BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[RobE]

Rob, thanks for your input into your thinking, but it only considers us as we are today, sinners.

Adam was not in need of being born again until he sinned.

Do you think Adam would have lived forever without the Tree of Life?

Christ's message was not to the healthy but the sick. Had Adam never "got sick" he wouldn't need "a doctor" to "heal him."

Christ made Adam.

Adam was not bound to sin. He just did. And at that moment, he needed savior. Before then, he was perfect, born of God, not flesh.

John3

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Are you saying Adam in the garden was spirit? Animals are guiltless in the flesh; yet they die? Why wouldn't Adam's body eventually die? Sin doesn't kill the flesh. It kills the spirit. Do you see this?

I hope you can see based on the above, the short-sightedness of the S.V.. By saying God planned the fall and salvation still doesn't excuse God from sin of causing the fall.

Couldn't we say that even if God didn't know Adam would fall that, by giving Adam the capability, God played a part when using your reasoning?

Planned and allowed are not the same thing.

Agreed, but allowed causes God to commit the same sin as if He'd planned it using your logic.

He planned the murder or he was an accessory to murder through inaction. You're just as guilty if you stand by and had the power to stop it. My thinking allows God to have a 'perfect' plan with a 'perfect' solution. Your thinking allows God to sin either beforehand or at-hand. Am I right? Do you think God heard the discussion between the serpent and Adam?

Friends,

Rob

 

[bling]

So we start with my last post.
I spent a lot of time answering a ton of comments and questions you had in a bunch of postings and asked a ton of questions. Now, just tell me did you at least read the resent posts: 512, 516, 517, 521, 522, 524, 525, and 529? Really the last complete addressed of my post of any significance, goes back to 354. I am not complaining as long as you are helping me in reading and making some comment. You do bring a few things out, so should I assume you either agree with the rest and can’t really answer the questions because of time or don’t know or do not care. You have said you feel you have answered some of the questions before, but I either can not find them or feel you were answering something I was not asking. I have got my self in trouble with you before making assumptions, so how should I treat no comment?

Patman asked:
Do you agree with this?

Sin is not required to develop love, even Agape/Godly love.

This is an entire subject more then a simple question.
Again either of our conclusions has little value outside ourselves, unless we are hoping to influence our readers into accepting a conclusion without any support other then our personal support. Answering the same question the same way will not help, what we should be addressing is our assumptions and support for those assumptions. Show me the flaws in my support and the answers to the questions about your assumptions/ support and we can move on. The assumptions and support that drive the conclusion to this question are:
1. How does God define Godly love? It has been said that Christ came along and used an almost meaningless would for love “agape”, and gave it a real unique new meaning, but I somewhat assume that story unnecessarily. What is loving your God with all your: heart, soul, mind and energy? Jesus seems to define it with parables like the “Good Samaritan” and the “Prodigal Son” and there is “God so loved the world…” and all Jesus did and said. We also are told to love others like Jesus loves us.
2. Is loving God with our all we have and can give still and always been, both what God desired and ordered of us? If it is at least for us today then by default it becomes the soul (all out) objective since we can not be giving our all to this task and be doing anything else that is not included in this type love for God. I do not find us ordered to give our all too any other task, but maybe you have?
3. If humans are to commit their total selves (all heart, soul, mind, and energy) will that not require a mature decision, to understand what commitment is, to understand “all” verses “some”, to comprehend what that means, to count the cost, know at least some of the big alternatives, and what they are committing to? Would there have to distinguish and understand between this love being required of us and other types of love that require much less and may even be automatic? As an example suppose a Samaritan child was used in the story of the Good Samaritan, the good the child did would be discounted saying, He did not understand Samaritans and Jews hate each other he is just reacting to his emotions, he was not thinking, and he will grow out of that pure reaction mode, he has time to recover and learn how things really are. To be the example Jesus used it has to be an adult that can know what all he is doing, count the cost at some point, and control himself.
4. I have tried to find support for, “God just wanting some type of relationship with humans” and I always come back to only a Godly loving relationship, so can you show me where scripture talks about another type relationship with God? I am using verses like: John 15:12, Gal 5:14, 1 John 5:2, and 2 John 1: 5-6.
5. Has all adult mature humans everywhere and throughout time sinned? Will all adult mature humans have to sin in the future? I can find scripture that, God seems to be saying that all will sin and all have sinned. God has shown us the plan that He had from the beginning of time that includes sinning. If there was a plan in which humans did not sin and that was the Garden, that plan did not work and should not be followed.
6. I also have looked at angels as an example of sinless living and have some issues I hope you can help me with: a. There is no information on the stags angels went through in their creation: we know some day we will be like angels (not human anymore), so were angels like humans at one time? b. Did angels go through a time in another place where they sinned and were forgiven and the sins forgotten? c. How do I compare sexual, physical, terminal, earthly, separated, organic, having human minds and mortal beings with Spiritual beings? d. There is so little information about the angel/ God relationship how do we know? e. If God wanted us to use angels as an example for us, would He not provide more information?
7. Christ said,(John 14: 15) "If you love me, you will obey what I command. , now there are some passages that suggest God loves those that obey His commands and you can tell who loves God by their obedience to his commands (John 14:21, John 15: 10, 2 john 1:6), but I do not find obey God’s commands produces love in the one obeying and when I look at the O.T. I find Jews obeying and seemingly not loving. Do we first have to love or at least want to love God before we can properly obey God’s commands?
8. Luke 15: 15-32 “The Prodigal Son”. I do not want to make too much out of this or carry it too far, but it does seem to tell us about God. The father in the story seems to represent God and as such is a wonderful loving, wise man. The father in spite of the young son actions and attitude toward the father gives him a lot of money. It only seems reasonable that a loving and wise father would realize what a rebellious, ungrateful, immature son would do with that money. The end result appears to be what the father desired for the young son and in this case happened. We also see the older son who remained faithful until the younger son’s return, had not developed enough love for his father to be happy with the father’s happiness or do things to please the father even though he had been obedient. Do you think God wants all of us, to be like the younger son or the older son, even if it cost Him a great deal, like in the story?
Luke 7: 41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[d] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
9. Does it not appears from the above story forgiveness is tide to loving and suggest without being forgiven there is no love?
10. 1 John 1: 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. Does this not suggest a pure heart comes from being forgiven?
(Now I know God for civil matters for the earthly Kingdom of the Jews had different punishments, put when it was of the heart type sin not involving others directly, they had no punishment for coveting, lusting, or hating their brother other then it was sin, so were these little sins? Civil earthly wrong doing are also sin, but what the Jews had to do or what had to be done to those wrong doers did not do anything about the sin, for a sin is against God and requires Christ to bare them no matter how “small?”. Paul said, to break one command is to break all the commands. Jesus also came along and took the sins that were not considered by the Jews at that time as significant and made them punishable by death under the Jewish law. Can we then equate the Jewish law punishments on earth for wrong doing with the price for sin?)

11. From the above about the law’s different punishments can we conclude God considers one sin in relationship between man and Him (not man and man) different then another sin?
12. Which of the following can exist before there is sin and/or I sin: forgiveness of sin, Christ going to the cross, detail examples of how to live in a world like mine that has sin, the indwelling Holy Spirit, needy people, a clear understanding of how bad evil is with human examples for me to fully relate to, a clear understanding of my lack of person strength against evil and knowing my need for help, a desire for rest in heaven, and have an great appreciation for heaven, by contrast?
If the above assumptions stand then the objective “Godly love” would drive the requirements that would include all that God can do, which can not include God sinning, God tempting, or God doing anything less then the best for man to achieve his objective.

And do you agree with this?
Patman asked:
Love is made deeper by those who are forgiven more?

My understanding of sin is, just one sin to be forgiven would require Christ going to the cross. We tend to devalue our own sins and over value other’s sins in comparison. We underestimate the amount of sin we have done. All those forgiven have been forgiven of much.

And
Patman asked:
We should not strive for deeper love by sinning more?

Yes, we should take the love we have been given and use it to develop more love.

And
Patman asked:
God would not create our world such that it required sin, because even though the forgiveness that might occur from that sin would mean more love for that particular person, it is not a goal he should undertake because the sin is still bad.

There is a difference between our first realized sin(s), which Satan usually deceives us into making and the hardening that happens with repeated sinning.
The world God created definitely has every adult mature person (the people God is addressing in His message) sinning, or am I missing something? God has given us no examples of how to live in a world without sin and Jesus our one example of a sinless adult human was also God, Himself and not like us prior to us being saved from our sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bling

Can we say, today: a person has to accept forgiveness before they can begin to have a sacrificial, selfless, all consuming, forgiving, serving, thought out, decision type love? If you can then where do you get it from? Who besides Christ had that type love before they were forgiven or committed to God’s forgiving their sins (as in the O.T.).

Patman said:
I disagree for the most part. But let me say that Christians have the most perfect love over sinners. But it is not impossible for a sinner to have a godly love. But it is also not possible for a sinner to love God if he remains a sinner.

