Adam and Eve incorrectly blamed?

[Thwingly]

Alrighty Crazy Liz, I'll try to explain my position as best as I can.

Some people have used this argument to rationalize their denial of Christianity. I am trying to come up with a fair response to their question. While it is always possible that no one needs to be blamed, it is a way of unjustifying any attempt by non-Christians (mostly atheists, who seem to study the Bible more than most Christians for errors...) to deny the Bible as God's word. Other Christians are welcome to believe that no one is to be blamed, that's there decision. From your response you are suggesting that I prove that the common atheist position is valid, fortunately I'm not a common atheist and I am examining possibilities, but just for the whip of it, I'll give it a shot.

First of all, I'm not looking for someone to blame, if I were that would make me the judge of them, rather, I want a rational explanation for what happened in the Garden of Eden, so it's not a natural blaming human instinct. Secondly, you said in your post "You don't blame a toddler for running out into the street because he doesn't yet know anything about the danger." This does not mean you don't blame anyone, the neighbor next door would point the finger at the parent (in this case, God). Thirdly, I need to show that God is responsible for our behavior (this, I predict is impossible, since everything & everyone belongs to God). Nonetheless, I'll try and put it into perspective. Imagine if your eternal destiny rested on the fate of choosing door one, or door two, and you don't know which fate is beyond which door. If God told you to go one way, and a snake the other, which would you choose? Now of course, this leads me to another possibility. Adam and Eve would have known God's attributes, being in his likeness, they would not however know that eating the fruit would be evil. But they would know which one to trust, because the snake was saying things of God that they knew to not be true: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." They could use reason to deduce that they should trust God and not the snake, since the snake had no basis in reality, without actually knowing what good and evil were. I also think that one can know that an act is good or evil, without actually knowing what good and evil are (having to trust the person that told them. Since the nature of all sin is pride, wanting to go one's own way, it becomes no longer a matter of doing good or evil, but whether man wanted to go God's way or his own. In this case, let me present our possibilities in an organized manner.

1) As mentioned above, they knew good but not evil. It seems possible that in the verses you showed me the author is mentioning good, and then after the fall with the inclusion of evil. Also one can make a case for not knowing either until you know both (finding the knowledge of good in its opposite), I won't go into this right now if ever.

2) They understood both good and evil, without an actual experience of it, what it was like.

3) They had intuitive knowledge of following God (Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.) , but did not understand evil or good. Just like a child intuitively trust the law of gravity (scientists have performed experiments which show that, although a baby probably doesn't know what gravity is, he/she intuitively conforms to this law, God could have placed the same kind of knowledge in us.) I actually came up with this one as I was writing this out.

4) They had no realization that what they were doing was wrong, and thus are not to be blamed (this seems unlikely because the verse in Romans said that men were without excuse, however it is possible with higher good arguments and maybe some combinatory play, which can be discussed later.)

And it seems that's all I can think of, if there are any plausible ones I left out, please add them. I'm not going to seek to prove any of these, because I can't, but I do want to show that it is possible Adam and Eve were responsible to satisfy the skeptic.

A lot of my thoughts are probably unorganized since I came up with most of them as I was writing this post, but I hope this is insightful. (And yes we are getting somewhere!)

Peace,
Thwingly.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Alrighty Crazy Liz, I'll try to explain my position as best as I can.

Thanks. I hpe you'll excuse one of my professional habits as a mediator, which is to try to rephrase something to see if I understand. If you will be kind enough to play along, I will try very hard not to twist your meaning. If I didn't get it, please correct me. OK? (BTW, if I decide to insert an argument of my own, I will try to so indicate. Slap my hand if I don't.)

Some people have used this argument to rationalize their denial of Christianity. I am trying to come up with a fair response to their question. While it is always possible that no one needs to be blamed, it is a way of unjustifying any attempt by non-Christians (mostly atheists, who seem to study the Bible more than most Christians for errors...) to deny the Bible as God's word. Other Christians are welcome to believe that no one is to be blamed, that's there decision. From your response you are suggesting that I prove that the common atheist position is valid, fortunately I'm not a common atheist and I am examining possibilities, but just for the whip of it, I'll give it a shot.

