Larry N Moore

That probably explains why I just skimmed over the post.

Not as big as some of the butts I've seen. :)

I always do. Don't you? :)

Most assuredly my opinion is biased (as is yours). That doesn't make it incorrect even if the majority disagrees with me. Someone once said: "It's what you learn after you think you've learned it all that really matters the most." Or something like that -- I forget. Anyways, I've learned more (in the last five years) about theology from having discussions with atheists than I probably learned during my tenure in a Biblical Research and Teaching ministry. So, although I appreciate your suggestion, it's one which is ego driven instead of factually based. Physician -- heal thyself!

cman, it can be said that our employment of certain words and phrases are our way of a communicating what we read and understand to others. Just because the Bible doesn't use our exact terminology doesn't mean our terminology is non-biblical. For instance -- the Bible refers to death on occasions as a "falling asleep". We understand it to mean death. I suppose if you don't consider being dead spiritually a bad thing then it won't be -- for you. But if having the "spirit of God" alive within you is something you desire then being without it -- for you -- would be a bad thing. It just depends on how you look at it. I don't necessarily believe that Jesus' death accomplished a great deal. Afterall, everyone dies. However, only one (according to the Bible) was resurrected from the dead to immortality. And through his resurrection we (according to the Bible) can likewise obtain that immortality. Not a bad deal -- if you happen to like the idea of living forever.

cman, you're correct in that the Bible doesn't specifically refer to what happened to Adam as the "Fall." It's a theological term used to describe a condition -- that being -- going from a higher plane of existence to a lower one. From a spiritual plane to a senses one. Thus a fall. It works for me. I'm not sure what source you rely on to conclude that Adam's transgression "had to happen." Can you cite it?

Danny, I don't think anyone would disagree that Adam & Eve had a sexual relationship prior to the "Fall." The question is whether they reproduced. Now, I'm no authority on this but, I've heard it said that some foods are able to prohibit pregnancy from occurring. If that's true -- and God would obviously know this -- then perhaps Adam and Eve incorporated this type of food in their diets. Afterall -- there are records in the Bible saying what God recommended and disallowed for consumption. Most of the time the medical reasoning behind refraining from eating certain foods was never given. God knew and man obeyed and that usually is sufficient.

Sorry Danny but, if you're addressing me I must confess I'm not sure what you're asking of me.

TL that's a very good point. For many years I thought that if Adam didn't sin there would be no us. Part of my thinking on this comes from Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." It seems to me that originally the whole point of Eve being created was to fulfill a need that Adam had -- companionship. With the "Fall" man's (Adam) need shifted towards redemption and since Adam was unable to redeem himself (due to his choice) it became necessary that Adam and Eve reproduced. Companionship is still the primary reason for two becoming one and many couples can live very happily without children entering the arrangement.

Good analogy Danny. I suppose it's possible that the serpent spoke to Eve on other occasions. I see nothing in the Bible that disputes that. The short verses written in Genesis concerning the episode doesn't exactly give every detail. If some stranger -- someone or something -- I've never seen before came up to me and started a conversation like the one recorded I would probably be taken a little back. But then, innocence can make you more open to strangers I suppose, also.

Fine by me but, you do realize that this issue with Oldiesman is exactly why Pawtucket splintered it off into another thread. Nothing like tossing more coals on the fire but, suit yourself.

Words are not adequate to express my thoughts another spot. I'll just extend to you a great big HUG.

You're probably right Bolshevik. I can't imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to live in a small town in Ohio. One would have to be regulated to one. ;)

I can't imagine what life would be like without emotions. Can you? Nothing wrong with emotions per se. So I can see why God would create us with the capacity to feel a broad spectrum of emotions and thus the answer to your question (as far as I'm concerned) is -- that nature comes from God. Now as to whether God "knows everything" I think that theology comes from one of the early "Church Fathers" -- can't remember which one but, I'm not referring to those of the early first century. More likely the 3rd. I don't believe God "knows everything". However I think, like us, He can pretty much figure out outcomes of events given certain variables. First instance, we as parents, can know what our children will do in a given situation most or some of the time. Multiply that ability a thousand or a million fold and that's where I think God's foreknowledge comes into play. There are too many examples in the Bible for me to be convinced that God "knows everything". Just can't think of them off the top of my head. I've spent a great deal of time discussing (on line) theology and philosophy with atheists. As a result I've gained a lot of respect for them. Have you ever heard of the SecWeb?