To have Godly love do you have to love God? One of the ways you can tell if a person has love is for them to obey. Do you think the Godly love Jesus describes can come naturally? I am not saying forgiven people that sin do not have Godly love, but sinners that have not accepted God as the forgiver of their sins, what reason would they have to Godly love God and show that love in obedience to God and without the power of the Holy Spirit given after being saved, how will they be obedient? If a sinner does the right thing for the wrong motive (like the elder son in the Prodigal Son) is that the right thing? If Godly love is not the driving force behind the obedience was the person really obedient?

Patman said:
I think that is where you are getting confused. Sinners can have love in many ways. However, Sin in and of itself is an unloving act towards God. So to remain in sin is to remain in opposition to God, and to not have a good love for him.

Patman said:
Their love for others, however, is possible, and it can be selfless, it can be forgiving, serving, sacrificial, and many other things.

I have flat out not found that to be true! First off, Godly love has to include as a major portion: loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. If that is not a major portion of what you are doing it is not Godly loving. Adult mature people use some kind of logic (it can be totally wrong but it is some type) to control their actions unless it is strictly emotional. Emotional love is not being addressed here. You are probably trying to address wonderful atheist, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. that you have met. I have found they can be very loving in many ways, but they do have motives that at least boarder on some selfish desires. It can be for themselves, it can be for some one they love that gives them something, but it is very similar to either giving to those that can give back to you or others you feel responsible for or because you feel you get something in this life or the next.

Patman said:
Even Jesus said this:

Matt 7
9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

All people have a natural love for their children that have to be squelched to do them harm. That is not the love we are addressing. Christ is contrasting that instinctive love with Godly love, which is a huge difference. Christ is not saying Godly love is like an evil parent love!!

Patman said:
The thing about Adam, the first man, is that he was not a sinner until he sinned. God created Adam perfect, and Adam, not held back by sin, was able to love God.

Sin separates us from God, but being forgiven of sin draws so close to God that His Spirit can actually dwell within us, which could not happen with Adam.

Patman said:
Now, we are at a disadvantage because of Adam. For the knowledge of good and evil will evidentially lead to our sin. Not by design, but by fact of life.

Since love results in obedience and the way we tell obedience and Adam did not obey God, should we not assume Adam did not Godly love God? If that is true what makes us think being without even having committed one sin and having that one sin forgiven, makes it easier for humans to love God? Should we look to Adam, before he sinned as our example of what God wants, for Adam wound up sinning? Would Peter, Paul, John, or those types that had sinned be better?

Patman said:
I think we are trapped in sin because the desires God meant for good sin takes and perverts. And we then sin. I THINK this happened because the descendants of Adam needed the law written in their hearts to survive it in a world without God's blessings.

We are not trapped because we have grace. I think we have God’s blessing.

Patman said:
God knew what having the "law of the heart" would to humans who weren't ready. So for the time being, he said not to do it. I however, BELIEVE, that God would eventually let man to eat of the tree when he was ready.

How would he be ready? I don't know. Perhaps spending time with God would ready man in a way we never can know. Adam may have gave up some really cool stuff to have NOW what he would have had LATER had he only trusted.

That is real speculation on your part. My speculation is Adam did not seem to have the same motive as Eve for sinning, it seems he wanted to maintain his relationship with Eve more then anything and nothing against God or any desire to sin. Adam loved Eve.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

lee, I thought I put it pretty well how God would be lying with 100% foreknowledge under these circumstances, especially.

Yes, and I thought I put my answer pretty well too!

The main point is that even if the prophecies were conditional and the conditions were not met, with 100% foreknowledge that they would not be met, the promise was really a lie.

Unless my answer is incorrect?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Lee

Lee

Hi Pat,
Yes, and I thought I put my answer pretty well too!

I guess you are right, It is not the thought that counts. The proof is in the pudding.

I think we agree that had conditions been met, the promise was for a speedy driving out of other nations from Israel.

Speedy is the key word. While these nations did leave or disappear, the idea was that the ends happened fast. Rather, the promise was the end of those nations happened fast if the obey and follow God.

If God had 100% foreknowledge and promised to drive them out quickly, and then did not, he was not truthful. Even if there was a condition attached! He was not truthful. Why? Because he foresaw the condition not being met as well.

I do not believe God foresaw the condition not being met because he does not have 100% foreknowledge. That makes it OK to not see through with the promise.

Deuteronomy 9:3
Therefore understand today that the LORD your God is He who goes over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the LORD has said to you.

Judges 2
20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.” 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.

Even if you want to change tatics and say "no it wasn't the speed, it was something else," I have already thought of a rebut.

God said he would do something.

God did not do it.

Reason. Condition not met.

The above did happen. Even if you say I identified the wrong "it", God clearly says he will do one thing, and then later says he will not do it.

The logic involved remains the same.

If a 100%-future-knowing being makes a conditional promise, and then doesn't do it, he is not excusable from being dishonest.

I hope this makes it even more clear.
Pat

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

So we start with my last post.
I spent a lot of time answering a ton of comments and questions you had in a bunch of postings and asked a ton of questions. Now, just tell me did you at least read the resent posts: 512, 516, 517, 521, 522, 524, 525, and 529?

I have got my self in trouble with you before making assumptions, so how should I treat no comment?

Bling, I try very hard to answer you the best I can. When I answer anyone I try to understand them so I answer it in a way that applies to them.

I don't think I have hidden the fact that I don't really understand your logic, and I find it hard to relate and find a good way to answer to you. So my answers are just blunt. Vomit on the Paper.

Yeah, that was gross.

Sorry, anyway. I have read everything you said, and I said in the past that I have been studying so that I can answer you better.

My last posts to you have used much bible to answer your question, since most of your posts demand evidence.

A lot of these questions fall together, so I try to answer them together. I am trying to answer your questions. I know we got side tracked, or I did, after RobE's response that we were designed to sin. I felt compelled to stand against that.

It was really answers at RobE, only half of that was for you, if even that, but you got involved. So we had to discuss it further. I know there are some post that I didn't answer directly because of ongoing study. I feel confident in my beliefs now that we can discuss it now.

You ask how to handle me (not in so many words, but that's what it comes down to)I know I don't like being misquoted, don't do that, but ask if you understand me as such and such and I'll tell you, don't just say I am.

Example:

"So you are saying God uses us for entertainment"

Nooooooo (that one was borrowed from our other forum)

Instead say "Are you saying God uses for entertainment?"

As for when I don't answer a question, I am sorry, just ask again.

And some advice, make them shorter

1. How does God define Godly love? .... What is loving your God with all your: heart, soul, mind and energy? ...... We also are told to love others like Jesus loves us.

Godly love seems most easily explained as a love like God's, as you put well. God does desire the love from all of our being, not "half hearted" love.

2. Is loving God with our all we have and can give still and always been, both what God desired and ordered of us?

It is the greatest commandment. If we love God, we will also be keeping the commands, for all the commands are wrapped up in that one, "love the LORD with all..." you are.

God does desire we love him. I say that, afraid of where you will take it tho. Because I still think you believe sin was necessary to achieve love like that. I tell you, bling, It is not! If God is powerful, and he can love in such a way without sinning, he is still yet powerful enough to give us the same ability.

Love is written in our hearts, before the law was. It is something we just know, and have the ability to do.

Which brings us to the next question that will arise from that answer.....

Are we really able to do this without grace? And I think the answer is no. We can't love God when we are sinners, because a sinner is separated from God. But we are not talking about our situation, we are really talking about Adam's.

Adam lived for who knows how long without sinning. During that time, there was nothing separating him from God, no sin to speak of. Adam, the ideal form of man, did not require grace to love God, as he wasn't a sinner yet, and HE had the ability to love God.

The same would have been true of any of us had Adam never sinned, and had we not sinned. We would be able to love God fully, just like the angels do, who have no sin.

BUT Adam did bring sin on us. Thanks pal. And now we need grace. But because that is true doesn't mean we were created to be this way. I say that if we want to see how God desired us to be, look to the Garden, and how he made us.

He made us without sin. He made us understanding love. He made us knowing him, understanding who he was. That is what God wants, to name a few. How do we achieve that as sinners? We require Grace, through Christ Jesus.

3. If humans are to commit their total selves ... will that not require a mature decision... to understand “all” verses ... and what they are committing to?

Bling, I do not think we are all meant to have the same function in the Body. Some people's place is to commit and understand the deeper things of the Word. Other people think it's over their heads and don't desire to learn the deeper matters.

I think it would be good for all to know, but it isn't required of them. Because we all have a function in the Body of Christ, we are not meant to do the same thing. Should a foot read? Should hair listen?

We can love God in many ways, and still love him with our total selves. Understanding all or even some verses is not required, as long as we understand that Grace saved us and believe in it, we have love for God.

4. I have tried to find support for, “God just wanting some type of relationship with humans” and I always come back to only a Godly loving relationship, so can you show me where scripture talks about another type relationship with God? I am using verses like: John 15:12, Gal 5:14, 1 John 5:2, and 2 John 1: 5-6.

I thought I already gave you a few examples of how God desires a relationship.

1 Corinthians 1:9
God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

2 Corinthians 13:14
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

fellowship http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fellowship

God desires much from us. I agree that love has everything to do with it, but there are somethings love enables but doesn't do.

Like I said before, you can love someone and not have a relationship with him. I believe loving someone is all the better when a relationship is present, be it great or small.