I didn't mean to ask you to prove a common atheist position. I was asking you to explain your own argument.

What I think you are saying is that a common atheist argument is that, according to Genesis 3, our first human parents are not to blame. Therefore you think it's a good idea to try to establish the opposite of this atheistic argument. If a believer does not want to blame our first human parents, that is OK, but an atheist must not be allowed to take this position.

Did I get this part?

NB: I am a believer, not an atheist. I assume this means it's OK with you that I don't blame our first human parents, but you are concerned that I may admit this to a common atheist.

First of all, I'm not looking for someone to blame, if I were that would make me the judge of them, rather, I want a rational explanation for what happened in the Garden of Eden, so it's not a natural blaming human instinct. Secondly, you said in your post "You don't blame a toddler for running out into the street because he doesn't yet know anything about the danger." This does not mean you don't blame anyone, the neighbor next door would point the finger at the parent (in this case, God). Thirdly, I need to show that God is responsible for our behavior (this, I predict is impossible, since everything & everyone belongs to God). Nonetheless, I'll try and put it into perspective.

I think you are saying an atheist would try to say God was responsible for everything - blame God (are these equivalent in your mind?) but you, personally, wouldn't.

Imagine if your eternal destiny rested on the fate of choosing door one, or door two, and you don't know which fate is beyond which door. If God told you to go one way, and a snake the other, which would you choose? Now of course, this leads me to another possibility. Adam and Eve would have known God's attributes, being in his likeness, they would not however know that eating the fruit would be evil. But they would know which one to trust, because the snake was saying things of God that they knew to not be true: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." They could use reason to deduce that they should trust God and not the snake, since the snake had no basis in reality, without actually knowing what good and evil were.

You are saying without knowing anything about good and evil, the humans would have known enough through mere reason, that some statements are trustworthy and some are not, or that some speakers should be trusted and some should not. They also would have been able to deduce crearly and absolutely from pure reason that they should believe the first message they received (from God) in preference to the second message they received (from the snake).

Correct?

I also think that one can know that an act is good or evil, without actually knowing what good and evil are (having to trust the person that told them.

Just being perfectly clear. One can know the first person to tell you something is telling the truth, and a subsequent person saying something different should not be trusted.

Since the nature of all sin is pride, wanting to go one's own way, it becomes no longer a matter of doing good or evil, but whether man wanted to go God's way or his own.

You have a theological assumption about the nature of sin that lies behind everything you say.

In this case, let me present our possibilities in an organized manner.

1) As mentioned above, they knew good but not evil. It seems possible that in the verses you showed me the author is mentioning good, and then after the fall with the inclusion of evil. Also one can make a case for not knowing either until you know both (finding the knowledge of good in its opposite), I won't go into this right now if ever.

2) They understood both good and evil, without an actual experience of it, what it was like.

3) They had intuitive knowledge of following God (Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.) , but did not understand evil or good. Just like a child intuitively trust the law of gravity (scientists have performed experiments which show that, although a baby probably doesn't know what gravity is, he/she intuitively conforms to this law, God could have placed the same kind of knowledge in us.) I actually came up with this one as I was writing this out.

4) They had no realization that what they were doing was wrong, and thus are not to be blamed (this seems unlikely because the verse in Romans said that men were without excuse, however it is possible with higher good arguments and maybe some combinatory play, which can be discussed later.)

Basically, unless they had some knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit, they can't be blamed.

And it seems that's all I can think of, if there are any plausible ones I left out, please add them. I'm not going to seek to prove any of these, because I can't, but I do want to show that it is possible Adam and Eve were responsible to satisfy the skeptic.

You are not so much concerned with proving your position is correct, just that it is plausible.

A lot of my thoughts are probably unorganized since I came up with most of them as I was writing this post, but I hope this is insightful. (And yes we are getting somewhere!)

I'm glad we agree!

Pax+

Liz

 

[Thwingly]

Yes!! good, accept I don't like some of the ways you presented them. For example, I don't think it is a theological assumption to say that pride is the nature of sin... Romans 1:21-23 "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

I think this verse supports that.

