Given that's not an answer to (and doesn't even come close to addressing) my question, evidently you've never considered the possibility that I asked... and either don't have (and can't think of) an answer, or don't comprehend the question.
In any event, the "first sin" wasn't anything sexual at all. The first sin was lack of understanding, leading to God-rejection, leading to disobedience.
Tempter: "Hey, try this activity."
Mankind: "Not supposed to do that."
Tempter: "Why not?"
Mankind: "Don't know. God said, but I don't know why."
Tempter: "You can be like God."
Mankind: "Hmm, why not?"
Tempter: "If you do this, you will be wise like God."
Mankind: "Hmm, yeah, sounds all right to me, I'll give it a go."
Mankind: does the forbidden thing.
Tempter: "Here you are. You're wise now. You understand what a f-up you've done. Have some guilt and shame, and a few other byproducts of disobedience-awareness."
It isn't just God-rejection, which itself is a symptom; it's failure to understand of God, who God is, and what he does. Mankind, who had walked and talked with God, surely knew who'd made the animals and the plants and everything else. Perhaps mankind saw creatures copulating, reproducing, young being born or hatched (Gen 1:23) and didn't see themselves (mankind) also increasing (Gen 1:27) because they didn't understand the process, or the timescale, or for some other reason. Rom 1:18ff is all about failure to understand. They knew God... didn't glorify him... understanding became darkened. They did not (Rom 1:28) "think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" so (then) "God gave them over to a depraved mind." If you read this section of Romans carefully, it appears to say that idolatry came before sexual sin.
But the lead-in is the failure to see and understand what may be known about God, "God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (NIV, Rom 1:20)
Which is why we are urged in Proverbs 4 (AV/KJV)
5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding
I'm redacting some of his foul language. Follow the link for the excerpt without redactions.]
"Remember, the Word says that homos are the "lowest of the people," and that is certainly true. You female [redacted}, called lesbians, might as well have dogs [redacted]l! You wimp-[redacted] men who still think that somehow you have the right to take the grace of God in vain might as well be [redacted]!"
"You should be thankful you're not in the Old Testament times, because there are some of us who would gladly execute you."
I left out most of his screed, but he went after men and women there.
Just a side note - off the main topic - after re-reading craig’s homo-purge letter to the corps - I just have to say it’s one of the best reveals of the type of leader he really was: a true legalistic-loving hypocritical Pharisee with zero-tolerance during his tyrannical reign...what callousness! I think maybe craig just might epitomize the hardhearted element within wierwille-centric indoctrination...
== == == ==
...back to the topic:
I don’t feel so compelled to view the Genesis 3 account in such a strict literal sense as taught in PFAL or in the provocative speculations by wierwille or craig...the fact that few physical details are given - I’m inclined to think the account of the fall of mankind , rich in religious symbolism may also resonate with parents - who want their kids to know the difference between right and wrong - and yes , learn from life experiences - but sometimes as parents we might not approve of our kids getting into things which are not yet age-appropriate for them...
back in Genesis - perhaps it’s like kids ignoring their parents’ instructions...so maybe not a big deal on what the “fruit” was - other than it being like I said above - knowing right from wrong ...but maybe the kids wanted to take a shortcut to learning about that - to try to figure it out for themselves ...guess I’m of the opinion it’s natural for kids - and even adults sometimes - to be that way...
we can be taught a lot of things...the rules and regs…”that’s the way things are done around here”...but isn’t it part of human nature to flex our muscles...maybe it says something of our indomitable spirit...
but in a parenting context - we all know kids will try things anyway - test or push the boundaries - and hopefully we’ve tried to convey the reality of consequences (good or bad) from the things we choose to do...as parents we know our kids will make mistakes - so we hope it’s not something so bad that they can't bounce back from it; well...it’s all part of growing up - isn’t it?
also...there's no prohibitive time-frame given to Adam and Eve - was it forever? or could it have been only for a certain duration in God's mind? Taking the account at face value - I'm inclined to think it was a test. something along the lines of a procedure to establish the quality or performance of something. you may look at the result as a failure - but what if the test was also to prove the extent of freewill? were they free to make even a wrong choice? it says something about the Creator - he/she did NOT create robots.
