Eating Forbidden Fruit
- Thread starter hishignicityesq
- Start date
You are responding with mere pure assertion, without supporting your assertions with an account of the reasoning behind what you only assert. Wherein lies the non-contradiction ? How is my hypothesis bogus ? Merely to say there was nothing self-inconsistent, and merely to say what I am suggesting is bogus, is far distant from demonstrating your assertions, which assertions mean nothing absent supporting explanation(s).
Paul explains, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)
Right Divider
Body part
YOU have provided no contradiction.
God allowed them to choose and they chose badly.
Jehovah's contradictory stance consists his first creating man as freedom and, then, positing a thou shalt not, whereby the man was expected to live up to Jehovah's expectations that man would not eat of the fruit in regard to which He issued the "not".
It is so simple, so clear, you simply refuse to see the inconsistency because your God is a priori infallible for you, that's okay, fine. good.
Question begging.
If there's only one possibility given in a situation, then it's not possible to be free to choose otherwise.
God gave Adam and Eve a law, and that law was "don't partake of the law."
Question for you:
If a man loves a woman, and wants her to live with him as his wife, is the best thing for him to do to take her to his home and board up the windows and doors and never let her leave?
Or would it be better for him to bring her to his house, and tell her that if she ever wants to leave, she is free to do so?
The latter, yes?
We'd call the former mentally unstable.
God is mentally stable, he will not keep someone against their will.
When He gave Adam and Eve the command, "do not partake of the law," He gave them an out, an exit from being with Him.
However, disobeying God has consequences.
Man was expected to love God, his Creator, but was given the ability and option to choose otherwise.
That, by definition, is free will.
God created man to be free, and to be with Him for eternity, but choosing other than God has consequences, specifically, that one becomes separated from God.
:blabla:
If by "free" you mean with free will they did not possess it. Adam and Eve were created mutable. Eve fell from innocence and Adam became a sinner for her. The last Adam became sin for His bride. Selah.
PS Both the first and Last Adam acted out of love.
Your definition of "inconsistency" is incorrect. To be inconsistent, God would have had to make Adam and Eve free but also to have known all their actions exhaustively before He made them.
Tell me about your concept of what a God should be. Would God need to know the future exhaustively in order to be God? and if He didn't would He be excluded from being God?
Right Divider
Body part
Once again, there is nothing contradictory about that.
Man is free with limits. You are just looking for something to complain about.
I am precisely familiar with contradiction and self-inconsistency. I am degreed in Philosophy.
I am positing that it is self-inconsistent to both posit freedom and attempt to posit against freedom freely acting of its own free accord, by implementing a "thou shalt not" against a possible future act, which is precisely an attempt to obviate freedom. It is indifferent whether or not Jehovah can or cannot know the future. Some persons I have interacted with over this question claim that God knew his law, injunction, promise, prohibition, or whatever you wish to call a shalt not, would be disobeyed. It does not matter whether he knew it would be ignored or did not know. The central consideration is that, clearly, he did both create and freedom and immediately posit against freedom with law, prohibition, command, denial... which, simply, is contradictory and self-inconsistent...
An authentic Deity, after creating man as free, would know better than to even attempt to instruct the man not to act freely in regard to the forbidden fruit, for men are not determined either to act or to refrain from action by given states of affairs like prohibitions or laws. All determination to either action or inaction is negation, i.e., upsurges in and out of the nothingness that is the intended future which man is desirous of ushering into the world...God to be God does not need to know the future, he needs to know how his creation, man ticks when it comes to originating an act or a forbearance to act. A god who posits law/prohibition/injunction/demand/command exhibits that he does not know how man ticks, therefore, he did not create man....
So, basically, don't tell man that he doesn't have to always live with God, but that he can rebel and do otherwise?
How is that not a lie of omission?
God made it very clear: "Either live with Me, and be blessed, OR rebel and be separated from Me."
No, I am not merely complaining; I am iconoclastically overthrowing ontologically unintelligible law; demonstrating the defeasibility of the legalistic world view; examining mistaken presupposition; killing all the lawyers; describing an alternative approach to civilization not via law but by employing our human ontological structure as a pattern for civilization; I am doing original critical thinking, and, it is simply that very few people are around that can even begin to recognize, much less understand what I am addressing...
Excellent Jamie, thanks a million for that scripture "...for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be...", wow, yes; so my fundamental stance, that law is not determinative of human conduct of the carnal mind is upheld by Paul the Apostle...wow...cool...
Right Divider
Body part
It is a sure sign of a radically limited mentality to proclaim an either/or ultimatum, because, there are never simply two alternatives. A Nazi submarine was trapped in a harbor in South American during WWII. The sub commander was given an either/or ultimatum, i.e., either surrender or die; he scuttled the sub and became a prosoner of war...
And you appear to be precisely the opposite. Why don't you get off my back and go play somewhere away from me, where you can torture something or someone else...
Please provide an alternative to existing either with or without God for all eternity.
And?
Right Divider
Body part
This is a Christian forum. If you're just here to bash it, you're in the wrong place.
Right Divider
Body part
So he surrendered. Great example... NOT!
An alternative is that there is no authentic deity going by the name: Jehovah; Yahweh; Elohim; Christ, because, that so called deity clearly exhibits that he does not even know how his supposed creation, man, originates an act, which action origination proceeds only by the double nihilation, and does not, cannot, proceed in the manner Jehovah prescribes, which is by positing a written law which somehow in motion moves man to act, or, refrains action, by impeding man's freedom of action, all of which is absurd according to twentieth century existential understanding of determination as negation...There is Deity woven into the fabric of our universe, because even our physiological structure is so deep and complex that, we cannot understand it; surely there is something infinitely more intelligent than we men, and, that being, higher and more intelligent, is Deity to us. Deity is not an anthropomorhic being in the sky with a long white beard, who has a son with hands holed by Roman spikes...,