What I'm trying to do, is destroy a common atheist standpoint of saying that Adam and Eve were blamed incorrectly because they had no idea what they were doing. As atheists would conclude, this means that God's system of justice is flawed, because he let humans, basically to choose between left or right, without a basis for their decision. If you want to tell an atheist were you stand, that's fine, but if you can't support it, you might want to show him/her one of those 4 (or possibly more) possibilities.

Also, what I meant by proving the common atheist position, is basically that Adam and Eve were unjustly blamed, IF they had no basis for their decision. Which is what you were suggesting in one of your posts. Other than that I think you got it.

Now (this is a challenge): If anyone wants to explain to me how all four of those explanations are not possible, then I would be forced to surrender my position or come up with a 5th way. Anybody???

-Thwingly

 

[CSMR]

Interesting points.

Just because a command was given does not prove knowledge of good and evil

I think it does. "God commanded the man, saying...". The man heard God. If the man had not understood that what was forbidden was... forbidden, then it would have been as if he had not heard. And then what would be the point in the story of saying Adam had heard God, or saying that God had spoken to the Adam, if Adam did not understand?

that it has to be shown that the first humans were responsible for what they did. Please explain why this is necessary.

It is necessary to maintain the justice of God, Who punished Adam and Eve
for disobeying his command.
Whereas if they did not truly know that it was wrong to disobey the command, did not know that it was truly God's command (rather than some unknown person who happened to bear the name "God"), they would be "with excuse" (Thwingly's Romans passage), and so God would have been unjust in punishing them.
In Adam's sin our sin is being talked about -is it not? We sin because we "know God's decree" (Romans 1:32) yet "do not see fit to acknowledge God" and disobey. We deny the things that we know ("we not only do, but approve") just as Adam and Eve denied what they knew (the having-to-be-obeyed of God's command) and believed the deceiver.

Sorry to be arguing with you on two fronts... how unchivalrous

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Interesting points.
I think it does. "God commanded the man, saying...". The man heard God. If the man had not understood that what was forbidden was... forbidden, then it would have been as if he had not heard. And then what would be the point in the story of saying Adam had heard God, or saying that God had spoken to the Adam, if Adam did not understand?

Adam/Eve knowing the fruit was forbidden does not automatically equal they had knowledge of good and evil. Even if they knew evil did or could exist there's no reason why/how they would know that evil was bad. And not all things that a forbidden are bad.

I'd still like to know why God made the snake more clever than the humans...I don't think that was answered.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Thanks for the clarification. This really helps. One of my pet peeves is posts that consist of shallow and emotional arguments that indicate an unwillingness to explain and think about them more deeply. I'll give you reputation points for staying focused!

Yes!! good, accept I don't like some of the ways you presented them. For example, I don't think it is a theological assumption to say that pride is the nature of sin... Romans 1:21-23 "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

I think this verse supports that.

I didn't expect you to like all my wording. It was intended to be clear and somewhat provocative, but not argumentative.

I see where you're coming from out of Romans. We may want to come back to this at a later time. Calvinists tend to focus very strictly on this passage and other parts of Romans, but I have trouble reconciling their positions on moral inability and personal responsibility. I think this approach does get them in trouble with non-believers because they box themselves into a corner where they basically have to justify a cruel God. This is not the only possible biblical approach. It does all relate to our interpretation of Genesis 3, so I'm sure we'll come back to this again.

If you are trying to justify an apparently cruel God who punishes people for doing something when they didn't know any better, your argument that they did know better doesn't go far enough, in that this theory requires that all the descendants of these first human parents also be punished for a sin they took no part in.

What I'm trying to do, is destroy a common atheist standpoint of saying that Adam and Eve were blamed incorrectly because they had no idea what they were doing. As atheists would conclude, this means that God's system of justice is flawed, because he let humans, basically to choose between left or right, without a basis for their decision. If you want to tell an atheist were you stand, that's fine, but if you can't support it, you might want to show him/her one of those 4 (or possibly more) possibilities.