It doesn't appear that God was totally surprised by what Adam and Eve did - given the fact that provisions for redemption were quickly put into play; besides promise of the Savior - banishment from Eden, the cursing of the ground and increase in labor - can be viewed as redemptive as well as disciplinary - which is corrective along the lines of instruction, training, reproof and such.
So I’m not saying it’s great that mankind failed right out of the gate nor do I have some fatalistic view of freewill – that we’ll inevitably fail; lacking the power to act without the constraint of necessity or fate is not really freedom; but I do see hope in the overall picture – from the fall of mankind onwards – in that people can learn from their mistakes…indeed how does one truly learn except by real life experiences…sometimes we goof up…but we have to pick ourselves back up and not give up on hope. I think it was in the movie “African Queen” that Humphrey Bogart said “Things are never so bad they can’t be made worse”... I know it sounds oddball – but I think that suggests hope - if one can see how things could be made worse then they might also think of ways to prevent it from getting any worse – that hope is the attitude of a survivor – a person who copes well with difficulties in their life.
…no matter how much I've screwed up something – I could still screw up the situation even more – or – I could starting working to rectify the situation: boom – while driving my car I hit a pedestrian; let’s make it worse – I keep driving – a hit and run. Let’s start to rectify it – I turn around and go back to help - or even 3 days later I turn myself in...sure immediately stopping to render aid is the right thing to do...but what if I freaked and drove off...well - that doesn't mean I can't change my mind and come back or turn myself in later...certainly not ideal but better than doing nothing.
I don’t know...just thinking out loud in all this...hope I wasn’t too loud.
Edited by T-Bone mistakes were made and typos happened...good grief, man where's your editorial staff ?!?!
In any event, the "first sin" wasn't anything sexual at all. The first sin was lack of understanding, leading to God-rejection, leading to disobedience.
Tempter: "Hey, try this activity."
Mankind: "Not supposed to do that."
Tempter: "Why not?"
Mankind: "Don't know. God said, but I don't know why."
Tempter: "You can be like God."
Mankind: "Hmm, why not?"
Tempter: "If you do this, you will be wise like God."
Mankind: "Hmm, yeah, sounds all right to me, I'll give it a go."
Mankind: does the forbidden thing.
Tempter: "Here you are. You're wise now. You understand what a f-up you've done. Have some guilt and shame, and a few other byproducts of disobedience-awareness."
It isn't just God-rejection, which itself is a symptom; it's failure to understand of God, who God is, and what he does. Mankind, who had walked and talked with God, surely knew who'd made the animals and the plants and everything else. Perhaps mankind saw creatures copulating, reproducing, young being born or hatched (Gen 1:23) and didn't see themselves (mankind) also increasing (Gen 1:27) because they didn't understand the process, or the timescale, or for some other reason. Rom 1:18ff is all about failure to understand. They knew God... didn't glorify him... understanding became darkened. They did not (Rom 1:28) "think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" so (then) "God gave them over to a depraved mind." If you read this section of Romans carefully, it appears to say that idolatry came before sexual sin.
But the lead-in is the failure to see and understand what may be known about God, "God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (NIV, Rom 1:20)
Which is why we are urged in Proverbs 4 (AV/KJV)
Nice summary. Pretty straight-forward.
Digression:As a point of interest, I'd like to mention that the textbook for my Intro to Philosophy class (taken long ago) said that the hero of the story was the serpent! It also ended any quoting abruptly, about 1/3 of a verse in. Basically, where you have him saying "Here you are, you're wise now" and calling that a victory, the end. "Philosophia" means "love of wisdom." Lots of people don't think Philosophy professors are that wise, or that the degree is useful for anything other than generating a paycheck at a university. Having seen it in action, I'm inclined to agree.
Trying to stir up a new or different way to look at something around here all to often seems to have about as much effect as shooting BB's at a Sherman tank.
