|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 27, 2014 1:41:58 GMT -6
Some quick factoids for the interested. Adam and Eve did not commit the unpardonable sin. They did not commit a sin by being naked in the Garden. The first obvious result of their actual sin was that they became aware of each other as other and as an object of desire. However, people are not "objects". That recognition of the other as other is the tinder for sin. It is always a mistake to try and make a story bear more weight than it was intended to bear. There is more but I have to go back to bed. Who adds to a forum at 2:45 a.m.? Especially when there is the Mooby/Augusto debate to comment on?  That would take the rest of the night! |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 27, 2014 11:23:15 GMT -6
I wish I understood why Mooby would agree to a "debate" in the first place. The two of them are talking past each other and have from day 1. Of course, on the one hand, you have an intelligent man. On the other, you have a man who isn't very but has been declaring victory from day 1. Watching them "debate" is kind of like watching obese people dancing ballet. It is horrible and yet, somehow, you cannot look away.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 27, 2014 11:48:22 GMT -6
You don't think they blasphemed holy spirit? They obviously had to recognize the work of holy spirit and willingly and knowingly rebelled against it. Well, Adam more than Eve. They were not just unrighteous. They were rebels, after having the knowledge of the truth. Keep in mind, Adam was not deceived. That means his sin could have only been rebellion as opposed to "falling short". Falling short is forgivable. Well-informed rebellion is not. Rebellion was Satan's sin. That they committed the unforgivable sin is also evidenced in that even when they were questioned they did not repent but instead persisted in their rebellion. Furthermore, there was no hope given to them when God pronounced judgment. God himself did not show a willingness to forgive them. At least this is how I veiw it.
I also don't think they committed a sin by being naked. My point was that they thought it was wrong which means they took it upon themselves to determine right and wrong.
I agree about the debate with Mooby.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 27, 2014 12:39:48 GMT -6
Adam was made a priest by God and put in charge of the Garden (the language of the original makes that clear). When the time of testing came, he failed signally by refusing to step in to prevent his wife from sinning which he could so easily have done. He was there the whole time. (The pronouns used by the snake are always "you all". So why didn't he intervene? Cowardice? Perhaps. He probably wasn't dealing with a little garden snake but something bigger. The word used of it is often used of other monsters, according to one interpreter I read. In any case, while their sin deprived them and us of their pure spiritual life, it is the same sin we all commit everyday-- disobedience.
Beyond that sins are not blasphemy. Rebellion is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is a deliberate act of insulting the Holy Spirit. It is usually a speech act involving lying about or insulting God. The word blasphemy comes from the Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation" . If all sins were blasphemy, we would all be in a pickle.
Why do you think that God neither showed them mercy nor forgave them? The first thing he tells the snake, as he is kicking them out of the Garden is that from Eve will come the one who will crush Satan. His curse of A and E is not really a curse but a description of what natural life outside the garden will be like. Eve attributes her children to God and he talks with her sons. God remains intimately involved with them. Of their ultimate fate we cannot know but since Christ came to redeem all of humanity, a literal Adam and Eve would surely have been offered the same salvation as everyone else.
The bit about nakedness is, I think, generally misunderstood. I don't think they thought it was wrong at all at first. I think we are to understand that they were surprised and confused by lust which made them realize that they were not "one" as they had been but literally separate. Wasn't it you who made a really great point about the animal skins that God used to clothe them being the first blood sacrifice for man's sins?
Well, whatever the case may be, there was sure a lot of nonsense talked by the atheists in that thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 27, 2014 14:07:19 GMT -6
Adam was made a priest by God and put in charge of the Garden (the language of the original makes that clear). When the time of testing came, he failed signally by refusing to step in to prevent his wife from sinning which he could so easily have done. He was there the whole time. (The pronouns used by the snake are always "you all". So why didn't he intervene? Cowardice? Perhaps. Yes, he also bore the responsibility of Eve's sin. This is demonstrated in the law where a man was allowed to denounce the sins of his wife or become a willing participant. But Adam did more than just that. He himself ate the fruit. No all sins are not blasphemy of holy spirit. But here the Bible sheds more light on the unforgivable sin. "For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6) Here is an example of it. "But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down and gave up the ghost: and great fear came upon all that heard it. And the young men arose and wrapped him round, and they carried him out and buried him. (Acts 5:1-6) The unforgivable sin is not a sin out of ignorance, weakness, or lack of faith. The unforgivable sin is to willfully rebel against the obvious demonstration of God's spirit. Satan did this. Ananias did this. Adam did this. Judas did this. It is also always marked by a lack of repentance. "It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance." Because Adam was a perfect man and he had all the required knowledge. He was not like us. There is no reason for his decision except he simply didn't want to obey. He intentionally took Satan's side. You cannot save somebody that doesn't want to be saved. Plus there is only the record of judgment. There is no reason to think that Adam ever repented, just like Satan. Plus if God forgave Adam we wouldn't all be dieing. |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 27, 2014 15:17:51 GMT -6
The Hebrews passage is talking about Christians who go back to being Jews or Pagans. Ananias and his Wife were killed for lying to the Holy Spirit. It simply makes no sense to define all sin as rebellion against God. In a sense, of course, it is. But the unpardonable sin is a different kind of sin. Frankly I think there is someone on IGI who insults God every time he posts. I tremble when I see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 27, 2014 17:20:36 GMT -6
I am not sufficiently explaining it I think. I'm not saying all sin makes one a rebel. And yes the passage in Hebrews is referring to Christians, but it still gives insight into the nature of unforgivable sin because there is only one.