I'm not sure Genesis 3 is so much about justice and punishment. I think the atheist's argument can be dealt with more effectively if we don't say it is. The problem of an unjust God - or at least the ability to use Genesis 3 as the basis for an argument that God is unjust - becomes moot if God's justice is not what the story is about. Romans really is the only scripture that may seem to relate this story to concepts of justice and punishment in any way. Yet in Romans Paul uses, I believe, about 7 different metaphors for salvation, and I believe when he refers to this story, it is not in connection with the legal metaphor.

Also, what I meant by proving the common atheist position, is basically that Adam and Eve were unjustly blamed, IF they had no basis for their decision. Which is what you were suggesting in one of your posts. Other than that I think you got it.

Now (this is a challenge): If anyone wants to explain to me how all four of those explanations are not possible, then I would be forced to surrender my position or come up with a 5th way. Anybody???

I'm not going to respond to your four explanations because I think they are all based on a faulty premise. I hope if we keep talking about this for a while we can come up with a better explanation that isn't based on punishment at all.

 

[Crazy Liz]

It is necessary to maintain the justice of God, Who punished Adam and Eve for disobeying his command.
Whereas if they did not truly know that it was wrong to disobey the command, did not know that it was truly God's command (rather than some unknown person who happened to bear the name "God"), they would be "with excuse" (Thwingly's Romans passage), and so God would have been unjust in punishing them.

As I replied to Thwingly I don't think the point of Genesis 3 is justice and punishment. Would you like to talk more about this possibility?

In Adam's sin our sin is being talked about -is it not? We sin because we "know God's decree" (Romans 1:32) yet "do not see fit to acknowledge God" and disobey. We deny the things that we know ("we not only do, but approve") just as Adam and Eve denied what they knew (the having-to-be-obeyed of God's command) and believed the deceiver.

Sorry to be arguing with you on two fronts... how unchivalrous

Well, if you insist on using a military metaphor, I guess you can accuse me of a sneaky flanking maneuver.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Peace,
Thwingly.

Thwingly, about your screen name, is that Zwingli with a lisp?

 

[love&forgiveness]

maybe Abraham and issac might be of some relevance here.
for God asked Abraham to give up the thing that was most precious to him in all the world.was there anything to tell him it was right or wrong to kill his child.
God told him to do something ,and he was prepared to do it ,he was faithful.
who had the most to lose by obeying God ,Abraham or adam and eve?
i tell you neither of them would lose anything good by obeying God.
because what happened to Abraham when he obeyed God ,he didn't even lose that what was most precious to him of this world ,he was rewarded greatly with the love of God.
what did Abraham lose by obeying God and what did adam gain by disobeying?
or what did adam lose and Abraham gain?
i would say the perfect love of God.
(2Co 11:3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
we can still be decieved today by false teaches ,and if we are ,we are still not innocent and will still be punished ,we have Gods word just like adam and eve did.
God bless.
paul

 

[CSMR]

Adam/Eve knowing the fruit was forbidden does not automatically equal they had knowledge of good and evil. Even if they knew evil did or could exist there's no reason why/how they would know that evil was bad. And not all things that a forbidden are bad.

I'd still like to know why God made the snake more clever than the humans...I don't think that was answered.

Granted. Good and evil have more than one meaning. I was taking bad = forbidden = we ought not to do it. What good and evil do you think Adam and Eve gain knowledge of?
Of course, the bad (forbidden) act of Adam had good consequences: it was part of God's will for it to happen; without it there would be no Christ. Does this answer your question about the snake?

 

[love&forgiveness]

i don't see how the act of adam had good consequences.God wouldn't have had to sacrifice His only son if there was not a sinful world which came from adams sin.
where does the bible say the serpent was cleverer than the humans?the serpent was sly and cunning ,but was he cleverer?

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

cunning..clever..same thing. It clearly was since it outwitted the humans. Even you said they basically called God a liar. Wouldn't you call a snake that could make humans doubt God and cause evil to be released into the world clever? More so than the humans it fooled.

