Forbidden fruit

Originally posted by yoctobyte

That may be true. But it is not me that creates the consequence of a burnt fingers for the action of sticking your hand in a flame. So the analogy is not appropriate.

Why wouldn't the analogy be appropriate. You are telling the kids ahead of time the consequence of putting fingers in the flame, they get burned. God did the same with A&E. ...[text shortened]... is not appropriate, I would be interested in your understanding of the concept being discussed.

your fire analogy misses the key point. god created the consequences of eating the fruit.

we did not create the consequences of touching fire.

the whole crux of the debate is that god could have chosen different consequences. just as we would choose different consequences for putting hands in fire.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
your fire analogy misses the key point. god created the consequences of eating the fruit.

we did not create the consequences of touching fire.

the whole crux of the debate is that god could have chosen different consequences. just as we would choose different consequences for putting hands in fire.

Let me make it even more clear for you.

On one side, there is life.
On the other side, there is death.

That was the issue.
It can't be broken down in any smaller, bite-sized pieces than that.
You wish to frame the situation in terms other than what it is... well, you would have a situation other than what it was!

This was a life-or-death situation, one which you wish to revise and supposedly improve into something OTHER than life-or-death.
If it wasn't a matter of life-or-death, God would have framed it differently than what He did!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]god had no reason to make the result of eating the fruit death, other than his desire to punish.
No, it was because He had money on the Broncos winning the Super Bowl.
Now, if you can reconcile my statement with yours, you'll do just fine in reconciling your statement with reality... you know: it's that thing you continue ignoring or avoiding when ...[text shortened]... call that a pointless charade by any stretch of the imagination.

what plan?
Exactly.[/b]

God is life.
Outside of God, there is no life.
You come up with a better scenario which better illustrates these realities and we will all vote you as His replacement.
[hint: Satan's been trying an awful long time to do just that thing, thus far failing miserably. Good luck and Godspeed!]

There are lives that are not God. God is the Divine Life. God is the Source of all life. God is the uncreated and eternal Person - the capital L Divine Life.

And God is dispensable. He can dispense His communicable attributes into man. This was the significance of the tree of life.

In the Greek, in the new testament we have three Greek words which all translate to English life:

bios - life [English]

psuche - life [English]

zoe - life [English]

Again, you probably know:

Bios is the physical or biological life.
Psuche is the SOUL (the self) or the psychological life.
Zoe is the Divine and eternal life of God.

This passage nicely shows the difference and relationship between the psuche life of Jesus and the zoe life of Jesus:

" .... I lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15)

Jesus lays down His PSUCHE, His soul, His soul life for the believers, His sheep. But He came that we may have ZOE, the divine life that was embodied in Him.

"The thief does not come except to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life [ZOE] and may have it abundantly." (John 10:10)

He laid down His PSUCHE life that we may have more abundantly Him as the ZOE life of God.

He laid down on the cross His PSUCHE in redemption -

"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life (PSUCHE) that I may take it again. No one takes it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John10:17,18)

In Him was the ZOE of the divine and uncreated life of God Himself -

"In Him was life [ZOE], and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4)

He laid down in redemption His soul and His body that the divine life within Him might become ours -

"And I give to them eternal life, and they shall by no means perish forever, and no one shall snatch them our of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father are one." ( John 10:28-30)

This is totally wonderful. The ZOE Life of God was embodied in the PSUCHE and BIOS life of the man Jesus. He laid down His life that we may have Him as life eternal.

The tree of life in Genesis signifies this uncreated and eternal divine life of God Himself.

Originally posted by sonship

God is life.
Outside of God, there is no life.
You come up with a better scenario which better illustrates these realities and we will all vote you as His replacement.
[hint: Satan's been trying an awful long time to do just that thing, thus far failing miserably. Good luck and Godspeed!]

There are lives that are not God. God is th ...[text shortened]... [b]tree of life in Genesis signifies this uncreated and eternal divine life of God Himself.[/b]

Good stuff.

