Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Yes. That doesn't answer my question though.
[edit] you know what, whatever. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, it's your "pet theory", even you admit that it's kind of baseless.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
Surely God, in his infinite power, could have come up with a more foolproof solution than putting the forbidden fruit in easy reach, right in the middle of the Garden?
You're confusing power with knowledge --- where He put the tree was His business.
But since were going to start with the extra-Biblical ad hoc questions now, I'll entertain you with my ad lib answers.
I certainly wouldn't want you guys to be disappointed, or go w/o a target of ridicule.
* Warning: ad hoc question, so here's an ad lib answer: *
In my opinion, God could have put that tree up on a high mountain on the other side of Pangaea (Eden), if He so chose.
But that would mean that later, after the earth was repopulated as instructed, someone else would have eaten of the forbidden fruit.
And that would have split all of humanity up into two factions: those who don't have the Sin Nature, and those who do.
This earth would be one big mess.
Originally Posted by peadar1987
I really don't see how Adam and Eve could really be blamed, and I especially don't see how I, personally, should be blamed!
It has to do with two things:
Adam being the federal head of the whole human race.
The Sin Nature being transferred genetically.
If you're guilty of being human --- you're guilty of being a sinner.
You're confusing power with knowledge --- where He put the tree was His business.
No, no I'm not. I was referring to the fact that he needed this tree of eternal damnation at all. Why didn't he create angels in such a way that they didn't need this fruit of doom, that would have to be left lying around so it could wreck humanity, who god supposedly loves?
Originally Posted by AV
In my opinion, God could have put that tree up on a high mountain on the other side of Pangaea (Eden), if He so chose.
But that would mean that later, after the earth was repopulated as instructed, someone else would have eaten of the forbidden fruit.
And that would have split all of humanity up into two factions: those who don't have the Sin Nature, and those who do.
See above
Originally Posted by AV
This earth would be one big mess.It has to do with two things:
Adam being the federal head of the whole human race.
The Sin Nature being transferred genetically.
If you're guilty of being human --- you're guilty of being a sinner.
Originally Posted by AV
Originally Posted by AV
So god specifically made us so that if one of us ever sinned, the rest of their descendents would forever be held responsible? Sounds just a little unreasonable! I think I'll be a Satanist from now on. You know where you stand with Satan.
No, no I'm not. I was referring to the fact that he needed this tree of eternal damnation at all. Why didn't he create angels in such a way that they didn't need this fruit of doom, that would have to be left lying around so it could wreck humanity, who god supposedly loves?
See above
So god specifically made us so that if one of us ever sinned, the rest of their descendents would forever be held responsible? Sounds just a little unreasonable! I think I'll be a Satanist from now on. You know where you stand with Satan.
I see this in three lights
1- God is omniscient and omnipotent and purposefully set out to screw over as many people as possible
2- God is simply a-lot-knowing and very-powerful and made an honest blunder
3- The bible is not inerrant.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
And that would have split all of humanity up into two factions: those who don't have the Sin Nature, and those who do.
This would make sin be about what it is really about and should be about - choice, not genetics.
This earth would be one big mess.
"Would be"???
It has to do with two things:
Adam being the federal head of the whole human race.
The Sin Nature being transferred genetically.
If you're guilty of being human --- you're guilty of being a sinner.
Again, this is so wrong on so many theological levels I don't even know where to start.
In brief - sin is about choice. Anything else and you have one pretty malicious deity on your hands.
Additionally, Jesus not having the sin nature meant he was physically unable to sin, which pretty much renders the whole concept of being fully human and fully God moot - his trials in the desert, his crucifixion (which additionally renders the whole point of being genetically sinless or not redundant as God transferred all of mankind's sin to him ANYWAY).....
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