 

[love&forgiveness]

satan today is very clever and cunning ,just like the serpent ,does that give us an excuse if we are decieved?
we are not clever of oursleves ,the serpent sort of offered them a way to be clever in their own minds ,clever as to know things that was not for them to know at this time ,God told them to trust Him ,they wanted knowledge that the snake offered ,it's not so much they were too dull to resist the serpent but more they wanted something God had forbid them.they wanted sort of power like a god ,we have to accept we are not gods or are no way equal to God.we are to be pleased with what God offers us and worship Him for what He gives us ,instead of gloryfying in the things of God they gave into temptation ,they wanted something that was forbiden of God.
we are to have complete trust and faith in God and not listen to our own minds ,but listen to God.
the serpent offered them something that they thought would make them great of their own minds.
we are never great in our own minds or of ourselves ,but only become truly great in God.
God bless.
paul

 

[Crazy Liz]

satan today is very clever and cunning ,just like the serpent ,does that give us an excuse if we are decieved?

Excuse or justification and blame are all often used to focus all the responsibility on one of the parties in order to absolve oneself. Responsibility is often shared, not held by one person alone. Like I said before, this is something people in our cuture often have difficulty grasping.

So I say no excuse, but a share of the responsibility.

 

[love&forgiveness]

i totally agree ,didn't i imply in one of my early posts that we are all sort of guilty for adams sin ,for we have no right to say we would have done any different ,and in many ways we haven't.
it's all about choosing God and having faith in Him ,believing His word ,over the desires of our own minds.
it's only in Christ that we are set free from the sin brought on from adam ,which we were in many ways guilty of.
God bless.
paul

 

[Infinity's Dice]

Excuse or justification and blame are all often used to focus all the responsibility on one of the parties in order to absolve oneself. Responsibility is often shared, not held by one person alone. Like I said before, this is something people in our culture often have difficulty grasping.

So I say no excuse, but a share of the responsibility.

I agree that many people will try and pass blame along, in order to avoid responsibility for their own actions. I agree that this is a genuine problem in the world today. However, and I hate to open this can of worms again, but this is this particular thread's topic--



How can a person be responsible for his or her actions if:



a) they are unaware of the difference between right and wrong, and

b) they are unaware of the meaningfulness of the consequences of their actions?

In reason,
Josh

 

[Infinity's Dice]

I totally agree, didn't I imply in one of my early posts that we are all sort of guilty for Adam’s sin, for we have no right to say we would have acted any differently, and in many ways we haven't. (Post edited for clarity)

This seems to be implying that choosing to eat of the tree was inevitable. That is to say, virtually anyone would have chosen to eat from the tree of knowledge, if put in a similar circumstance. Except, I assume, Christ himself.



If this assumption is true, it implies either sin was already present in the world, that eating from the tree didn’t matter; or that the actual sin itself was arbitrary, or irrelevant. What would have mattered is that Adam and Eve sinned, not the nature of the sin itself.

It's all about choosing God and having faith in Him, believing His word over the desires of our own minds.

Only in Christ are we are set free from the sin brought on from Adam, which we were in many ways guilty of.

God bless.

Paul

(Again, post edited for clarity)

So we should believe in God’s word, even if it seems thoroughly implausible? How can a True Christian™ differentiate between God’s word, and the word of an imposter, like the devil? Are there any points in which God’s word might conceivably become so implausible that it would be irrational to believe in its literal truth?

 

[love&forgiveness]

This seems to be implying that choosing to eat of the tree was inevitable. That is to say, virtually anyone would have chosen to eat from the tree of knowledge, if put in a similar circumstance. Except, I assume, Christ himself.



If this assumption is true, it implies either sin was already present in the world, that eating from the tree didn’t matter; or that the actual sin itself was arbitrary, or irrelevant. What would have mattered is that Adam and Eve sinned, not the nature of the sin itself.







So we should believe in God’s word, even if it seems thoroughly implausible? How can a True Christian™ differentiate between God’s word, and the word of an imposter, like the devil? Are there any points in which God’s word might conceivably become so implausible that it would be irrational to believe in its literal truth?

we seem to have done a full circle on this topic ,i believe i've already answered your questions on the topic ,go to earlier posts.
you have to understand all of Gods word is complete truth ,if someone speaks not of God they speak of themselves ,and their words won't match the truth of Gods word.
as i've tried to explain the whole story of adam and eve is very important ,all of it.
it teaches us ,it tells us ,it shows us.
you can't dismiss one word of Gods truth for it all serves it's purpose.

i seem to be saying this a lot lately ,but if you chose to listen to your own mind instead of Gods word ,then you can't understand as your own mind being full of sin blocks you from the truth.
when you set your mind free by repenting of all these sins ,then your mind is clear of these things and open to the wisdom of God.
we of ourselves understand nothing ,God is the only one who can teach us the truth.
God bless.
paul.