5. Has all adult mature humans everywhere and throughout time sinned? Will all adult mature humans have to sin in the future? I can find scripture that, God seems to be saying that all will sin and all have sinned. God has shown us the plan that He had from the beginning of time that includes sinning. If there was a plan in which humans did not sin and that was the Garden, that plan did not work and should not be followed.

All have sinned, and all accountable people will sin. But this is because of the law we have on our heart, that we are clearly not ready to have.

If God were to allow us the ability to sin without providing a way out of sin, knowing the future or not, he wouldn't be loving. I think we all agree that allowing sin means providing a way out.

The question is is allowing sin also designing us to sin? I say no. God did not intend for any of us to be sinners. That is another thing he desires, obedience, not sacrifice.

Basically, I say Adam could have resisted sin forever. He didn't, so you take that as part of the big plan. I say no, the plan didn't depend on Adam. It depended on any sinner, no matter who sinned, to be allowed a way out of sin.

6. I also have looked at angels as an example of sinless living and have some issues I hope you can help me with: a. There is no information on the stags angels went through in their creation: we know some day we will be like angels (not human anymore), so were angels like humans at one time? b. Did angels go through a time in another place where they sinned and were forgiven and the sins forgotten? c. How do I compare sexual, physical, terminal, earthly, separated, organic, having human minds and mortal beings with Spiritual beings? d. There is so little information about the angel/ God relationship how do we know? e. If God wanted us to use angels as an example for us, would He not provide more information?

The only thing that matters of Angels is that the ones who are in heaven didn't fall, i.e. sin. If God created them with the ability to love him and resist sin, why not us too?

Point being, we were not meant to sin, even though there was a planned way out.

7. Christ said,(John 14: 15) "If you love me, you will obey what I command. , now there are some passages that suggest God loves those that obey His commands and you can tell who loves God by their obedience to his commands (John 14:21, John 15: 10, 2 john 1:6), but I do not find obey God’s commands produces love in the one obeying and when I look at the O.T. I find Jews obeying and seemingly not loving. Do we first have to love or at least want to love God before we can properly obey God’s commands?

Again, it is the greatest commandment. It is really a "no duh" answer since one of those commands is to love him. If you follow all commands you are following that one too.

But Christ said if we love God we will follow his commands. So loving God leads to following commands.

So if you don't love God, you won't follow his commands. Point with Adam, he didn't love God, he rejected God, and didn't follow the one command he had.

8. Luke 15: 15-32 “The Prodigal Son”. I do not want to make too much out of this or carry it too far, but it does seem to tell us about God. The father in the story seems to represent God and as such is a wonderful loving, wise man. The father in spite of the young son actions and attitude toward the father gives him a lot of money. It only seems reasonable that a loving and wise father would realize what a rebellious, ungrateful, immature son would do with that money. The end result appears to be what the father desired for the young son and in this case happened. We also see the older son who remained faithful until the younger son’s return, had not developed enough love for his father to be happy with the father’s happiness or do things to please the father even though he had been obedient. Do you think God wants all of us, to be like the younger son or the older son, even if it cost Him a great deal, like in the story?

God wants us to be like the son who stayed with him. The reason the younger son was taken back is because he returned, thus becoming like his brother.

Even though the younger son experienced a different love from his father and will return more love, the love of the older son is still worth something.

The older son loves his father in that he would never leave him. The younger son loves his father in that he doesn't deserve it and got it anyway. Both are love, and desired by the father.

9. Does it not appears from the above story forgiveness is tide to loving and suggest without being forgiven there is no love?

NO

10. 1 John 1: 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. Does this not suggest a pure heart comes from being forgiven?
(Now I know God for civil matters for the earthly Kingdom of the Jews had different punishments, put when it was of the heart type sin not involving others directly, they had no punishment for coveting, lusting, or hating their brother other then it was sin, so were these little sins? Civil earthly wrong doing are also sin, but what the Jews had to do or what had to be done to those wrong doers did not do anything about the sin, for a sin is against God and requires Christ to bare them no matter how “small?”. Paul said, to break one command is to break all the commands. Jesus also came along and took the sins that were not considered by the Jews at that time as significant and made them punishable by death under the Jewish law. Can we then equate the Jewish law punishments on earth for wrong doing with the price for sin?)

The punishment for sin is always death. Physical and spiritual. No matter what the sin is.

11. From the above about the law’s different punishments can we conclude God considers one sin in relationship between man and Him (not man and man) different then another sin?

We can sin against ourselves, our friends, whoever, but it is always against God no matter what.

12. Which of the following can exist before there is sin and/or I sin: forgiveness of sin, Christ going to the cross, detail examples of how to live in a world like mine that has sin, the indwelling Holy Spirit, needy people, a clear understanding of how bad evil is with human examples for me to fully relate to, a clear understanding of my lack of person strength against evil and knowing my need for help, a desire for rest in heaven, and have an great appreciation for heaven, by contrast?

It is our world, bling. But this is why I am confused by you. God created us knowing we would sin and did it anyway. So you say the sin must have a point, and that somehow makes it OK that God created us.

I say NO, God wouldn't knowingly create all this. Instead He created it with a different goal, and it turned out bad. But even though it turned out bad, he had a plan up his sleeve for this very situation, and that is Christ's sacrifice.

The Goal did involve love. But love, again, does not require sin for humans to understand it. It is the one point that should make you completely reconsider everything you preach.

So what if God doesn't want a relationship, So what if God want's agape love, It isn't relative, what is relative is that God created us and we turned out bad. These are all important, yes. But you should ask "Did he know we would turn out bad or not?" That's the underlining question that might lead you to the answer....

If he did know, why create us knowing he would be sorry he did later?

It should be obvious that God wouldn't create us being knee deep in sin if he knew about it before hand. That's why he didn't know, be cause he wouldn't.

Bling, I can't answer your entire post. Lets try to keep these smaller. One or two questions at a time from now on please. I wish I could allow for more, but I really want to start working on smaller posts for myself. I hope this will be the last LONG one, because I think reading so much gets the reader lost and confuses the message of the writer.

Thanks Bling
-Pat

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Do you think Adam would have lived forever without the Tree of Life?

No. That is why he was denied it after he sinned and not before.

Christ made Adam.

And Adam was sinless when he was made

Are you saying Adam in the garden was spirit? Animals are guiltless in the flesh; yet they die? Why wouldn't Adam's body eventually die? Sin doesn't kill the flesh. It kills the spirit. Do you see this?

Sin Does kill spiritually too. Adam needed God to live forever, and his blessings. That is true physically and spiritually.

Adam's sin brought death to humans. I do not believe animals were designed to live forever.

Death is an antitype of the spiritual death. God uses it to explain the need to be saved for those who sin.

Had Adam not sinned, he still could have died I suppose. Say he got too close to the edge of a cliff and fell? But in the afterlife, he would not need salvation as he never sinned.

The real point is being with God forever is life, being without him forever is death.

Couldn't we say that even if God didn't know Adam would fall that, by giving Adam the capability, God played a part when using your reasoning?

No. God's part in our fall is that he told us not to. Same is true for you I am sure. But I can go a step further and say he didn't know we would sin with 100% certainty.

You are left finding a reason to explain why God would create us knowing we would be so evil.

I am not using reasoning with you, Rob, because you plainly said he designed us to fall. I can't make that up when you plainly say it. That is your answer.

And then you water it down with words like "he allowed us" as if it were the same as designed.

Agreed, but allowed causes God to commit the same sin as if He'd planned it using your logic.

I think you are right. You put it well. God sinned if he planned for us to sin.

He planned the murder or he was an accessory to murder through inaction. You're just as guilty if you stand by and had the power to stop it. My thinking allows God to have a 'perfect' plan with a 'perfect' solution. Your thinking allows God to sin either beforehand or at-hand. Am I right? Do you think God heard the discussion between the serpent and Adam?

Friends,

Rob

I don't know. God seemed surprised to hear what happened.. But maybe he was acting, I don't know.

See, there is something I don't say. God isn't doing nothing about it. That's really bad english.

God is doing something, he isn't just standing by. That is something that can be said by us both. The difference is tho, that I can say he Created us not knowing what would happen, and You say that he created it, knowing fully what would happen, and did it anyway.

Your conclusion is made worst because you say his actions justify his initial wrong. I say there was no initial wrong and he is active in standing against sin. God cannot be accused of "doing nothing"

Doing right doesn't excuse sin.

Friends,
Pat

 

[RobE]

Your conclusion is made worst because you say his actions justify his initial wrong. I say there was no initial wrong and he is active in standing against sin. God cannot be accused of "doing nothing"

Patman,

When I said 'planned', I didn't mention foresight. You read that into it.

Agreed, but allowed causes God to commit the same sin as if He'd planned it using your logic.

My basic point is this:

If you didn't have the knowledge of good and evil; then how are you different than an animal?

Dogs can do evil, but aren't responsible because they lack the knowledge of good and evil. That very knowledge is what distinguishes us from an animal. Do you get it yet?

Without the knowledge of right and wrong, we aren't responsible for what we do. Just as an infant isn't responsible for what he does.

For us to be made in His image; we had to acquire the knowledge of good and evil(Gen 3:22).