The first sin was lack of understanding, leading to God-rejection, leading to disobedience.
hmmm... I would probably be inclined to agree if that were intended to be addressed more specifically to the woman. But I'm not so quick to think or say that's as true or accurate with Adam. Personally, I think Adam knew full well what the issue was, and intentionally and purposefully choose to follow her lead, to believe and do what he did. Simply attributing it to "he didn't understand" actually strikes me as a form of rationalization, and that God somehow didn't do a "good enough" job of communicating to Adam what the issue really was.
9 hours ago, Twinky said:
In any event, the "first sin" wasn't anything sexual at all.
Agreed, as I suspect it was far greater and much more significant than that (even if something sexual between the man and woman may have resulted from it.)
9 hours ago, Twinky said:
Tempter: "Here you are. You're wise now.
Well, seems I don't see or know of anywhere in the scriptures, or in life, that anything related to sexual activity honestly results in anyone becoming "wise" as a result... unless a realization of what you did possibly having been rather thoughtless or dumb somehow counts for being "wise" because you suppose that you're not as thoughtless or dumb now as you think you might have been then.
Trying to stir up a new or different way to look at something around here all to often seems to have about as much effect as shooting BB's at a Sherman tank.
Your analogy of BBs vs a Sherman Tank may have something to do BOTH with the sender AND the recipient...I thought Rocky was being sarcastic about your response to Chockfull - and I can see why Rocky said that...
going on other discussions I’ve had with you - there’s been times when I’ve disagreed or asked for clarification and your response seemed to me to have been condescending (and you may not have meant for it to come across like that ) - like I haven’t paid attention, I haven’t thought it through, followed what you wrote previously, I’m prejudiced because of a bias, that I don’t see your point as big a deal as you do, etc...well I’ll fess up - yeah maybe I’m guilty of that sometimes - and I’m usually good about acknowledging that...but I’m not trying to be super-critical ...just offering some honest feedback.
so what’s my point here?
Sometimes folks might clam up, retreat into a Sherman tank and batten down the hatches if they think they’re coming under fire...I’m a big fan of considering other viewpoints and have said before I appreciate your input and method of analysis...but as I’ve also said to you recently on another thread - maybe your frustration is a combination of you not being clear and me being dense...patience and humility are virtues we all need to work on.
and hey TLC, if I’m totally off base here - disregard...peace.
I thought Rocky was being sarcastic about your response to Chockfull - and I can see why Rocky said that...
Well, considering it was actually a response to Mark (and not Chockfull), perhaps I should be a bit confused by why you bother to say that. But, I'm not, as Rocky's sarcasm was more than a little obvious (as uncalled for or as worthless as it might seem or be.)
1 hour ago, T-Bone said:
going on other discussions I’ve had with you - there’s been times when I’ve disagreed or asked for clarification and your response seemed to me to have been condescending (and you may not have meant for it to come across like that )
no, it's not my intent, but yeah, I'm not unaware that it can (and probably does) come across like that at times... especially if or when I've already made a "couple runs" at trying to make a certain point. (For the record - and maybe it's just me - I've had an exceedingly difficult time trying to communicate with Mark in the past, even when asking or stating something as plainly and clearly as I think I possibly can... so, maybe my last post to him was laden with a bit more terseness that it could or ought to have been. I just didn't want to beat around the bush with it.)
Well, considering it was actually a response to Mark (and not Chockfull), perhaps I should be a bit confused by why you bother to say that. But, I'm not, as his sarcasm was more than a little obvious (as uncalled for or as worthless as it might seem or be.) …(SNIP)
that's my bad - don't know why I wrote "Chockfull"
Your continued condescending arrogance to posts which disagree with your holiness and incredibly insightful PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of dictor paul’s private interpretation of B.G., Bullinger, Kenyon, Oral Roberts, Rufus Mosely, Rosalind Rinker, E. Stanley Jones, Dale Carnegie, Oswald Chambers, J.E.Stiles, Norman Vincent Peale, Glenn Clark, Starr Daley, etc., etc., etc. is really very sophomoric. Your “understanding” of scripture appears equally unreliable and full of confirmation bias for your hyperdispensationalist private interpretation of Bullinger and Welch, Darby and Schofield. Not one single “original thought”. Just another mindless repetition of the ridiculous private interpretation of ALL “scripture”. You are a helpless and hopeless Paulian. Christianity is a “different administration” for YOU. YOU ARE WRONG! Completely and ignorantly WRONG. You are a hapless sycophant of the world of those YOU agree with. Bwaaaahahahaha!