 

[Infinity's Dice]

we seem to have done a full circle on this topic ,i believe i've already answered your questions on the topic ,go to earlier posts.

I'm afraid that we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't think that you've answered questions, as much as dodged and deflected them.

you have to understand all of Gods word is complete truth ,if someone speaks not of God they speak of themselves ,and their words won't match the truth of Gods word.

How much time to you spend, on average, composing your posts? Do you ever re-read them for clarity, or do you just set down the first thing that pops into your head? Not trying to be offensive here, just asking out of curiosity.



What you seem to be saying here is:



I should understand that God’s word is completely true, and if I speak of anything that isn’t God, then it is necessarily less true than God’s word.



What I asked was:



How do you tell the difference between God’s word, and what the Devil (or some other malicious influence) masquerades as the word of God?



As usual, your answer does not satisfy my question.

as i've tried to explain the whole story of adam and eve is very important ,all of it.

it teaches us ,it tells us ,it shows us.

All you’ve apparently demonstrated is, to your God, ignorance (not eating of the tree of knowledge) is superior to non-ignorance, provided that God commands ignorance. Moreover, it is God’s right and privilege to command humans to be ignorant, and to punish people forever, if they disobey God’s command to avoid knowledge.

you can't dismiss one word of Gods truth for it all serves it’s purpose.

i seem to be saying this a lot lately ,but if you chose to listen to your own mind instead of Gods word ,then you can't understand as your own mind being full of sin blocks you from the truth.

We have a difference of opinion here. I choose to pay attention to what my own mind says because Gods word seems to be full of irrationality, self-contradictions, and injustice. I’m asking for rational reasons to believe in God’s word, and you seem to be saying that reason is not to be trusted, and that blind faith is the only key to salvation. As blind faith conflicts with reason, I’m still unconvinced by your argument, which requires an abandonment of reason. I am unmoved. Show me an example of how reason is inferior to faith, or how faith is superior to reason.

when you set your mind free by repenting of all these sins ,then your mind is clear of these things and open to the wisdom of God.

Clear of what things? Sins? The sin of reason, of knowledge?

we of ourselves understand nothing ,God is the only one who can teach us the truth.

So all secular knowledge is worthless? Alert the media!

 

[love&forgiveness]

arghhhhh.
what i'm trying to say is when you speak or your own mind ,that is what you speak of.
where do you get you ideas from ,it's all from the world and from other men.
how can you trust anyone when you know they all lie.
what i'm saying is Gods word is the truth.
have you tried reading it?is it not true?
hard to understand yes ,but you only learn to understand it when you stop listen to your own mind ,which is influenced by society .
and start listening to Gods word which is truth.
how do you know this ,you know it by believing it ,you repent all to Christ first.
then you are capable of things you never knew before.
i know the bible does seem to contridict itself ,at first ,but when you truly read it you get understanding ,which only really comes from God.
i can't teach you to be a Christian ,i can tell you what you have to do ,but you have to do the rest.
being a Christian is not what you know ,but what you want to know ,it's not what you are now ,but what you want to be .
you have to want to give up this life and serve God .
i think now that those who don't believe are ignorant ,i don't mean this to sound rude ,i'm just trying to explain.i can 't blame anyone for i was once the same.
i want to explain ,but you have to want to beleive.
i don't deserve Gods love any more than you do ,i am no better than you ,that's why it's so important for Christians to try to make others believe.
we were once ignorant of Christ ,so know how easy it is to not believe and also know how hard it is to believe.
we can only try to make you understand the best we can.
but you have the most important choice to be made.
i will keep on trying to explain the best i can ,but you still have to repent of yourself ,i can't do that for you of force you.
God bless.
paul