I'm going to have to spend some time delving into this topic again!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let me make it even more clear for you.

On one side, there is life.
On the other side, there is death.

That was the issue.
It can't be broken down in any smaller, bite-sized pieces than that.
You wish to frame the situation in terms other than what it is... well, you would have a situation other than what it was!

This was a life-or-death situat ...[text shortened]...
If it wasn't a matter of life-or-death, God would have framed it differently than what He did!

"On one side, there is life.
On the other side, there is death.

That was the issue.

the point. is that it didnt need to be the issue. it didnt need to be one side life and one side death. god didnt have to choose that system. the only answer you have to this is..."thats the way god choose it" but that does not detract from the point that he didnt have to. the issue and problems were all of his own making.

"You wish to frame the situation in terms other than what it is... well, you would have a situation other than what it was!"

yes, you would have another situation....possibly a better one. one in which people dont suffer because of the crime of their ancestor.

f it wasn't a matter of life-or-death, God would have framed it differently than what He did!

it was only a matter of life of death because god decided it would be that way. if god has the power to do anything then it he could have chosen any other way to work equally well or better.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
your fire analogy misses the key point. god created the consequences of eating the fruit.

we did not create the consequences of touching fire.

the whole crux of the debate is that god could have chosen different consequences. just as we would choose different consequences for putting hands in fire.

the whole crux of the debate is that god could have chosen different consequences. just as we would choose different consequences for putting hands in fire.

What consequences would you have chosen? Do you know what was/is at stake?

What different consequence could there be for putting hands in the fire other than getting burned, it is what it is! Fire=Hot, Hands in Fire=Burn, plain and simple. Unless of course, you have the ability to make fire, say... cold? I don't know, you tell me.

I don't want to come off as a smart arse, but this is fairly elementary.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

the whole crux of the debate is that god could have chosen different consequences. just as we would choose different consequences for putting hands in fire.

What consequences would you have chosen? Do you know what was/is at stake?

What different consequence could there be for putting hands in the fire other than getting burned, it is wh ...[text shortened]... t know, you tell me.

I don't want to come off as a smart arse, but this is fairly elementary.

What different consequence could there be for putting hands in the fire other than getting burned, it is what it is! Fire=Hot, Hands in Fire=Burn, plain and simple. Unless of course, you have the ability to make fire, say... cold? I don't know, you tell me.

if you had the power of a god you could make the consequences what ever you wanted them to be, the only limitation would be your imagination.

What consequences would you have chosen? Do you know what was/is at stake?

the only thing that is at stake is what ever god decided would be at state. he could have decided nothing is at stake.

i wouldnt have any consequences for eating the fruit.


answer me this. if every person that ever lived were put in adam and eve's place how many would reject the fruit?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]What different consequence could there be for putting hands in the fire other than getting burned, it is what it is! Fire=Hot, Hands in Fire=Burn, plain and simple. Unless of course, you have the ability to make fire, say... cold? I don't know, you tell me.

if you had the power of a god you could make the consequences what ever you wanted t ...[text shortened]... f every person that ever lived were put in adam and eve's place how many would reject the fruit?[/b]

if you had the power of a god you could make the consequences what ever you wanted them to be, the only limitation would be your imagination.

God made them what they were, is that not imaginative? What would you do?

i wouldnt have any consequences for eating the fruit.

It's about free will, don't you see?

answer me this. if every person that ever lived were put in adam and eve's place how many would reject the fruit?

Couldn't tell you, I don't know... it did not happen that way.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"On one side, there is life.
On the other side, there is death.

That was the issue.

the point. is that it didnt need to be the issue. it didnt need to be one side life and one side death. god didnt have to choose that system. the only answer you have to this is..."thats the way god choose it" but that does not detract from the point that h ...[text shortened]... power to do anything then it he could have chosen any other way to work equally well or better.[/b]

Now you're just talking nonsense.

According to your rationale (and I hesitate to use that term), God could have just put a black chess piece in one hand, a white one in the other and asked us to choose... hoping for the white.