I suggest YOU get over YOURself! We all have. LOL! You are an uneducated fool, and a follower of evil stupidity. Have a great day!
And now to bring this back to the thread title: I said earlier that the first sin of mankind was a failure to understand God. And there seems to be plenty of evidence of that, in the way this thread has taken a sudden turn.
People! Not one of us can wholly understand God, and especially not alone. Let's not have infighting, even where we disagree with each other.
Rom 12:16 - Live in harmony with each other. Don't be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don't think you know it all! (NLT)
Prov 3:7 - Don't be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn away from evil. (NLT)
You remember from PFAL how VPW said Eve's problem was that she "considered" what the serpent had to say. VPW used this as his pretext for getting us to not consider other viewpoints.
Can I say, I'd think that her "problem" was not that she "considered," but that she didn't go to the fountain of wisdom to ask "Why?" but instead listened to other another source of "wisdom" (the serpent) that was way off beam. There are many reputable people out there now who do sincerely honour God and do their best to present an honest viewpoint (rather than set out to deceive), but their viewpoints are inevitably coloured by many things, and they may not be wholly accurate. So don't hang your hat on them and their viewpoints.
Love God (and his wisdom) first, and then love your fellow man (and his wisdom).
James 3:17 - But the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. (NLT)
Rom 12:16 - Live in harmony with each other. Don't be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don't think you know it all! (NLT)
Prov 3:7 - Don't be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn away from evil. (NLT)
You remember from PFAL how VPW said Eve's problem was that she "considered" what the serpent had to say. VPW used this as his pretext for getting us to not consider other viewpoints.
Can I say, I'd think that her "problem" was not that she "considered," but that she didn't go to the fountain of wisdom to ask "Why?" but instead listened to other another source of "wisdom" (the serpent) that was way off beam. There are many reputable people out there now who do sincerely honour God and do their best to present an honest viewpoint (rather than set out to deceive), but their viewpoints are inevitably coloured by many things, and they may not be wholly accurate. So don't hang your hat on them and their viewpoints.
Love God (and his wisdom) first, and then love your fellow man (and his wisdom).
James 3:17 - But the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. (NLT)
Eden could symbolize not so much a paradise but a closed system, much like TWI. Any closed system ignores the outside world, although it may seem perfect for a time. Eve questioned the system and her perceptions were immediately altered. Eden was not what it had seemed anymore and there was no going back. (That new self-awareness is often uncomfortable, hence the fig leaves). That is something people may or may not experience over and over again, so the Eden story may just represent a process in life itself. Such as leaving a cult mindset.
Eden could symbolize not so much a paradise but a closed system,
imo, the condition of it.
1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:
Eve questioned the system and her perceptions were immediately altered.
different... but not all that far removed from how I think it went down. seems to be wrapped up in what she saw and accepted as the truth (i.e., "as reality.")
In other words, she (and then Adam) chose to change her (their) perception of reality... to that which man has been ensnared in ever since.
1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:
That is something people may or may not experience over and over again
...not really available or possible, imo. (it was a one way ticket, for all intents and purposes, and anything even remotely resembling it in our minds probably pales in comparison.) how Jesus Christ may have succeeded in "reversing" his perception of reality within his own life is nearly incomprehensible... but I suspect those 40 days in the wilderness would have had something to do with it. That any of us can (and do) believe in his resurrection is evidently what unlocks the door (to being able to see/believe a reality greater than what is revealed through the senses), but seems at best all we ever get are glimpses of the "reality" that Adam & Eve were probably capable of perceiving prior to the decision to elevate "another way" of seeing things to the forefront of their minds and heart. But what do I know, eh? Nothing new, nothing original... it's probably just some goofy bunch of gobbledygook for all you smart folk to pass over. Ah, well... so much for that.
