Why would a perfect garden need anyone to look after it?

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Well we would have to ask whether it was the creation or the choice that was imperfect. 

 

Romans 8 : 20 & 21 answers that.

 

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

 

that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

Nothing in the creation was responsible or to blame for it becoming imperfect.

 

It was ordained by god that the creation would become imperfect, because it was his will to have mercy on everyone.

 

That is why he bound everyone to be disobedient and sinful.

 

Just as Romans 11 : 32 says.

 

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

God himself is the true cause of imperfection because he was the true cause of all sin.

[walterpthefirst]

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

We are currently stuck on your claim of a perfect garden.  Could you please defend your words given you are devil’s advocating… thx

 

Scripture tells us that there was no death or decay in the world before Adam sinned.  Therefore, the creation was made without those things.  A creation free from decay and death is therefore free from imperfection.

 

Also, Adam and Eve must have been perfect in their innocence because how else could they have been in god's presence in Eden?  So we have a world made perfect from get go and two humans made perfect from get go.  The definition of perfect I'm using here agrees with the description of the New Heaven and New Earth as described in Revelation 22 : 1 - 5.

 

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb  

2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 

3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 

4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 

5There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

The lifting of the curses god uttered in Genesis 3 restores the perfection that was lost in Eden.  If heaven isn't perfect, then Eden cannot have been either.  But if we accept that heaven IS perfect, then Eden must have been too.  That's because what was lost (perfection) from Eden is restored in heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

49 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I see your point.  I was responding to Walter’s op… “a perfect garden”.  Might ask him.  I agree in the sense that oneness with God is essentially perfect but not that humanity is equal to.  

 

So how could Adam and Eve be in god's presence in Eden and not be perfectly innocent?

 

It was their loss of innocence that caused them to be afraid of his presence.

 

Before they sinned and lost their innocence they were equal to god in terms of innocence.  That is to say, their innocence was perfect.

 

Genesis 3 : 22

 

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

For the man to NOW have become like god, knowing good and evil, he must have not known good and evil beforehand.

 

And that condition is one of perfect innocence.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Posted 8 hours ago

  8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps you could explain what Genesis 2 : 15 means, Ed?

 

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

 

 

We are currently stuck on your claim of a perfect garden.  Could you please defend your words given you are devil’s advocating… thx

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

If you're still stuck on my claim of perfection in Eden Ed, then I can unstick you.

 

The logic of my argument works even if Eden wasn't perfect.  According to the bible, death and decay didn't exist in it or anywhere in the entire world until after Adam sinned.  Before that event god put him in the garden to work it and look after it.  That task of work required a helpmate, which was found in Eve.  So, her existence is tied to Adam's role, the one given to him by god.  To look after the garden and tend it.

 

But if nothing died or decayed in Eden, why was there any need for a gardener and his helpmate to work it and look after it?  Unless you want to dispute that nothing died or decayed before Adam sinned you are now unstuck and free to answer my question.  I've dropped my claim about Edenic perfection.

 

So, we're now back to my question, which I would like to answer please.

 

 

If nothing died or decayed in Eden, why was there any need for a gardener to work it and look after it?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Posted 8 hours ago

  8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps you could explain what Genesis 2 : 15 means, Ed?

 

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

 

 

We are currently stuck on your claim of a perfect garden.  Could you please defend your words given you are devil’s advocating… thx

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

If you're still stuck on my claim of perfection in Eden Ed, then I can unstick you.

 

The logic of my argument works even if Eden wasn't perfect.  According to the bible, death and decay didn't exist in it or anywhere in the entire world until after Adam sinned.  Before that event god put him in the garden to work it and look after it.  That task of work required a helpmate, which was found in Eve.  So, her existence is tied to Adam's role, the one given to him by god.  To look after the garden and tend it.

 

But if nothing died or decayed in Eden, why was there any need for a gardener and his helpmate to work it and look after it?  Unless you want to dispute that nothing died or decayed before Adam sinned you are now unstuck and free to answer my question.  I've dropped my claim about Edenic perfection.

 

So, we're now back to my question, which I would like to answer please.

 

 

If nothing died or decayed in Eden, why was there any need for a gardener to work it and look after it?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

Going to sound abstract, but I believe the Garden was to essentially grow humanity....God subjecting humanity that they might find and see the errors of their ways....which might explain why the choices where there to be discovered.  Reminds me of Jonah a touch. 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Going to sound abstract, but I believe the Garden was to essentially grow humanity....God subjecting humanity that they might find and see the errors of their ways....which might explain why the choices where there to be discovered.  Reminds me of Jonah a touch. 