Chose black?
Okay, back to the drawing board.
Keeps re-engineering until He gets a creation that chooses the white one.
Now what?

The fact of the matter is, no matter what other scenario you can concoct, they're all equally meaningless, until there is actually a risk/reward which carries some weight.

Lucifer claimed he was just as good, just as worthy of worship as God--- by virtue of his created characteristics, no less!--- and challenged God's position as the Supreme Being.

God boiled it down to the essence of the argument: without Me, there is no life... so choose one.
Even with far greater insight than you, spiritually-speaking, I STILL cannot fathom a better way of phrasing the salient point.

And, to date, no one else has, either!

Originally posted by yoctobyte

if you had the power of a god you could make the consequences what ever you wanted them to be, the only limitation would be your imagination.

God made them what they were, is that not imaginative? What would you do?

i wouldnt have any consequences for eating the fruit.

It's about free will, don't you see?

answe ...[text shortened]... would reject the fruit?

Couldn't tell you, I don't know... it did not happen that way.

God made them what they were, is that not imaginative? What would you do?

huh? im not querying gods level of imagination. what i would do or not do with fire is irrelevant, i am not querying the qualities of fire.

It's about free will, don't you see?

free will would exist regardless if there was a fruit tree was there or not. so it was not 'about' free will.

Couldn't tell you, I don't know... it did not happen that way.

okay try this - what will god do to humans that go to heaven that will ensure they will not sin again?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]God made them what they were, is that not imaginative? What would you do?

huh? im not querying gods level of imagination. what i would do or not do with fire is irrelevant, i am not querying the qualities of fire.

It's about free will, don't you see?

free will would exist regardless if there was a fruit tree was there or not. ...[text shortened]... ry this - what will god do to humans that go to heaven that will ensure they will not sin again?[/b]

okay try this - what will god do to humans that go to heaven that will ensure they will not sin again?

To be in heaven means you have accepted Jesus' sacrifice as payment for your sin. There is no sin in heaven, so your question is a irrelevant. Satan we be gone, there will be no temptation, no sin.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

okay try this - what will god do to humans that go to heaven that will ensure they will not sin again?

To be in heaven means you have accepted Jesus' sacrifice as payment for your sin. There is no sin in heaven, so your question is a irrelevant. Satan we be gone, there will be no temptation, no sin.

are you saying the difference between those who will go to heaven and adam is that those in heaven will have no temptation? does this mean that if they were given temptation that many would sin?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you saying the difference between those who will go to heaven and adam is that those in heaven will have no temptation? does this mean that if they were given temptation that many would sin?

What I am saying is, in heaven there will be no temptation to sin as there will be no evil/sin.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
What I am saying is, in heaven there will be no temptation to sin as there will be no evil/sin.

to me this begs the question - why did god need to tempt adam and eve and not need to tempt those who go to heaven??? it also makes me wonder if those that go to heaven are immune to temptation or if temptation was there would they go against god?

Originally posted by yoctobyte

That may be true. But it is not me that creates the consequence of a burnt fingers for the action of sticking your hand in a flame. So the analogy is not appropriate.

Why wouldn't the analogy be appropriate. You are telling the kids ahead of time the consequence of putting fingers in the flame, they get burned. God did the same with A&E. ...[text shortened]... is not appropriate, I would be interested in your understanding of the concept being discussed.

Why wouldn't the analogy be appropriate. You are telling the kids ahead of time the consequence of putting fingers in the flame, they get burned. God did the same with A&E.

The analogy is not appropriate because I did not cause fire to be hot. The fact that fire is hot is not down to me. The fact that eating the fruit leads to death is down to God. He decided that death would be the result. It was God that caused the 'fire' to be 'hot'.

Hence my analogy of the arbitrary punishment that you described as " not love, because 'you' are inflicting the consequence for whatever reason". This is exactly what God is doing here. He set up the scenario and he chose the consequences.

--- Penguin