Got it?

My second point is:

If evil occurs does it matter if you planned it in advance or if you stand by and watch it happen?

Our disagreement comes in the form that you believe that eating from the tree itself was evil; whereas, I say that the eating from the tree was neccessary to acquire a real choice and was not evil in itself.

Clarity,

Rob

 

[patman]

Patman,

When I said 'planned', I didn't mention foresight. You read that into it.



My basic point is this:

If you didn't have the knowledge of good and evil; then how are you different than an animal?

Dogs can do evil, but aren't responsible because they lack the knowledge of good and evil. That very knowledge is what distinguishes us from an animal. Do you get it yet?

Without the knowledge of right and wrong, we aren't responsible for what we do. Just as an infant isn't responsible for what he does.

For us to be made in His image; we had to acquire the knowledge of good and evil(Gen 3:22).

Got it?

My second point is:

If evil occurs does it matter if you planned it in advance or if you stand by and watch it happen?

Our disagreement comes in the form that you believe that eating from the tree itself was evil; whereas, I say that the eating from the tree was neccessary to acquire a real choice and was not evil in itself.

Clarity,

Rob

RobE, I apologize if I assert words you don't say. I didn't see where I said that in the quote you gave me, but I still wish to apologize.

I have said that I believe that Adam and Eve would have been allowed to eat of the tree of knowledge. But at the time Adam did eat, God clearly commanded him not to. The fact that he ate of the tree and broke the command is what made it evil.

Had Adam waited it out, I believe he would have been given permission to eat of the tree.

Our knowledge if right and wrong are one of the vast many of the things that separate us from animals. From creation, we were given a spirit, the breath of life, and that is something no animal has. That is why animals are extendable and we are not.

I think it would be good that you reconsider the "good" act of Adam's eating the tree because we need to be above the animals. It is our spirits that make us different, not what we know. And yes, what we know is on a much higher level, but even the most disabled of minds that requires a feeding tube to keep alive, that seems to know nothing is more valuable than an animal because that person has a spirit.

And I think you should consider the act as being "good" as God commanded them not to, there by making the act "bad."

The act would have been Good when God said it was.

 

[RobE]

I have said that I believe that Adam and Eve would have been allowed to eat of the tree of knowledge. But at the time Adam did eat, God clearly commanded him not to. The fact that he ate of the tree and broke the command is what made it evil.

I think it would be good that you reconsider the "good" act of Adam's eating the tree because we need to be above the animals. It is our spirits that make us different, not what we know. And yes, what we know is on a much higher level, but even the most disabled of minds that requires a feeding tube to keep alive, that seems to know nothing is more valuable than an animal because that person has a spirit.

And spirit is born of spirit; flesh of flesh.

John3

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

And I think you should consider the act as being "good" as God commanded them not to, there by making the act "bad."

The act would have been Good when God said it was.

The act was not evil in itself. So to say God would sin by designing Adam to eat the fruit would be untrue. Designing Adam to eat of the tree is not wrong in and of itself.

Can someone sin without the knowledge of good and evil? Yes or No, please.

Friends,

Rob

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

I think we agree that had conditions been met, the promise was for a speedy driving out of other nations from Israel.

Yes, I agree.

If a 100%-future-knowing being makes a conditional promise, and then doesn't do it, he is not excusable from being dishonest.

Unless we know he is speaking from our perspective! Unless he also tells us what will really happen:

Deuteronomy 31:20 When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their forefathers, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant.

So it was plain, the condition would not be fulfilled, God said so, and he was right, though the people insisted they would be faithful.

Joshua 24:19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the Lord..."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Lee

Lee

Emphasis added:

Hi Pat,
Unless we know he is speaking from our perspective! Unless he also tells us what will really happen:

Deuteronomy 31:20 When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their forefathers, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant.

So it was plain, the condition would not be fulfilled, God said so, and he was right, though the people insisted they would be faithful.

Joshua 24:19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the Lord..."

Blessings,
Lee

The verse in Deut is another example of Gods inability to see the future. Even thought he was right, Israel would worship other Gods, the timing was way off. They started worshiping the second they got there, not "when they ate their fill and thrive,"

And this is one thing I hate to hear, "Unless we know he is speaking from our perspective," you could completely nullify any word God speaks by simply saying "he is speaking from earthly standards, so don't take it as it says."

That is my personal criticism to the idea. And here is why it is wrong anyway.

God says A will happen and knows 100% he is right. God promises B if A doesn't happen. B starts to happen. Then A is beginning to happen too. Suddenly B doesn't happen.

God says A will happen and does not know 100% he is right or not. God promises B if A doesn't happen. B starts to happen. Then A is beginning to happen too. Suddenly B doesn't happen.

First view yours. It is clear to see that God wouldn't lie in such a way, that is why his future foreknowledge is unfounded. God never lead the Israelites on to fight battles he knew they wouldn't win knowing all along the goal was unattainable.

Lee, you presented a prophecy that again went unfulfilled in the exact way it was written, you use it as proof for God speaking "earthly talk" and still don't see the underlining lie it would imply on God.

Deut 4
4 “Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 6 Therefore understand that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stiff-necked people.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=9&version=50&context=chapter

Deut 4 is full of places talking about how Moses prayed to God to change his mind in order that the above might come to pass. I linked to it above so you could read how close God was to destroying them. God changes his mind often in the Bible, and he is able to do that because he does not possess 100% foreknowledge.

 

[patman]

Rob

Rob

And spirit is born of spirit; flesh of flesh.

John3

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

And I think you should consider the act as being "good" as God commanded them not to, there by making the act "bad."

The act would have been Good when God said it was.

The act was not evil in itself. So to say God would sin by designing Adam to eat the fruit would be untrue. Designing Adam to eat of the tree is not wrong in and of itself.

"Can someone sin without the knowledge of good and evil? Yes or No, please."

Sorry, I cannot answer with yes or no.

A sin is a sin when someone knowingly does wrong. Adam could have lied to Eve in the garden before he ate of the tree and not known it was wrong without the knowledge of evil, and it would have not been counted to him as sin.

Before they ate the tree, there was only one sin they could have counted against them, that was eating of the tree.

Rob, again you are having a problem identifying good and evil. You call evil good. If you were a alive 100 years before Christ were born, and were living in Israel as a Jew, would you tell someone "eating a pig isn't wrong?"

After all the act in and of itself isn't wrong.... But God strictly told the people not to do it. If you saw someone eating bacon, would you say he wasn't doing evil? I mean we can clearly eat pork and survive. Heck, it might have some nutrients in it, some necessary ones.

Yeah, you could probably get those nutrients another way, but eating Pork is one way too. So because something "necessary" would happen, would you encourage it, or say it wasn't a "bad" thing to do, but "necessary?"

Don't you think God has reasons for his commands?

If it were indeed "necessary" to eat the tree, and he told them "do not eat the tree" would he not have had a way to make the "necessary" happen that didn't involve sinning?

Say Adam never ate of the tree. Would it not be possible for God to say "You have obeyed me, now eat of the tree if you wish," and allow the necessary to happen without the need for sin?

Our present need for Grace saves us from our sin. But don't you think God would rather have us not sinning? And you say we were designed to sin that we might find Grace. That is pretty circular logic, there.

God creates us sinless but designs us to sin that we might find grace and become sinless again.

Not only that, but 90% of us aren't going to find grace at all, but be condemned.

And not only that, but God foresaw it. He is powerful enough to create anything, and foresaw this particular path then designed man such that he take it from the get go. Man was designed to sin, he had no freewill to truly choose sin or not.

Any path man would take would stem from this initial creation that God designed. If God created Adam not to sin, he would have not had freewill, if he created man to sin, he would have not had freewill, and either way God foresaw the outcome at creation.

I do not see how you separate predestination from 100% foreknowledge.

The kicker is that if God desires us to be sin-free he could have designed us that way just as easily as he designed us to sin. Neither way makes us free tho. And you say God designed us to sin....

Rob, Even if God threw a life boat, he knew he would save 10 and kill 100 after he tipped the boat over. Or let's put it this way. God designed the boat to sink, but put 100 lifesavers on the boat. Then he puts all those people on the boat, and as designed, it sinks.

Some thought they could swim, some didn't think the lifesavers wold fit, some just didn't want to live. So 90 People died. God foresaw this, but it isn't his fault they drowned, even though he designed the boat to sink causing the absolute need for a lifesaver no matter what. After all, they had a chance to float.

God forbid anyone ever uses that logic in the care of those you love.

The Babysitter says "I know I got high and wasn't able to help your kids when the house caught on fire, but they had legs, I knew they could make it out if they wanted to."

The Doctor says "I know I didn't tell you this drug could cause seizures before I told you to take it, but I thought, 'he has eyes, he can read the side-effects for himself.'"

You just can't justify anyone like that. If someone puts someone in danger on purpose they cannot justify his or herself by reasoning the danger could go either way if the person does this or that to save his or her life.