 

What choices?

 

Can you be more specific and name some please?

 

 

If you do so Ed, please don't include their choice to obey god and to heed his warning not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

As I've already shown from scripture, god wanted to have mercy on them and so he had to make them guilty of disobedience.

 

Which is why he bound them (and everyone else) into a condition of disobedience and sin.  (Romans 11 : 32)

 

Therefore, when it came to obeying god about the forbidden tree and its fruit - they had no free will and no choice.

 

 

So, what other choices are you suggesting?

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Going to sound abstract, but I believe the Garden was to essentially grow humanity....God subjecting humanity that they might find and see the errors of their ways....which might explain why the choices where there to be discovered.  Reminds me of Jonah a touch. 

 

The only recorded error that Adam and Eve made was to disobey god.

 

And they couldn't help but commit that error because god overrode their free will, causing them to do it.

 

So, the only error they made wasn't freely made by them.

 

What kind of a discovery or moral lesson was there to be learned by Adam and Eve when they weren't responsible for or to blame for their error?

 

They couldn't have learned not to disobey god again because they never really disobeyed him in the first place.

 

Surely learning from past mistakes and errors could only have happened if they could look back and learn from their freely made choices?

 

Which, as the bible tells us, didn't happen.

 

They didn't make a free choice to disobey god - he made that decision for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

19 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The only recorded error that Adam and Eve made was to disobey god.

 

And they couldn't help but commit that error because god overrode their free will, causing them to do it.

 

So, the only error they made wasn't freely made by them.

 

What kind of a discovery or moral lesson was there to be learned by Adam and Eve when they weren't responsible for or to blame for their error?

 

They couldn't have learned not to disobey god again because they never really disobeyed him in the first place.

 

Surely learning from past mistakes and errors could only have happened if they could look back and learn from their freely made choices?

 

Which, as the bible tells us, didn't happen.

 

They didn't make a free choice to disobey god - he made that decision for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question for me has always been why place the serpent in the garden, why the trees.  So, let's take the route we have discussed several times.... that A&E were innocent.... yet God places the serpent, God places the trees as tools/obstacles/lessons as means to grow the wisdom of man.  The fourth chapter of Jonah, God places a vine but also places a worm that killed the vine that Jonah didn't tend to.... Jonah didn't tend to the vine. 

 

Likely we are perfect in our innocence, much like children, but corrupt with knowledge and when we place ourselves in the position of God, we get reminders...

 

<enter Prof and the raped girl>....

[walterpthefirst]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The question for me has always been why place the serpent in the garden, why the trees.  So, let's take the route we have discussed several times.... that A&E were innocent.... yet God places the serpent, God places the trees as tools/obstacles/lessons as means to grow the wisdom of man.  The fourth chapter of Jonah, God places a vine but also places a worm that killed the vine that Jonah didn't tend to.... Jonah didn't tend to the vine. 

 

Likely we are perfect in our innocence, much like children, but corrupt with knowledge and when we place ourselves in the position of God, we get reminders...

 

<enter Prof and the raped girl>....

 

Thank you for letting me know your thoughts and the questions you've asked yourself, Ed.

 

But none of the that specifically addresses the two main questions that I just asked you.

 

And you now suggest taking a route that we have discussed several times.

 

Well, before we do that please answer my questions.

 

Your route can wait until you've done that and so can I.

 

I have established from scripture that Adam and Eve didn't make a free willed choice to disobey god.

 

Therefore, please address this question.

 

Surely learning from past mistakes and errors could only have happened if they could look back and learn from their freely made choices?

 

And I also asked about the other choices they might have had in Eden, besides the one they didn't make to disobey god.

 

Therefore, please address this question.

 

So, what other choices are you suggesting?

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for letting me know your thoughts and the questions you've asked yourself, Ed.

 

But none of the that specifically addresses the two main questions that I just asked you.

 

And you now suggest taking a route that we have discussed several times.

 

Well, before we do that please answer my questions.

 

Your route can wait until you've done that and so can I.

 

I have established from scripture that Adam and Eve didn't make a free willed choice to disobey god.

 

Therefore, please address this question.

 

Surely learning from past mistakes and errors could only have happened if they could look back and learn from their freely made choices?