Yes in a sense all sin is rebellion against God but not all sin makes one a rebel. First, it requires accurate knowledge (Satan and Adam had). It also requires the ability to perceive holy spirit at work (Satan and Adam had). Then it requires the will to actively and purposefully work in opposition to it (Satan and Adam did). Adam made himself a child of Satan. If he were an imperfect human like us then maybe it could have been forgiven. Christ died to remove imperfection. Adam was already perfect.
At the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ when Satan is let loose for a short time, perfected mankind will one last time be given opportunity to make the right choice, as perfect humans. Those that fail commit unforgivable sin and are cast into the Lake of Fire.
It is not a sin out of weakness . It is not a sin from lack of knowledge. It is not in any way to sin by accident. It is to take a stance in direct opposition to the evident demonstration of holy spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 27, 2014 17:23:23 GMT -6
This is why I don't press you harder than I do. I perceive holy spirit at work.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 27, 2014 17:26:38 GMT -6
And it can take the form of speech, but it can also take the form of actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 27, 2014 17:31:10 GMT -6
And I'm not trying to debate. I'm just trying to fully explain because you've not yet got what I'm saying. If you disagree once you get it then okay.
I remember I was once told that if you are concerned about committing it then you've not committed it. A searing of conscience goes along with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 27, 2014 20:44:32 GMT -6
Sorry, I came across another applicable scripture. "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left" (Hebrews 10:26)
Here's what I'm trying to say. The important words in the scriptures are "after" and "deliberately".
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 28, 2014 6:51:39 GMT -6
Sin is a serious matter. No doubt about that. But to say that Adam had all the knowledge necessary is to interpret the story in a way that I do not think is possible. He did not have all knowledge. He did not have the knowledge of sin, as we do. He did not have the knowledge of guilt, or the possibility of repentance, etc. He was, actually, in many ways nothing more than a very intelligent ape called by God to a higher purpose. His first sin was not eating the fruit; his first sin was to fear the snake more than he trusted God who put him in the Garden to tend and protect it. His second sin was to allow Eve to fall into temptation which, presumably, came from his fear of the snake. But I don't want to press the story too hard. Stories tell us much and leave us to wonder about much. They often support multiple interpretations.
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 28, 2014 20:30:42 GMT -6
Back to Mooby. I find the debate a little entertaining. Augusto doesn't realize it but Mooby has let him make his own definition of God and prevents him from disproving his own definition. It's really sort of funny. August is not as smart as he thinks he is. He is smart, but it's like sections of intelligence are just missing. It's like at some point he just short circuits.
But I've quit following it. I've seen enough to make it laughable. But I'm sure at the end Augusto will claim victory. But even if he is, he's only victorious over a God of his own imagining. Omnipotence does not exist outside of God's nature which is how Augusto is trying to make it. It's only a part of his nature and it does not work alone. Basically it's impossible for God to do something he has no will to do. His will is determined by his nature, love, justice, wisdom, etc. God is never going to have the will to will himself out of existence. Therefore it is impossible for God to will himself out of existence. God is never going to have the will to lie, therefore it is impossible for God to lie. However, his omnipotence remains. At least that's how I see it. God has unlimted power to do what he wills to do, not what Augusto theorizes he could do.
That's something else that gets me. Atheists always say, "God could do this or God could do that". However, just because God can doesn't mean God should. God could end all suffering on this earth right now. But that doesn't mean he should. God could will all atheists out of existence. But that doesn't mean he should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 29, 2014 6:22:41 GMT -6
Very true! The other thing that cracks me up about his argument that "God could will himself out of existence" is that is shows utter ignorance of the logical and theological definition of God as "the ground of all being". That is to say that He is existence. If He could will himself out of existence, he takes us and everything else He has created with him!
The other thing this so-called debate reveals is that there is a huge chasm in the understanding of atheists between the God we are argue logically for and the God of revelation. While we know that they are one and the same, a non Christian could accept that there is a God but not accept that he has revealed himself to man in any particular way, or thru any scriptures. Really, Augusto has pinned his hopes on a non-starter to begin with.
Why should we take anything an atheist says seriously? How can they possibly be right, except by accident? With God out of the picture, we have an animal who lives in a closed system and whose brain evolved with no help, towards no goal, at random in this closed system. How can one trust that it understands anything correctly? How can it reason? How could reason evolve? As someone said once, the animals don't have a clue about higher math or logic and they get on quite well without it. So we can ignore Augusto!
The other thing that kills me is that not one of them can get past conceiving of God as a kind of superman. They just can't. They think of him as a man with super, duper powers which is why they cannot even speculate intelligently about him. My personal favorite is the perennially stupid, "which God of all the thousands is the real one? How do you know?" It is a question of such mind-blowing stupidity one wonders how they ever figured out how to tie their shoes. Do they not see that God is at work in the whole world? Do they not see that those to whom Christ has not been revealed will try their best to work out who God is and what He wants from us? Yes, they will be wrong about many things but they will get some things right. Honestly, do they really believe that God has abandoned all of humanity but for one slice of it?
How did you do with all this horrible tornado weather? We got the most wonderful thunderstorm during the night (I love lying comfortably in bed while the elements rage. With my cat purring next to me, it just doesn't get any better!)
|
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 29, 2014 12:46:33 GMT -6
Haha I was outside in the middle of it pumping my wells and being pelted with small hail and wind. Good times. It just reached severe limits when it passed over us.
|
|