 

[bling]

I may need to explain my understanding of man’s objective for this world. If you have reason why I am missing understanding something here please help me.
There are a lot of things we are to, should be, auto be, must be, doing. If I read scripture I can say the Bible tells us to believe, confess, hear, accept Christ as our savior, pray with out ceasing, be baptized, fellowship Christ and/ or the Spirit, fellowship other Christians, worship, study, glorify God, meditate, serve others, love others and a lot other stuff. Now you can take any one of these, since scripture tell us we are to be doing them and make a case for that being our objective. So how do we decide which is the Mission statements (objectives of an organization, family, government, or corporation)? To be a will written mission statement it should cover three requirements:
1. The statement should include all the required to fulfill the desires of the organization.
2. The statement should exclude all activities that are not desired by the organization.
3. The statement should provide direction and/ or how the desired out come will be accomplished.
We know from scripture what God is asking of us, so we need a mission statement (objective) that encompass all those desires and all that is not desired.
Possible objectives:
1. Love you neighbor as yourself. All the law is covered in this, but there are good non Christians seemingly loving (some type of love to some extent) there neighbors in the world. What ever they are doing it is not out of their love for God.
2. Glorify God, is great and would probably cover all that we should do and keep us from doing what we should not do, but it doesn’t give much direction, for the stars bring glory to God, so why would our simple existence be glory enough?
1. Relationship or even fellowship between man and God is certainly what God wants, but could someone go off with their bible as a hermit and stay away from people and be in fellowship with God? Fellowship with God in the O.T. revolved around a feast/ resting/ party time/ being together away from your enemy or having to serve others. How does fellowship with God require serving others? Is fellowship not best out of this world away from sinners/ in a Garden type situation at least?

The advantages of using “loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy” as the mission statement (objective) are as follows:
1. To love God is to keep all His commandments.
2. To disobey any commandment is to not love God.
3. The objective is given as a command that requires all making it above all other commands.
4. Loving God should be our motivation for doing everything.
5. The Jews seemed to realize the command as the greatest and over riding direction for them and Christ supports that idea with His answer and statements.
6. Godly love, loving your neighbor, and keeping commands is talked about and show with examples extensively in the scripture. We should know how to do this in our earthly situation.
When we compare and contrast an objective of fellowship with Godly love, we see the following:
1. Godly love and everything that goes along with Godly love is taught in example and word throughout all the sections of scripture while Fellowship is of Christ or the indwelling Spirit or fellow Christians, all New Testament concepts and is rarely addressed. How would the Jew’s under the old law see that as their objective as fellowship?
2. Loving God is needed to keep any command and not loving God will cause you not to keep the commands, while fellowship is not talked about in relationship to the commands and is in David’s case destroying his enemies and avoiding loneliness.
3. Loving God is contrasted with loving self (coveting, lusting, selfishness and worshipping idles) the biggest issue man has, while not being in fellowshipping God is contrasted with loneliness, distress, and being needy.
4. Loving God gives direction to everything a person should do (keeping the commandments fighting the battle), while fellowshipping with God suggest going off to pray, having a feast in His honor, resting with God. The fellowship of Christ’s suffering is mentioned, but I do not see that as an over all objective (a requirement every time), just one of many things we could and can be doing.
5. Love can compel you to do good stuff as it did Paul, while fellowshipping God is not presented as a driving force, it did not seem to do a lot for Adam and Eve. You might also think of fellowshipping God in heaven, a place of rest.
6. Loving God should cause us to love our enemies, while wanting to fellowship more with God seems like we would want to avoid our enemies.
7. There are different degrees of love, it can grow to almost endless levels and they can be compared easily. How do you measure fellowship levels. Would it not be expected that the priest in the story of the Good Samaritan would be perceived as having a greater fellowship with God then the Samaritan prior to the Jerusalem road experience and maybe even after. If, we could have interviewed the two before that day on the road, we could have realized the Samaritan had a great motivating love for God that would cause him to help, yet not being a Jew and doing the fellowship feast and other religious requirements we could easily think the Samaritan was not fellowshipping God as much as the Priest.
Looking at Adam and Eve, can we determine their objective? Adam was asked to do very few things. Naming the animals was more a huge privilege the a chore, plus it was needed to show Adam how much he needed Eve and how nothing could replace her. God would have given Adam a lot of information about the animals so Adam could do a good job (this may have included being able to communicate with them). God being the source of Adam’s information could easily mean Adam knew more then we will ever know about animals. Adam was to tend the Garden, but again this was a wonderful hobby if there are no weeds, disease, or pests. God would have provided information for Adam to be a fantastic gardener which would only add to the enjoyment. Adam was to keep a commandment the way God wanted it kept and under the conditions God would provide. God would realize the only way to obey a command is by loving Him. Adam would have been instructed how he was to keep this command which would have included loving God. Adam and Eve disobey of the command shows a lack of love for God and nothing more (if they had loved God the way God wanted them to love Him they would have obeyed). There is nothing to suggest Adam and Eve lacked fellowship with God, so if that was their objective then sinned in spite of completing their objective. While if Love is the objective, then they have not fulfilled their objective and thus sinned.

 

[RobE]

"Can someone sin without the knowledge of good and evil? Yes or No, please."

Sorry, I cannot answer with yes or no.

A sin is a sin when someone knowingly(knowledge) does wrong(evil). Adam could have lied to Eve in the garden before he ate of the tree and not known it was wrong without the knowledge of evil, and it would have not been counted to him as sin.

Yet you did answer with a yes in your next statement.

Before they ate the tree, there was only one sin they could have counted against them, that was eating of the tree.

Rob, again you are having a problem identifying good and evil. You call evil good. If you were a alive 100 years before Christ were born, and were living in Israel as a Jew, would you tell someone "eating a pig isn't wrong?"

Was eating of the tree evil? You and I agree the answer is no.

So if God desired them to eat of the tree then why would that be an evil desire? If God said 'don't eat of the tree' then He created a law which ultimately changed a neutral act to a sinful act; then, why didn't He just not make the law to be broken? Why didn't He put the tree elsewhere? Why didn't He put Lucifer elsewhere? Or Adam elsewhere?

I have said that I believe that Adam and Eve would have been allowed to eat of the tree of knowledge.

This begs the questions of:

(1)Why would God want man to have the knowledge of good and evil?
(2)Why would God forbid man to eat of the tree if He wanted them to have this knowledge?

Open Theology doesn't have an adequate explanation for this since it just happened by accident. If it happened on purpose then you say it's evil. I say it's good because.....

John3

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

.....without fleshly death, you can't be born again. Without the fall NONE would have eternal life. This is why it's a good thing.

Can animals sin, Patrick?

If no, then why not?

Alive in Christ,

Rob

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

I may need to explain my understanding of man’s objective for this world. If you have reason why I am missing understanding something here please help me.
There are a lot of things we are to, should be, auto be, must be, doing. If I read scripture I can say the Bible tells us to believe, confess, hear, accept Christ as our savior, pray with out ceasing, be baptized, fellowship Christ and/ or the Spirit, fellowship other Christians, worship, study, glorify God, meditate, serve others, love others and a lot other stuff. Now you can take any one of these, since scripture tell us we are to be doing them and make a case for that being our objective. So how do we decide which is the Mission statements (objectives of an organization, family, government, or corporation)? To be a will written mission statement it should cover three requirements:
1. The statement should include all the required to fulfill the desires of the organization.
2. The statement should exclude all activities that are not desired by the organization.
3. The statement should provide direction and/ or how the desired out come will be accomplished.
We know from scripture what God is asking of us, so we need a mission statement (objective) that encompass all those desires and all that is not desired.
Possible objectives:
1. Love you neighbor as yourself. All the law is covered in this, but there are good non Christians seemingly loving (some type of love to some extent) there neighbors in the world. What ever they are doing it is not out of their love for God.
2. Glorify God, is great and would probably cover all that we should do and keep us from doing what we should not do, but it doesn’t give much direction, for the stars bring glory to God, so why would our simple existence be glory enough?
1. Relationship or even fellowship between man and God is certainly what God wants, but could someone go off with their bible as a hermit and stay away from people and be in fellowship with God? Fellowship with God in the O.T. revolved around a feast/ resting/ party time/ being together away from your enemy or having to serve others. How does fellowship with God require serving others? Is fellowship not best out of this world away from sinners/ in a Garden type situation at least?