 

And I also asked about the other choices they might have had in Eden, besides the one they didn't make to disobey god.

 

Therefore, please address this question.

 

So, what other choices are you suggesting?

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

Again please, let's go with your thoughts.  Let's say they had no knowledge to go on.... perfectly innocent as you suggested...just God's suggestions.  Yes, they were perfectly innocent and without knowledge yet God placed the serpent and the trees in their proximity.  The process had to start somewhere.  

 

Then you have to ask do we ultimately have a choice.  I guess the answer is no.  We do have choices, but not ultimate choices.  We have choices via our objective nature but not so much in our subjectivity.  Hence faith that you "remain in the Vine" and you will be ok...you tend to the Vine that provides shade/ covers, etc.  God is God and we are not.  You're very insightful Walter, I know you understand the symbolism.  Thx.

 

(Again, just my opinion on the matter.)

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Again please, let's go with your thoughts.  Let's say they had no knowledge to go on.... perfectly innocent as you suggested...just God's suggestions.  Yes, they were perfectly innocent and without knowledge yet God placed the serpent and the trees in their proximity.  The process had to start somewhere.

 

 

Very well.  Perhaps we can return to my questions at a later point.

 

 

The process?  What process is that?  Please explain.

 

Also, if we accept what you say, that god placed the serpent in Eden, where is god's goodness and love towards Adam and Eve in doing such a dreadful thing?

 

A while back I asked you what you would do if you saw a rattler about to harm your kids and you said you'd kill it.

 

You displayed a loving kindness and care towards your children by saying that.

 

But was god really being as loving and kind as you towards his innocent children by placing the serpent there to harm them?

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

  

 

Then you have to ask do we ultimately have a choice.  I guess the answer is no.  We do have choices, but not ultimate choices.  We have choices via our objective nature but not so much in our subjectivity.  Hence faith that you "remain in the Vine" and you will be ok...you tend to the Vine that provides shade/ covers, etc.  God is God and we are not.  You're very insightful Walter, I know you understand the symbolism.  Thx.

 

(Again, just my opinion on the matter.)

 

 

Yes, I understand the symbolism Ed, but there's something you've overlooked.

 

In the bible any examples of people tending and looking after plants  AFTER  Genesis 3 cannot be compared to Adam tending plants in Eden before then.

 

That's because decay and death entered into the world AFTER Genesis 3, once they disobeyed god and sinned.

 

After Genesis 3 any and all plants need tending and looking after because if they aren't they will wither and die.

 

Which is something that could not happen in Eden before the Fall.

 

There was no decay and death in Eden or in the entire world  -  the bible says so.

 

So you cannot compare the tending of plants after Eden, to keep them from dying with the tending of plants in Eden where there was no death. 

 

To do so is to compare apples and oranges.  (Sorry about the pun.)

 

 

The absence of decay and death in Eden is pivotal to my whole argument in this thread.

 

If no flower, plant, shrub or tree could wither and die in Eden, why was there any need for Adam to tend the garden?

 

That question still remains unanswered.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Very well.  Perhaps we can return to my questions at a later point.

 

 

The process?  What process is that?  Please explain.

 

Also, if we accept what you say, that god placed the serpent in Eden, where is god's goodness and love towards Adam and Eve in doing such a dreadful thing?

 

A while back I asked you what you would do if you saw a rattler about to harm your kids and you said you'd kill it.

 

You displayed a loving kindness and care towards your children by saying that.

 

But was god really being as loving and kind as you towards his innocent children by placing the serpent there to harm them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I understand the symbolism Ed, but there's something you've overlooked.

 

In the bible any examples of people tending and looking after plants  AFTER  Genesis 3 cannot be compared to Adam tending plants in Eden before then.

 

That's because decay and death entered into the world AFTER Genesis 3, once they disobeyed god and sinned.

 

After Genesis 3 any and all plants need tending and looking after because if they aren't they will wither and die.

 

Which is something that could not happen in Eden before the Fall.

 

There was no decay and death in Eden or in the entire world  -  the bible says so.

 

So you cannot compare the tending of plants after Eden, to keep them from dying with the tending of plants in Eden where there was no death. 

 

To do so is to compare apples and oranges.  (Sorry about the pun.)

 

 

The absence of decay and death in Eden is pivotal to my whole argument in this thread.

 

If no flower, plant, shrub or tree could wither and die in Eden, why was there any need for Adam to tend the garden?

 

That question still remains unanswered.