Actually the whole phrase seems important for some reason. Perhaps a background understanding of culture might shed some light on the subject. I've always thought most during that time were nomads. Growing food would seem to require one to stay put in one place. After spending a lot of time in my garden (and still having much to do) I think I'd rather herd sheep. :)

What The Hey -- You're a day late and a dollar short. No offense but you're in the wrong thread on this one. Just a couple more posts Pawtucket is going to have to move. ;)

Pawtucket, it's really no big deal. However, some people have been known to register multiple user IDs for purposes that aren't exactly honest. Even if you were to track IP addresses of those who post here there's ways around that as well. Proxy servers are a dime a dozen. I suppose if someone wanted to start crap with someone in a manner which isn't typical for them to do having multiple IDs would be the way to go. But, like I said (even though I personally have seen this done) -- it's no big deal to me. WW, whenever you accuse someone of something the potential for creating controversy always exist. I don't remember what started this whole affair and I just stepped in when I read Bluesman's request for verification of your accusation. I still don't consider it (your accusation) a fair assessment of what I read in the other thread -- not being able to see what you were talking about -- but so what. I'm convinced no ones opinion will be changed irregardless of what is true or false. It is just what it is.

Oldiesman, with all due respect -- What would be the point of continuing this discussion? No matter what I don't think anyone will change their opinion of you. Having read through about seven pages of your posts I personally think you're a very reasonable person and I found myself agreeing with much that you said. But here's the thing (and what concerned me the most) -- reliving past discussions for some people might be too much for them to handle. That's why I thought doojable originally intended on just PMing me a link to those threads -- to spare the sensibilities of those who (for whatever reason) found offense in your comments. I don't know if it's really worth it but, I'm certainly in no position to "kill" the thread.

His own mind. Why does evil thoughts have to have a source outside one's own mind? Some things are part of our nature -- like anger, sorrow and such -- we wouldn't be human if we didn't have those emotions. However, we can choose what we do with those emotions -- rather we control them or they control us. Hope that makes some sense. I still have weeds (in my garden) I'm thinking about -- but damn! -- it's hot out there. ;)

Good question. I thought about it long ago but, can't remember a thing I may have come up with. Perhaps he was referring to future when one of his brothers or sisters may eventually "bump" into him. Afterall -- they did live a very, very long life.

Ok. I can believe that. ;) BTW -- I started to read Oldiesman's posts from day one (I think). There's 148 pages of his posts. If it's going to be a lot of trouble for you Doojable don't fret it. Maybe we should just let this one die.

I think the simple answer would be -- because he had free-will. Free-will is what got Adam & Eve in trouble but, without it no one can really and truly love God. We ain't robots -- thank God. Related (in my head to this is) -- Cain didn't become a murderer over-night. His heart had to have been cultivating evil thoughts before he did the deed. How long those evil thoughts were growing inside him I cannot say but, I can imagine he entertained them before he made his offering. I'm not sure Cain was really motivated to please God. Maybe, he was angry that he never got to live in the Garden of Eden. Who knows.

In comparing Genesis 4, verses 3 through 5 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." with Genesis 3:17 ". . . cursed is the ground for thy sake . . . ." I've always thought that the reason God rejected Cain's offering was due to the fact that God called the ground cursed and therefore anything offered to God from it would be sort of a slap in His face. Speaking of the cursed ground -- I've got to get back to pulling weeds outta my garden. :)

She must have her reasons. I wouldn't put her on the spot over it. When she PMs me I'll post the link to what she's referring to IF she has no objections.

Ain't THAT the truth! But, if it wasn't interesting and fun I surely wouldn't be spending my time here. I think the real problem is that people have been so hurt by the things people (in the Way) have done to them that they wear their feelings on their sleeves. I understand that. Life is too short to take much too seriously.