The advantages of using “loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy” as the mission statement (objective) are as follows:
1. To love God is to keep all His commandments.
2. To disobey any commandment is to not love God.
3. The objective is given as a command that requires all making it above all other commands.
4. Loving God should be our motivation for doing everything.
5. The Jews seemed to realize the command as the greatest and over riding direction for them and Christ supports that idea with His answer and statements.
6. Godly love, loving your neighbor, and keeping commands is talked about and show with examples extensively in the scripture. We should know how to do this in our earthly situation.
When we compare and contrast an objective of fellowship with Godly love, we see the following:
1. Godly love and everything that goes along with Godly love is taught in example and word throughout all the sections of scripture while Fellowship is of Christ or the indwelling Spirit or fellow Christians, all New Testament concepts and is rarely addressed. How would the Jew’s under the old law see that as their objective as fellowship?
2. Loving God is needed to keep any command and not loving God will cause you not to keep the commands, while fellowship is not talked about in relationship to the commands and is in David’s case destroying his enemies and avoiding loneliness.
3. Loving God is contrasted with loving self (coveting, lusting, selfishness and worshipping idles) the biggest issue man has, while not being in fellowshipping God is contrasted with loneliness, distress, and being needy.
4. Loving God gives direction to everything a person should do (keeping the commandments fighting the battle), while fellowshipping with God suggest going off to pray, having a feast in His honor, resting with God. The fellowship of Christ’s suffering is mentioned, but I do not see that as an over all objective (a requirement every time), just one of many things we could and can be doing.
5. Love can compel you to do good stuff as it did Paul, while fellowshipping God is not presented as a driving force, it did not seem to do a lot for Adam and Eve. You might also think of fellowshipping God in heaven, a place of rest.
6. Loving God should cause us to love our enemies, while wanting to fellowship more with God seems like we would want to avoid our enemies.
7. There are different degrees of love, it can grow to almost endless levels and they can be compared easily. How do you measure fellowship levels. Would it not be expected that the priest in the story of the Good Samaritan would be perceived as having a greater fellowship with God then the Samaritan prior to the Jerusalem road experience and maybe even after. If, we could have interviewed the two before that day on the road, we could have realized the Samaritan had a great motivating love for God that would cause him to help, yet not being a Jew and doing the fellowship feast and other religious requirements we could easily think the Samaritan was not fellowshipping God as much as the Priest.
Looking at Adam and Eve, can we determine their objective? Adam was asked to do very few things. Naming the animals was more a huge privilege the a chore, plus it was needed to show Adam how much he needed Eve and how nothing could replace her. God would have given Adam a lot of information about the animals so Adam could do a good job (this may have included being able to communicate with them). God being the source of Adam’s information could easily mean Adam knew more then we will ever know about animals. Adam was to tend the Garden, but again this was a wonderful hobby if there are no weeds, disease, or pests. God would have provided information for Adam to be a fantastic gardener which would only add to the enjoyment. Adam was to keep a commandment the way God wanted it kept and under the conditions God would provide. God would realize the only way to obey a command is by loving Him. Adam would have been instructed how he was to keep this command which would have included loving God. Adam and Eve disobey of the command shows a lack of love for God and nothing more (if they had loved God the way God wanted them to love Him they would have obeyed). There is nothing to suggest Adam and Eve lacked fellowship with God, so if that was their objective then sinned in spite of completing their objective. While if Love is the objective, then they have not fulfilled their objective and thus sinned.

Thanks Bling.

Fellowship with God is impossible for sinners. To fellowship with Him, you need to be spotless and clean. To do this, you must love him. It is the greatest command to love him with all you are. The only way a sinner can love God is through forgiveness by Grace.

Fellowship and love go hand in hand. But you cannot separate love from fellowship, however you can separate fellowship from love.

You can love someone and never know him or hang out with him, requiring no fellowship at all. But you can't fellowship with someone and not love him.

Relationship describes fellowship. But from now on I will use "fellowship" instead of "relationship". Relationships come in many shapes and forms, to describe the type of relationship God want's from us, you must insert the adjective "loving" before the word "relationship" to explain it correctly. The word "fellowship" covers it all in one word.

So what is greater? Love alone, or love within a fellowship? The answer is obviously fellowship. For to say you have fellowship with the Lord, you are also saying you are following his commands and without sin, loving him and talking with him.

The love you describe is absolutely impossible without fellowship! How can you constantly pray if fellowship is not desired?

Look at what you said and tell me how fellowship is not required nor the ultimate desire for God to us

Bling said, "If I read scripture I can say the Bible tells us to believe, confess, hear, accept Christ as our savior, pray with out ceasing, be baptized, fellowship Christ and/ or the Spirit, fellowship other Christians, worship, study, glorify God, meditate, serve others, love others and a lot other stuff."

Love makes it all possible, fellowship makes it all worth it. This is why God desires fellowship with us, among many other things. By desireing fellowship, he is desiring we obey him, love him, talk to him, and reject evil, among others. We sinners can only do that through the Blood of Christ in faith, for God cannot fellowship with a sinner. But it all comes to the same place, being in fellowship with God, and in that loving him. They go together.

Love is a part of the greater objective.

 

[patman]

Rob, I don't understand how I am loosing you in my replies. This is one of the worst times that you completly misunderstood me.

Yet you did answer with a yes in your next statement.

How? I see nothing to suggest that.

Was eating of the tree evil? You and I agree the answer is no.

No. The answer was yes. The only way the answer would have been "no" would have been if God said so.

So if God desired them to eat of the tree then why would that be an evil desire? If God said 'don't eat of the tree' then He created a law which ultimately changed a neutral act to a sinful act; then, why didn't He just not make the law to be broken? Why didn't He put the tree elsewhere? Why didn't He put Lucifer elsewhere? Or Adam elsewhere?

The evil is achieved by going against God's command. If God says not to do something, no matter what it is (petting Dogs, smelling flowers, eating snow) and you do it anyway, you did evil. The results of eating the tree when Adam did obviously was a bad thing, as we are covered in sin to our necks, if not our own sins, others too.

Therefore, eating of the tree when Adam ate of the tree was an evil act.

God was testing man, to see if he would love him or not. He was giving him a way out from fellowship with him, and he was being loving by not forcing man to live under God's rule if he didn't want to. I.E. letting man have his freedom to love God back.

Again, something only possible without 100% foreknowledge.

This begs the questions of:

(1)Why would God want man to have the knowledge of good and evil?
(2)Why would God forbid man to eat of the tree if He wanted them to have this knowledge?

2. Timing. I believe that as man populated the earth, the tree would be needed, but only for those who were ready for it.
1. see 2.

Open Theology doesn't have an adequate explanation for this since it just happened by accident. If it happened on purpose then you say it's evil. I say it's good because.....

John3

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

.....without fleshly death, you can't be born again. Without the fall NONE would have eternal life. This is why it's a good thing.

It is a bad thing because it resulted in death. That is like calling Israel's continuos rejection of God a good thing because without it we can't see God's judgement. I, personally, agree with God, that evil is evil, no matter what good is seen in it.

Eternal life comes from being sinless. Being sinless means loving God. The only reason we need to be reborn is because we sinned. Had we not sinned, what's the point?

Can animals sin, Patrick?

If no, then why not?

Alive in Christ,

Rob

Can animal's be risen from the dead? I guess that's what you are taking that point to?

Again, it is not sin that separates us from animals, it is our spirits, the breath of life. It is our spirits that are eternal, not our bodies.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
Fellowship and love go hand in hand. But you cannot separate love from fellowship, however you can separate fellowship from love.

You can love someone and never know him or hang out with him, requiring no fellowship at all. But you can't fellowship with someone and not love him.

I am only talking about Godly love which requires loving God. You can not love God with everything you have and not know God, if you did love God and not know God then you’re not using all your mind to love Him and I don’t understand loving anything with all your heart, soul, mind and energy without knowing what it was you are loving. That seems to be at least part of that “all”.

Originally Posted by Patman
So what is greater? Love alone, or love within a fellowship? The answer is obviously fellowship. For to say you have fellowship with the Lord, you are also saying you are following his commands and without sin, loving him and talking with him.

The scripture says, “if we love Him we will obey Him” and does not say, “if we fellowship Him we will obey Him”. If fellowshipping God is part of our obedience to God then of course we will have to fellowship God, but we will have to serve others, bring glory to God, have faith, pray, sing, be baptized, confess, repent, and everything else that is commanded of us or we are not loving God. Love can not be separated from any other command, because it is the motivation and not the other way around. All the Jews that ate the Fellowship feast thought they were fellowshipping God, Christians that come together on Sunday think they are fellowshipping God, and Monks that go off to monasteries thing they are fellowshipping God. Where does it say to fellowship the Lord is to follow His commands and be without sin? Did Satan and Satan’s followers fellowship God just prior to their fall and/or did they love God just prior? At what moment did Adam and Eve stop fellowshipping God and at what moment did they stop Godly loving God? Can a small child before sinning fellowship God without really having a Godly love (the love I have been addressing) for God?

Originally Posted by Patman
The love you describe is absolutely impossible without fellowship! How can you constantly pray if fellowship is not desired?

The love I am describing is the love God has commanded us to have and you are right it is extremely great and will require a multitude of stuff, but it can start out small and grow to perfection. If you are a sinner today you will have to open your heart to the truth, believe, confess your sins, repent, be baptized, pray, meditate, love God and then go on keeping His commands. If Adam and Eve loved God the way God wanted them to love Him (with a Godly love) they would have kept His commands. Adam and Eve were in fellowship with God in the Garden and did break His command, so since fellowship does not say, “it keeps you from disobeying God” and did not keep Adam and Eve from disobeying God, it can not be the objective.

Originally Posted by Patman
Look at what you said and tell me how fellowship is not required nor the ultimate desire for God to us

Bling said, "If I read scripture I can say the Bible tells us to believe, confess, hear, accept Christ as our savior, pray with out ceasing, be baptized, fellowship Christ and/ or the Spirit, fellowship other Christians, worship, study, glorify God, meditate, serve others, love others and a lot other stuff."