It's appropriate that I would kill to save my children because I love my children.  It's appropriate that God started the process of humanity discerning morality.

 

It's not the actual plant, it's the growth of humanity attached to the Vine, God, Jesus.  Adam and Eve "gardening/growing".  I would have to look at Jonah 4 again, but God provided a vine for shade, a covering, and then God also placed a worm which ate the vine and the vine died.  The lesson was for Jonah.  Similarly, God IS the Vine in the Garden, the covering, and still places the serpent, the worm, there for A&E's, humanity's inaugural lesson.  Again, we can tend to our morality or detach thinking too much of ourselves given our nature is both objective and subjective.  I believe at this point that God DOES control what ultimately happens to us and in fact likely places "worms" or serpents, or too much knowledge in our path as a means to show us that our ultimate outcome is through Him....and that that decision is to grow our morality rather than being a prideful sin filled mess.

[walterpthefirst]

Here's a worked example of the difference, Ed.

 

Jonah 4 : 6 - 8

 

 6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 

7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 

8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

 

 

Here three ways a plant can be harmed and die are listed.

 

A worm, the scorching east wind and the blazing sun.

 

The worm would not have existed in Eden before the Fall.  Worms that feed on plants bring harm and death to them.  But there was no death in Eden.  So, no worms.

 

There would have been an east wind in Eden, but because decay and death had not yet entered the world, it would not have been a scorching wind.

 

Scorching east winds only came about after the Fall, as part of the curse god laid upon Adam.

 

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.”

 

The same applies to the blazing sun.  Before the fall the sun would not have blazed harmfully, causing plants to wither and die.  That only happened after the fall.

 

With no decay and death in Eden there would have been nothing to cause any harm to any of the plants there.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Here's a worked example of the difference, Ed.

 

Jonah 4 : 6 - 8

 

 6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 

7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 

8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

 

 

Here three ways a plant can be harmed and die are listed.

 

A worm, the scorching east wind and the blazing sun.

 

The worm would not have existed in Eden before the Fall.  Worms that feed on plants bring harm and death to them.  But there was no death in Eden.  So, no worms.

 

There would have been an east wind in Eden, but because decay and death had not yet entered the world, it would not have been a scorching wind.

 

Scorching east winds only came about after the Fall, as part of the curse god laid upon Adam.

 

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.”

 

The same applies to the blazing sun.  Before the fall the sun would not have blazed harmfully, causing plants to wither and die.  That only happened after the fall.

 

With no decay and death in Eden there would have been nothing to cause any harm to any of the plants there.

 

 

 

You're missing the analogy I'm trying to describe please sir.  

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's appropriate that I would kill to save my children because I love my children.  It's appropriate that God started the process of humanity discerning morality.

 

 

Then by the logic of your statement you appear to be saying that god did not love his children.

 

Because he did what you would not - he let harm befall them.

 

Are these the actions of a loving parent like yourself?

 

 

Could you please tell me about this process? 

 

Tell me how causing harm to Adam and Eve and the entire human race is a morally good thing?

 

Especially when Adam and Eve did not choose to do wrong and disobey god?

 

 

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not the actual plant, it's the growth of humanity attached to the Vine, God, Jesus.  Adam and Eve "gardening/growing".  I would have to look at Jonah 4 again, but God provided a vine for shade, a covering, and then God also placed a worm which ate the vine and the vine died.  The lesson was for Jonah.  Similarly, God IS the Vine in the Garden, the covering, and still places the serpent, the worm, there for A&E's, humanity's inaugural lesson.  Again, we can tend to our morality or detach thinking too much of ourselves given our nature is both objective and subjective.  I believe at this point that God DOES control what ultimately happens to us and in fact likely places "worms" or serpents, or too much knowledge in our path as a means to show us that our ultimate outcome is through Him....and that that decision is to grow our morality rather than being a prideful sin filled mess.

 

You seem to working from the premise that god is moral and we are not.

 

That god is good and we are not.

 

But that somehow (process yet to be explained) we learn moral lessons from him.

 

So, for your argument to work Ed, god needs to be good and moral, right?

 

 

You recall that earlier you were stuck on Eden being perfect?

 

Well, now its my turn to be stuck and I need you to help me out please.

 

I can't see that god overriding Adam and Eve's free will and causing them to disobey him as being good and moral.

 

Nor can I see him placing the serpent in Eden to do them harm as being good and moral.