Trying to stir up a new or different way to look at something around here all to often seems to have about as much effect as shooting BB's at a Sherman tank.
I'm all for trying to present a new or different way to look at things, but if you think that's what you were doing, perhaps some self-awareness development might be helpful.
Can I say, I'd think that her "problem" was not that she "considered," but that she didn't go to the fountain of wisdom to ask "Why?" but instead listened to other another source of "wisdom" (the serpent) that was way off beam.
I'm inclined to agree, and even take it a bit further, in that she didn't just listen to that other source, but grabbed it by the baton and ran with it, in direct opposition to what God had instructed, and stated it pretty clearly, I'd say.
So, yes, her problem was that she considered it, but that first sin was in going directly against God's instructions.
Because my presence brings joy and light to the world - LOL
LOL Chockfull !!!!
Still not sure of why the name mix up – either you’re always on my mind or it’s a sign of old age…which reminds me of a funny family story: grandma – new in our country (yup a bona fide just-got-off-the-boat-type-grandma) would babysit for our mom and dad. She would get our names mixed up – or even call us by one of our cousins’ names. We wouldn’t respond even if she was looking right at one of us but saying a different name. Then “Why you no come?” she’d ask. one of us: “Grandma, that’s not my name.”…so eventually she’d just use a "generic" form of address – for example: “hey you, get a you pajamas on now”....grandmas - ya gotta love their adaptability.
I’m fairly certain LCM got this original sin theory from the Jewish myth of Lilith. She was supposedly made from the same dirt as Adam, but he or God (idk) kicked her out of the garden because she would not submit to Adam. If I remember correctly she is referenced in other ways as well, including being sexually wanton. Also, if I remember correctly Lilith in Hebrew meant something like a creature of the night or even a monster of sorts. I don’t know if there were specific people he ripped off for the specifics of what knowledge means and linking in knowing in the biblical sense but once on that tract I don’t think it would be too hard to twist it to fit.
My theory on how LCM came across it is that there was a Metallica video in the early 90s that depicted Lilith in the garden with Eve and it may have depicted the two of them together, I don’t remember but I do remember being in the Advanced Class in the early 90s and LCM teaching this and then showing that video. He spun it as, see this validates my teaching. The devil is getting bold now that I’m teaching it. I think it was the other way around he got it from the video and then looked into it. I also remember him kind of liking Metallica but I may be wrong on that one.
I’m fairly certain LCM got this original sin theory from the Jewish myth of Lilith...
Given how whacked said theory is, what difference does it make where he got it from? Neither it, nor vpw's perverted opinion on what the original sin is ever made any sense.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
7
8
7
Popular Days
Aug 13
11
Aug 12
9
Sep 14
7
Sep 15
7
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 6 posts
T-Bone 7 posts
TLC 8 posts
Taxidev 7 posts
Popular Days
Aug 13 2018
11 posts
Aug 12 2018
9 posts
Sep 14 2018
7 posts
Sep 15 2018
7 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
There was an episode of "Gilligan's Island" where the Professor did "word association" with Thurston Howell III. At every word, the first thing that came to Thurston's mind was "money." "Hot."
Twinky
I cannot begin to tell you how horrifying it was, to learn about the sexual misdeeds at HQ and top leadership. All the years since they'd M&A'd me, all the mental anguish they'd caused me, and I'
Allan
Well said Twinky ! How grating it would be to dwell on their hypocrisy of balling people out whilst doing the dishonourable deeds themselves. Even in our little country, it's putrid double standards p
Rocky
You can be so sweet and Christ-like sometimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
In any event, the "first sin" wasn't anything sexual at all. The first sin was lack of understanding, leading to God-rejection, leading to disobedience.
Tempter: "Hey, try this activity."
Mankind: "Not supposed to do that."
Tempter: "Why not?"
Mankind: "Don't know. God said, but I don't know why."
Tempter: "You can be like God."
Mankind: "Hmm, why not?"
Tempter: "If you do this, you will be wise like God."
Mankind: "Hmm, yeah, sounds all right to me, I'll give it a go."