Love makes it all possible, fellowship makes it all worth it. This is why God desires fellowship with us, among many other things. By desireing fellowship, he is desiring we obey him, love him, talk to him, and reject evil, among others. We sinners can only do that through the Blood of Christ in faith, for God cannot fellowship with a sinner. But it all comes to the same place, being in fellowship with God, and in that loving him. They go together.

Love is a part of the greater objective.

1. When the gospel message is presented by you, in scripture, or by others the Love of God is pitched and how our hearts should be toughed to change, put faith in, and obey. Love is talked about extensively. The fellowship with God might be a small part of what is said.
2. Where does it say fellowship makes it all worth it? It talks about eternal life in heaven making it worth it, the love of Christ compelling us, being loved by God being worth everything, and command to love God. Love being the greatest.
3. God was fellowshipping Adam and Eve in the Garden, sin broke off that fellowship, but prior to the fellowship being broken off, Adam and Eve lacked the proper love to keep from sinning, so love must be greater then fellowship, or am I missing something?
4. By our loving God and God loving us, we both desire fellowship, not visa versa. Desiring Fellowship is not given as the big motivating force or the driving force in scripture, while love is.
5. If fellowship was the objective it would be given precisely as that in a mission type statement from God, but it is not given like love of God.
6. Fellowshipping God is what we will do extensively in heaven and probably in know closer way, yet Paul’s Godly love was justifiably the reason he used for wanting to stay on earth and help the Christians. That suggest to me that we might give up some very close fellowship with God and allow the love of God to compel us to do other good stuff for others. Not that God really leaves us.
7. Fellowship is a part of love. Love encompasses everything good and excludes everything that is bad. Fellowship as described in the scripture does not describe a deep every sensation you have and all that you can control type of relationship, but that is the description given for Godly love.
8. I would say a Baby is born in fellowship with God, sin has not separated the child from God, and yet the objective is a goal for the future, a race that you can chose to take that can grow with every stride, and the prize. If fellowship was the goal then it is something you are in and out of with every sin and every forgiveness. We can not return to being ignorant of sin, any more then we can return to a world of the Garden and have fellowship like Adam and Eve.
9. If I am in fellowship with God what does the Bible suggest I should do to deepen that relationship that is not defined as deepening our love?
Besides not finding scripture to support the idea that fellowship is the objective over love, it does not address the situation with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were in fellowship with God, but were not meeting the desired objective of a Godly love for God. Without developing that Godly love they were destine to disobey God and fellowship in the Garden situation did not resolve all the problems with developing Godly love.

 

[RobE]

Reply to Patman

Reply to Patman

Rob, I don't understand how I am loosing you in my replies. This is one of the worst times that you completly misunderstood me.

Originally Posted by patman

"Can someone sin without the knowledge of good and evil? Yes or No, please."

Sorry, I cannot answer with yes or no.

A sin is a sin when someone knowingly(knowledge) does wrong(evil).

Originally Posted by RobE

Yet you did answer with a yes in your next statement.

How? I see nothing to suggest that.

Originally Posted by RobE

Was eating of the tree evil? You and I agree the answer is no.

No. The answer was yes. The only way the answer would have been "no" would have been if God said so.

The evil is achieved by going against God's command. If God says not to do something, no matter what it is (petting Dogs, smelling flowers, eating snow) and you do it anyway, you did evil. The results of eating the tree when Adam did obviously was a bad thing, as we are covered in sin to our necks, if not our own sins, others too.

Therefore, eating of the tree when Adam ate of the tree was an evil act.

Yet we agree that it wasn't evil to eat of the Tree only to disobey God. This being true then God designing a situation for man to eat of the tree(which was not an evil act) does not mean God participated in evil. Did God set Adam up? If so, for what? If not, then did God just have bad luck in a situation gone bad?

God was testing man, to see if he would love him or not. He was giving him a way out from fellowship with him, and he was being loving by not forcing man to live under God's rule if he didn't want to. I.E. letting man have his freedom to love God back.

Could this be a valid test without the knowledge of good and evil? Can you be held accountable for doing an evil deed you didn't know was evil? Think about a 1 year old before you answer this question.

Originally Posted by RobE

This begs the questions of:

(1)Why would God want man to have the knowledge of good and evil?
(2)Why would God forbid man to eat of the tree if He wanted them to have this knowledge?

2. Timing. I believe that as man populated the earth, the tree would be needed, but only for those who were ready for it.
1. see 2.

How could they be ready for it if they don't have an understanding of good and evil? Don't you see that it is exactly that understanding that makes righteousness and unrighteousness?

Originally Posted by RobE

Open Theology doesn't have an adequate explanation for this since it just happened by accident. If it happened on purpose then you say it's evil. I say it's good because.....

John3

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."​

.....without fleshly death, you can't be born again. Without the fall NONE would have eternal life. This is why it's a good thing.

It is a bad thing because it resulted in death.

Yet the scripture plainly says that Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Unless a man dies to himself; he'll never inherit the kingdom of God. How would Adam not eating of the tree given Adam the opportunity to be 'born again' into a spiritual life? He wouldn't have been any different than a cat; with no accountability whatsoever.

Eternal life comes from being sinless. Being sinless means loving God. The only reason we need to be reborn is because we sinned.

What man is sinless? You? Me? Loving God does not mean being sinless. The only reason we sinned is because of the Law. God created the law which gave man the opportunity to sin. Why? To choose God and be 'born again' in the spirit.

Again, it is not sin that separates us from animals, it is our spirits, the breath of life. It is our spirits that are eternal, not our bodies.

What happened to your Adam would live forever theory?

How do you think life was put into the 'bags of dirt' we call animals by God? If our bodies are not eternal then why; according to you, would we need the Tree of Life? Do you see where the logic begins to bend and break here? Adam(the branch) could not be spiritually alive in Him(the vine) until he sinned, died, and was born again(in spirit). Do you see this or am I wasting my time? Again, flesh begets flesh, Spirit begets spirit---not my words, HIS.

Yours,

Rob

 

[RobE]

I wanted to enter a quick reply in this thread for Patrick. Let me try to simplify my argument for you and save us some time.

Let us say that God made man so when man sinned he would cease to exist.

How many people would be alive today?

In an eternity how many would survive?

If your answer is greater than zero--you're wrong.

The only way is Jesus Christ. God was smart enough to know this. His plan. Our hope.

Your friend,

Rob

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
If God is powerful, and he can love in such a way without sinning, he is still yet powerful enough to give us the same ability.

God is a totally different situation, we in no way can compare to a Being that was always Godly loving and never was created. We are created beings, God is trying to make like Himself in love, which will as we know result in some failures. This type of love requires free will, real choices, understanding, commitment, sacrifice, selflessness, and a lot of other stuff. God is willing to give virtually everything (including His own son on the cross) for us to love Him, that love is ours if we accept it. That does not mean God can force that love on us or even give it to us if we are not wanting and willing to accept it.

Originally Posted by Patman
Love is written in our hearts, before the law was. It is something we just know, and have the ability to do.

I think the command to love was always with us and we have natural love like other animals, but Godly love requires as just a part of that love a decision to love. We can also talk about God loving us and writing His commands on our hearts, but that is an expression of love and not love itself.

Originally Posted by Patman
Are we really able to do this without grace? And I think the answer is no. We can't love God when we are sinners, because a sinner is separated from God. But we are not talking about our situation, we are really talking about Adam's.

OK

Originally Posted by Patman
Adam lived for who knows how long without sinning. During that time, there was nothing separating him from God, no sin to speak of. Adam, the ideal form of man, did not require grace to love God, as he wasn't a sinner yet, and HE had the ability to love God.

The same would have been true of any of us had Adam never sinned, and had we not sinned. We would be able to love God fully, just like the angels do, who have no sin.

The reality is Adam had fellowship with God, but from the fact Adam sinned, we know Adam did not have Godly love for God. Now, you say Adam could have developed Godly love, because Adam did not sin, but we do not know that and it did not happen. The examples of humans developing Godly love have all been with sin.
As far as angels not sinning, we do not know anything about the stages angels went through, how many beings started out with the potential to become angels. Angels do not have sex, are not mortals, are not being continuously tempted by satan, are spiritual beings, may have no limited resources and has a total different relationship with God.

Originally Posted by Patman
BUT Adam did bring sin on us. Thanks pal. And now we need grace. But because that is true doesn't mean we were created to be this way. I say that if we want to see how God desired us to be, look to the Garden, and how he made us.

“Thanks pal”????
There are a lot of nice things Adam and Eve had in the Garden, but as I have said before there are a lot of great things we have outside the Garden. Would you prefer your eternal close fellowship with God was dependent on your personal ability to fight off Satan and keep from sinning or would you rather rely on Christ’s goodness and love? Has any individual ever been able to fight off Satan on their own?
If I look to the Garden to see how God desires us to be I see two failures. I also see the Garden as an impossible place to fulfill the objective of developing Godly love and not fitting all the examples of Godly loving people I find in the rest of the scripture. I do look to the Garden to see were God desires those that have fulfilled their objective to be without Satan or the tree.

Originally Posted by Patman
He made us without sin. He made us understanding love. He made us knowing him, understanding who he was. That is what God wants, to name a few. How do we achieve that as sinners? We require Grace, through Christ Jesus.