 

If you can show me how either of his actions were good and moral then I'll be able to get past this sticking point.

 

Can you do that for me please?

 

Can you show me how god was good and moral to do these things to Adam and Eve?

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You're missing the analogy I'm trying to describe please sir.  

 

 

The analogy only works if there is a degree of resemblance, similarity or correspondence between the two things being compared.

 

Comparing a world with no sin and no death to a world filled with sin and death is an unworkable analogy because there is no resemblance, similarity or correspondence between these two worlds.

 

analogy

noun

anal·o·gy ə-ˈna-lə-jē 

 

 

a

: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect

b

: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY

 

2

: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

 

3

: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

Then by the logic of your statement you appear to be saying that god did not love his children.

 

Because he did what you would not - he let harm befall them.

 

Are these the actions of a loving parent like yourself?

 

 

Could you please tell me about this process? 

 

Tell me how causing harm to Adam and Eve and the entire human race is a morally good thing?

 

Especially when Adam and Eve did not choose to do wrong and disobey god?

 

 

 

You seem to working from the premise that god is moral and we are not.

 

That god is good and we are not.

 

But that somehow (process yet to be explained) we learn moral lessons from him.

 

So, for your argument to work Ed, god needs to be good and moral, right?

 

 

You recall that earlier you were stuck on Eden being perfect?

 

Well, now its my turn to be stuck and I need you to help me out please.

 

I can't see that god overriding Adam and Eve's free will and causing them to disobey him as being good and moral.

 

Nor can I see him placing the serpent in Eden to do them harm as being good and moral.

 

If you can show me how either of his actions were good and moral then I'll be able to get past this sticking point.

 

Can you do that for me please?

 

Can you show me how god was good and moral to do these things to Adam and Eve?

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

I don't know Walter.....I think it's easy to envision eternal life vs. death and it may depend on a process that we don't understand.  Kind of an interesting observation to me that given our wisdom as adults we can't automatically transfer that to our children.  It's a process.  They start out essentially perfect and then grow and are influenced by their relationships, physical and otherwise.  I'm thinking that we are essentially looking that the evolution of man, the Christianity version.  

 

The reasons God had to subject humanity to the serpent and knowledge?  I don't know.  The implication is being attached to God is eternal vs. objectively detaching from Him is becoming finite or eternal in a bad way.  Seems unarguable that God influences.  I believe the influences are a reminder to return to gardening.....i.e. pay attention.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

The analogy only works if there is a degree of resemblance, similarity or correspondence between the two things being compared.

 

Comparing a world with no sin and no death to a world filled with sin and death is an unworkable analogy because there is no resemblance, similarity or correspondence between these two worlds.

 

analogy

noun

anal·o·gy ə-ˈna-lə-jē 

 

 

a

: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect

b

: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY

 

2

: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

 

3

: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form

They are very much analogous.  God placing/subjecting.... I can't see that in or out of the Garden disqualifies the analogy.  Thx.  

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

They are very much analogous.  God placing/subjecting.... I can't see that in or out of the Garden disqualifies the analogy.  Thx.  

 

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know Walter.....I think it's easy to envision eternal life vs. death and it may depend on a process that we don't understand.  Kind of an interesting observation to me that given our wisdom as adults we can't automatically transfer that to our children.  It's a process.  They start out essentially perfect and then grow and are influenced by their relationships, physical and otherwise.  I'm thinking that we are essentially looking that the evolution of man, the Christianity version.  

 

The reasons God had to subject humanity to the serpent and knowledge?  I don't know.  The implication is being attached to God is eternal vs. objectively detaching from Him is becoming finite or eternal in a bad way.  Seems unarguable that God influences.  I believe the influences are a reminder to return to gardening.....i.e. pay attention.

 

 

 

Ok, so you don't know.

 

But then why do believe that god is both good and moral?

 

I can't see any goodness or morality in what he did to Adam and Eve - overriding their free will and deliberately exposing them to harm.

 

So do you believe that god is good and moral by faith and not by what the bible actually says?

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

They are very much analogous.  God placing/subjecting.... I can't see that in or out of the Garden disqualifies the analogy.  Thx.  

 

Sorry, but I can't see it, Ed.

 

Are you using faith to see that analogy?

 

If so, that might explain why we diverge here.

[walterpthefirst]

You're using the word subjecting without explaining how you are using it, Ed.

 

I suspect that you're using it in a highly personal way, which I'm not party to.

