dust of the earth." Then it hit me. The dust obey's God's commands, not us wise, can think for ourselves humans.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare> Though as far as I know, most of us agree with asQ, it's not unheard of for folk in the churches of Christ to conclude that in fact God does not know all the future. TW Brents was the first I know of, back in the 1870s.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be interested to see more of your breakdown of the c's of C, Macabbeus. I get the feeling we come from different sides of the same traditional coin. Maybe I should expose my heresies here and now and take refuge in autonomy while I can. *innocent grin*
Printer-friendly view of this topic