If you just had an extended story of the Garden (more details) and compared it to the stories in the rest of the Bible that include a sinful world, which would give you the better understanding of Godly love? If you had from birth been planted in the Garden with Adam and Eve as your parents would you have a greater understanding of Godly love, then the missionary’s son that witness his parents and their brothers in Christ being persecuted, some dying, but all being very Christ like with the exceptions of some failures along the way, but a quick recovery and witnessing that repentance. Or better yet being Peter’s son and being with him through the ups and downs.

Originally Posted by Patman
Like I said before, you can love someone and not have a relationship with him. I believe loving someone is all the better when a relationship is present, be it great or small.

This goes back to how we define love, I very much agree, you can Love someone you do not know like the Good Samaritan, but the only way a Samaritan could possible show that type of love to a Jew is if that Samaritan had an exceptional love for God. That Samaritan knew God and His love more then the priest or the Levi. I think that is one of the things Jesus was trying to get across in the parable. Loving your neighbor (which can be your enemy) the way Christ is talking about requires an extreme love for God or you can not do it.
If fellowship is required we can not expect all people and especially our enemies to want to fellowship with us, but we can love all of them.

Originally Posted by Patman
All have sinned, and all accountable people will sin. But this is because of the law we have on our heart, that we are clearly not ready to have.

If it is the law’s fault I think you need to talk to Paul. The problem of sin has been solved with Christ going to the cross for our past sins and the indwelling Spirit for any future possible sins, so what is the problem. The only problem is if you want to go though life to maturity without sinning, which is not possible.
If we are not ready, why is God putting it to us or who do we blame?

Originally Posted by Patman
The question is is allowing sin also designing us to sin? I say no. God did not intend for any of us to be sinners. That is another thing he desires, obedience, not sacrifice.

We are designed with the ability to develop Godly love, now if that ability requires free will with real choices and an in-depth understanding of Godly love, contrasting Satan, the hatred of sin, Christ sacrifice, God love for us, and our personal needs for help, then it might require us actually sinning at least one time after we reach maturity. God is not intentionally making us sin, but He does realize the difficulty in developing Godly love and should realize we will sin in the process. Sin is still our personal fault today, even though God knows we will sin and it was Adam and Eve’s personal fault back then.

As far as obedience over sacrifice, I do not see that applying.

Originally Posted by Patman
Basically, I say Adam could have resisted sin forever. He didn't, so you take that as part of the big plan. I say no, the plan didn't depend on Adam. It depended on any sinner, no matter who sinned, to be allowed a way out of sin.

The plan works fantastically for everyone that accepts it, so why is it so bad for Adam to be a part of the plan?

Originally Posted by Patman
The only thing that matters of Angels is that the ones who are in heaven didn't fall, i.e. sin. If God created them with the ability to love him and resist sin, why not us too?

We do not know if at some earlier stage in the development of angel, they could have sinned which God forgave and forgot. In angels present state some have sinned and some have not sinned. When we get to heaven we will be like the angels.

Originally Posted by Patman
Again, it is the greatest commandment. It is really a "no duh" answer since one of those commands is to love him. If you follow all commands you are following that one too.

If you do all the other commands and have not love it is worth nothing, that is not what is said about fellowship. 1 Cor. 13.

Originally Posted by Patman
So if you don't love God, you won't follow his commands. Point with Adam, he didn't love God, he rejected God, and didn't follow the one command he had.

It does not say Adam and Eve rejected God, but you can say they did not love God with Godly love.

Originally Posted by Patman
God wants us to be like the son who stayed with him. The reason the younger son was taken back is because he returned, thus becoming like his brother.

Even though the younger son experienced a different love from his father and will return more love, the love of the older son is still worth something.

The older son loves his father in that he would never leave him. The younger son loves his father in that he doesn't deserve it and got it anyway. Both are love, and desired by the father.

You have given me a totally different concept on this parable that I have never heard. I must say I took the obvious understanding, so I have been thinking about this one. I do go under the assumption there is only one correct interpretation of Christ’s parables. I also know that we can know that interpretation if we pray for wisdom, really have a life changing need to know, put forth a true desire/ effort, and will not miss use it. That also means an academic study may not get us the right answer. I can give you what others have said, but that is others.
I have used this scripture when working with people caught up in sin and just not believing God will take them back. I have cried over this scripture many times.
To the lesson, Jesus in all His parables is speaking to the people present, which often are His disciples, Jews, people needing healing, sinners of all types, poor people and Pharisees trying to catch Him in a fault. There are all about the kingdom and the way things are or should be or will be. This parable has been interpreted to mean the lost son is the gentiles and the older son is the Pharisees. This would be like the Pharisee and the sinner praying in the temple parable, the lost sheep parable, and a lot of others. I do not think it was meant to be limited to Pharisees and sinners contrast.
You say, “The older son loves his father in that he would never leave him.” I have the following problems with that:
1. First off, the Bible does not say the son “loved his father any”.
2. The son gives his attitude toward his father by saying, “I've been slaving for you”, that is not the attitude of someone loving his father.
3. Can the person being loved be unsuccessfully plead with someone who is suppose to be loving them and wanting to please them, “his father went out and pleaded with him.”?
4. This father does not seem to be one to give blind orders or ask to have things done that do not need doing for the sac of all, yet the older son describes these loving request as orders, “never disobeyed your orders”.
5. This father tell the son everything is for him, the father has really been serving the son not the other way around, “everything I have is yours.”
6. The father owes the older son nothing yet the older son says (sounding hateful), “Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.”
7. The older son is not in tune with the father in what you would consider a close loving fellowship, to be in fellowship with someone you have to be like the other person, the older son does not join with the father in this joeys time, “we had to celebrate and be glad,” the father is glad about this so the older son has to be glad or he is very different then the Father.
8. The older son does not seem to be doing what he is doing out of love for the father, but as a duty or performing his obligation. We have many religious groups in this would that are doing things out of duty, the obligation, to get something in the end or to move up, or because they are lazy and don’t want to think about it.
9. As part of our love for God we are to love what He loves, the older son did not have a Godly type love for his father or he would have had a love for his brother.
I feel one of the things taught with this parable is the contrast in the love the younger brother showed for the father and the older brother showed for the father. The Father shows disappointment with the older son and approval for the younger son’s behavior/ results. We do not want to be like the older son in his love for the father, everything else might be alright, while we do want to develop a love like the younger son wound up with for the father.

Originally Posted by Patman
It is our world, bling. But this is why I am confused by you. God created us knowing we would sin and did it anyway. So you say the sin must have a point, and that somehow makes it OK that God created us.

God continues to create people that will sin, so what is the difference. We are not creating life on our own, are we? It really depends on what the objective is. We seem to agree that Godly love for God that causes you to obey every command each time, every time, all the time is not that light and easy. We agree that we are commanded to have this type of all consuming love for God and love our neighbor as Christ loves us. Love and following commands is talked about extensively in scripture. Fellowship is great, but love seems to be the desired reason behind our fellowship, and we can only really fellowship God with assuredly while we can love everyone even our enemies. God is known as the God of love and not spoken of as the God of fellowship. Fellowship even with God is not said to keep you from sinning while loving God is. If fellowship is the objective there is no mission statement in scripture giving that as the objective. The scripture does not say, fellowship is the main thing God is wanting, while loving God is the greatest command. Where are there examples stating these good people fellowshipped with God, while it does talk about those that loved God. Fellowship does not equal love because we love our enemies but do not fellowship with them, and if Adam and Eve were in fellowship with God they were not doing it correctly, since they sinned.

Originally Posted by Patman
I say NO, God wouldn't knowingly create all this. Instead He created it with a different goal, and it turned out bad. But even though it turned out bad, he had a plan up his sleeve for this very situation, and that is Christ's sacrifice.

A different goal is pure speculation since scripture does not tell us of a different goal. We have what happened and if we were to learn from this other goal it would be explained. You do not have to explain anything if what happened and was recorded is what was expected to happen. Are you saying we are working with plan B, since plan A did not work? I see a lot of reasons for showing plan B as not good for achieving the objective and then implementing plan A that includes showing plan B. (Plan B being the Garden).

Originally Posted by Patman
The Goal did involve love. But love, again, does not require sin for humans to understand it. It is the one point that should make you completely reconsider everything you preach.

Everyone that has reached or will reach maturity has sinned. To show and experience the greatest of this love there has to be sin.

Originally Posted by Patman
So what if God doesn't want a relationship, So what if God want's agape love, It isn't relative, what is relative is that God created us and we turned out bad. These are all important, yes. But you should ask "Did he know we would turn out bad or not?" That's the underlining question that might lead you to the answer....

If he did know, why create us knowing he would be sorry he did later?

God did not create what has been created for those that have gone bad: Rm 8 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[j] who[k] have been called according to his purpose.
God is doing all this stuff for you to love Him.

Originally Posted by Patman
It should be obvious that God wouldn't create us being knee deep in sin if he knew about it before hand. That's why he didn't know, be cause he wouldn't.

We have lots of examples of people knee deep in their own sins and knee deep in the world’s sins and rising out of the mess to become lovers of God till the end and pleasing God like the prodigal son. We have only the example of how to live in a world surrounded with sin. This world is no surprise to me or God.