Mankind: does the forbidden thing.
Tempter: "Here you are. You're wise now. You understand what a f-up you've done. Have some guilt and shame, and a few other byproducts of disobedience-awareness."
It isn't just God-rejection, which itself is a symptom; it's failure to understand of God, who God is, and what he does. Mankind, who had walked and talked with God, surely knew who'd made the animals and the plants and everything else. Perhaps mankind saw creatures copulating, reproducing, young being born or hatched (Gen 1:23) and didn't see themselves (mankind) also increasing (Gen 1:27) because they didn't understand the process, or the timescale, or for some other reason. Rom 1:18ff is all about failure to understand. They knew God... didn't glorify him... understanding became darkened. They did not (Rom 1:28) "think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" so (then) "God gave them over to a depraved mind." If you read this section of Romans carefully, it appears to say that idolatry came before sexual sin.
But the lead-in is the failure to see and understand what may be known about God, "God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (NIV, Rom 1:20)
Which is why we are urged in Proverbs 4 (AV/KJV)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just a side note - off the main topic - after re-reading craig’s homo-purge letter to the corps - I just have to say it’s one of the best reveals of the type of leader he really was: a true legalistic-loving hypocritical Pharisee with zero-tolerance during his tyrannical reign...what callousness! I think maybe craig just might epitomize the hardhearted element within wierwille-centric indoctrination...
== == == ==
...back to the topic:
I don’t feel so compelled to view the Genesis 3 account in such a strict literal sense as taught in PFAL or in the provocative speculations by wierwille or craig...the fact that few physical details are given - I’m inclined to think the account of the fall of mankind , rich in religious symbolism may also resonate with parents - who want their kids to know the difference between right and wrong - and yes , learn from life experiences - but sometimes as parents we might not approve of our kids getting into things which are not yet age-appropriate for them...
back in Genesis - perhaps it’s like kids ignoring their parents’ instructions...so maybe not a big deal on what the “fruit” was - other than it being like I said above - knowing right from wrong ...but maybe the kids wanted to take a shortcut to learning about that - to try to figure it out for themselves ...guess I’m of the opinion it’s natural for kids - and even adults sometimes - to be that way...
we can be taught a lot of things...the rules and regs…”that’s the way things are done around here”...but isn’t it part of human nature to flex our muscles...maybe it says something of our indomitable spirit...
but in a parenting context - we all know kids will try things anyway - test or push the boundaries - and hopefully we’ve tried to convey the reality of consequences (good or bad) from the things we choose to do...as parents we know our kids will make mistakes - so we hope it’s not something so bad that they can't bounce back from it; well...it’s all part of growing up - isn’t it?
also...there's no prohibitive time-frame given to Adam and Eve - was it forever? or could it have been only for a certain duration in God's mind? Taking the account at face value - I'm inclined to think it was a test. something along the lines of a procedure to establish the quality or performance of something. you may look at the result as a failure - but what if the test was also to prove the extent of freewill? were they free to make even a wrong choice? it says something about the Creator - he/she did NOT create robots.
It doesn't appear that God was totally surprised by what Adam and Eve did - given the fact that provisions for redemption were quickly put into play; besides promise of the Savior - banishment from Eden, the cursing of the ground and increase in labor - can be viewed as redemptive as well as disciplinary - which is corrective along the lines of instruction, training, reproof and such.
So I’m not saying it’s great that mankind failed right out of the gate nor do I have some fatalistic view of freewill – that we’ll inevitably fail; lacking the power to act without the constraint of necessity or fate is not really freedom; but I do see hope in the overall picture – from the fall of mankind onwards – in that people can learn from their mistakes…indeed how does one truly learn except by real life experiences…sometimes we goof up…but we have to pick ourselves back up and not give up on hope. I think it was in the movie “African Queen” that Humphrey Bogart said “Things are never so bad they can’t be made worse”... I know it sounds oddball – but I think that suggests hope - if one can see how things could be made worse then they might also think of ways to prevent it from getting any worse – that hope is the attitude of a survivor – a person who copes well with difficulties in their life.