 

Could you please explain what it means to you and how you are using that word?

 

You also talk about a process.

 

Could you please explain and describe it to me?

[walterpthefirst]

Back later.

[walterpthefirst]

I'm sorry about that delay, Ed.

 

 

What looked like a simple, but important task spiralled out of control and took much, much longer than I'd hoped.  It's all done now.

 

I'm very keen to continue this dialogue with you because this is the most productive and interesting discussion we've had in a long while.

 

I'd imagine that you might feel the same way too.

 

Hopefully we can pick this up soon.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Naturally, I've been thinking about our discussion, even while I've doing other stuff.  That's just the way my mind works.

 

It occurs to me that you and I approach what the bible says in different ways and that might be why we're not really able to see each others points as clearly as the other might like.  With that thought in mind I'd like to put something to you about how the bible should be read and then ask if you can accept it and agree to it.  If we find that we're both on the same page, fine.  But if we diverge, then I submit that we're not likely to agree about much in this thread because we cannot agree on how the bible should be read.  And since this whole discussion depends upon what the bible says, we're just going to be talking past each other and not to each other.

 

Anyway, here's what I propose.

 

When it comes to reading the bible one important ground rule is to respect the timing of a given thing in its proper historical and scriptural context. There are certain things god did at certain times and things that he did not.  These things are appropriate to their times and shouldn't be taken out of the historical, religious and spiritual context in which they happened.  

 

I'll give some examples to illustrate what I mean here.

 

God did not send the ten plagues to devastate Egypt in New Testament times because the Israelites weren't slaves in that country at that time.

God did not send the star to guide the three Magi to Jesus in the time of King Solomon because he hadn't been born yet.

God did not send an earthquake to shake open all the locked doors and manacles in the prison of Philippi in the time of King David because the apostle Paul and his companion Silas weren't being held prisoner there at that time.  

 

You see the idea?  Each event is appropriate only to its time and not to any other time.  That's how god works in the bible.  He does what is appropriate to that time.

Now let's look at some examples of god's commandments and laws, the times they were appropriate to and the times in which they applied.

 

God did not hold Abraham responsible for breaking any of the Laws of Moses because those laws weren't given at the time Abraham lived.  

God did not require the Gentiles to follow Mosaic Law because Jesus' sacrifice on the cross fully satisfied that law, bringing it to an end.

God did not command Peter, Paul and the other apostles to avoid eating unclean foods because that command only applied when the Law of Moses was in force.  When Jesus brought the Law to an end that command ceased to apply.  It was appropriate to and only applied in times when that Law was in force.  

 

You see how what god commands at certain times only apply at those times and not at any other?  That when he brings one law or command to an end another takes it place?  That it would disobedient for believers to continue holding to a law or a command that no longer applied to them or was no longer appropriate to that time?  We can see this today when Christians try to follow Old Testament laws and rules, thinking that doing so will please god.  But they forget that they are not under the Old covenant of the Law and they never were.  ALL Christians living today are under the New Covenant of Jesus' blood.  It is that blood and not the Law that guarantees their salvation.

 

Have I made my case, Ed?  Can you see and accept what I am saying here?  That it is wrong and unbiblical to take what doesn't belong to a certain time and apply it out of its proper biblical context?

 

This is an important question and I would really like you to give a direct answer (agreement or disagreement) here.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

I believe to understand what you are saying.... I tend to employ some symbolism and mystic type reading on occasion.  Let me please try to clarify.

 

In Gensis, we are thinking of the Garden as perfect, no death, no decay, yet God places the serpent (death), and the knowledge of evil (more imperfection), in the perfect garden.  Seemingly the two should not be able to coexist. 

 

Another point please.  God is with humanity in all stages of existence....in the Garden, post Garden, and now in one form or another.  So, I'm saying the Vine, the plant, is essentially a symbolic representation of God, and what Jonah should be tending to as was the job for Adam and Eve....tending to the Garden.  So, we see that God placed the serpent and God placed the worm both, in my opinion, for the benefit of Adam, Eve, and Jonah.  

 

If God can place evil in a setting of perfection certainly imo He can place Life and death, (the Vine and worm) in a setting of decay.

 

With regard to objective and subjective use.  And I might not be using them correctly but understand that I think I am:  Objective nature in that we can influence what we may have the capability to influence.... things "below" us.  Similarly subjective, that we are also subject to things that are above our ability to control.... we are subject to these things, God.