…no matter how much I've screwed up something – I could still screw up the situation even more – or – I could starting working to rectify the situation: boom – while driving my car I hit a pedestrian; let’s make it worse – I keep driving – a hit and run. Let’s start to rectify it – I turn around and go back to help - or even 3 days later I turn myself in...sure immediately stopping to render aid is the right thing to do...but what if I freaked and drove off...well - that doesn't mean I can't change my mind and come back or turn myself in later...certainly not ideal but better than doing nothing.
I don’t know...just thinking out loud in all this...hope I wasn’t too loud.
Edited by T-Bonemistakes were made and typos happened...good grief, man where's your editorial staff ?!?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nice summary. Pretty straight-forward.
Digression:As a point of interest, I'd like to mention that the textbook for my Intro to Philosophy class (taken long ago) said that the hero of the story was the serpent! It also ended any quoting abruptly, about 1/3 of a verse in. Basically, where you have him saying "Here you are, you're wise now" and calling that a victory, the end. "Philosophia" means "love of wisdom." Lots of people don't think Philosophy professors are that wise, or that the degree is useful for anything other than generating a paycheck at a university. Having seen it in action, I'm inclined to agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Trying to stir up a new or different way to look at something around here all to often seems to have about as much effect as shooting BB's at a Sherman tank.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
hmmm... I would probably be inclined to agree if that were intended to be addressed more specifically to the woman. But I'm not so quick to think or say that's as true or accurate with Adam. Personally, I think Adam knew full well what the issue was, and intentionally and purposefully choose to follow her lead, to believe and do what he did. Simply attributing it to "he didn't understand" actually strikes me as a form of rationalization, and that God somehow didn't do a "good enough" job of communicating to Adam what the issue really was.
Agreed, as I suspect it was far greater and much more significant than that (even if something sexual between the man and woman may have resulted from it.)
Well, seems I don't see or know of anywhere in the scriptures, or in life, that anything related to sexual activity honestly results in anyone becoming "wise" as a result... unless a realization of what you did possibly having been rather thoughtless or dumb somehow counts for being "wise" because you suppose that you're not as thoughtless or dumb now as you think you might have been then.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Your analogy of BBs vs a Sherman Tank may have something to do BOTH with the sender AND the recipient...I thought Rocky was being sarcastic about your response to Chockfull - and I can see why Rocky said that...
going on other discussions I’ve had with you - there’s been times when I’ve disagreed or asked for clarification and your response seemed to me to have been condescending (and you may not have meant for it to come across like that ) - like I haven’t paid attention, I haven’t thought it through, followed what you wrote previously, I’m prejudiced because of a bias, that I don’t see your point as big a deal as you do, etc...well I’ll fess up - yeah maybe I’m guilty of that sometimes - and I’m usually good about acknowledging that...but I’m not trying to be super-critical ...just offering some honest feedback.
so what’s my point here?
Sometimes folks might clam up, retreat into a Sherman tank and batten down the hatches if they think they’re coming under fire...I’m a big fan of considering other viewpoints and have said before I appreciate your input and method of analysis...but as I’ve also said to you recently on another thread - maybe your frustration is a combination of you not being clear and me being dense...patience and humility are virtues we all need to work on.
and hey TLC, if I’m totally off base here - disregard...peace.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, considering it was actually a response to Mark (and not Chockfull), perhaps I should be a bit confused by why you bother to say that. But, I'm not, as Rocky's sarcasm was more than a little obvious (as uncalled for or as worthless as it might seem or be.)
no, it's not my intent, but yeah, I'm not unaware that it can (and probably does) come across like that at times... especially if or when I've already made a "couple runs" at trying to make a certain point. (For the record - and maybe it's just me - I've had an exceedingly difficult time trying to communicate with Mark in the past, even when asking or stating something as plainly and clearly as I think I possibly can... so, maybe my last post to him was laden with a bit more terseness that it could or ought to have been. I just didn't want to beat around the bush with it.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
that's my bad - don't know why I wrote "Chockfull"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Tlc......
Your continued condescending arrogance to posts which disagree with your holiness and incredibly insightful PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of dictor paul’s private interpretation of B.G., Bullinger, Kenyon, Oral Roberts, Rufus Mosely, Rosalind Rinker, E. Stanley Jones, Dale Carnegie, Oswald Chambers, J.E.Stiles, Norman Vincent Peale, Glenn Clark, Starr Daley, etc., etc., etc. is really very sophomoric. Your “understanding” of scripture appears equally unreliable and full of confirmation bias for your hyperdispensationalist private interpretation of Bullinger and Welch, Darby and Schofield. Not one single “original thought”. Just another mindless repetition of the ridiculous private interpretation of ALL “scripture”. You are a helpless and hopeless Paulian. Christianity is a “different administration” for YOU. YOU ARE WRONG! Completely and ignorantly WRONG. You are a hapless sycophant of the world of those YOU agree with. Bwaaaahahahaha!
I suggest YOU get over YOURself! We all have. LOL! You are an uneducated fool, and a follower of evil stupidity. Have a great day!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Ha! It's the old pot (that's still largely clueless about who I am, or what I believe) calling the kettle black...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And now to bring this back to the thread title: I said earlier that the first sin of mankind was a failure to understand God. And there seems to be plenty of evidence of that, in the way this thread has taken a sudden turn.
People! Not one of us can wholly understand God, and especially not alone. Let's not have infighting, even where we disagree with each other.
Rom 12:16 - Live in harmony with each other. Don't be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don't think you know it all! (NLT)
Prov 3:7 - Don't be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn away from evil. (NLT)
You remember from PFAL how VPW said Eve's problem was that she "considered" what the serpent had to say. VPW used this as his pretext for getting us to not consider other viewpoints.
Can I say, I'd think that her "problem" was not that she "considered," but that she didn't go to the fountain of wisdom to ask "Why?" but instead listened to other another source of "wisdom" (the serpent) that was way off beam. There are many reputable people out there now who do sincerely honour God and do their best to present an honest viewpoint (rather than set out to deceive), but their viewpoints are inevitably coloured by many things, and they may not be wholly accurate. So don't hang your hat on them and their viewpoints.
Love God (and his wisdom) first, and then love your fellow man (and his wisdom).
James 3:17 - But the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. (NLT)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Because my presence brings joy and light to the world - LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Eden could symbolize not so much a paradise but a closed system, much like TWI. Any closed system ignores the outside world, although it may seem perfect for a time. Eve questioned the system and her perceptions were immediately altered. Eden was not what it had seemed anymore and there was no going back. (That new self-awareness is often uncomfortable, hence the fig leaves). That is something people may or may not experience over and over again, so the Eden story may just represent a process in life itself. Such as leaving a cult mindset.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting take on an old story, Bolshy One.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
imo, the condition of it.
different... but not all that far removed from how I think it went down. seems to be wrapped up in what she saw and accepted as the truth (i.e., "as reality.")
In other words, she (and then Adam) chose to change her (their) perception of reality... to that which man has been ensnared in ever since.
...not really available or possible, imo. (it was a one way ticket, for all intents and purposes, and anything even remotely resembling it in our minds probably pales in comparison.) how Jesus Christ may have succeeded in "reversing" his perception of reality within his own life is nearly incomprehensible... but I suspect those 40 days in the wilderness would have had something to do with it. That any of us can (and do) believe in his resurrection is evidently what unlocks the door (to being able to see/believe a reality greater than what is revealed through the senses), but seems at best all we ever get are glimpses of the "reality" that Adam & Eve were probably capable of perceiving prior to the decision to elevate "another way" of seeing things to the forefront of their minds and heart. But what do I know, eh? Nothing new, nothing original... it's probably just some goofy bunch of gobbledygook for all you smart folk to pass over. Ah, well... so much for that.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm all for trying to present a new or different way to look at things, but if you think that's what you were doing, perhaps some self-awareness development might be helpful.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I'm inclined to agree, and even take it a bit further, in that she didn't just listen to that other source, but grabbed it by the baton and ran with it, in direct opposition to what God had instructed, and stated it pretty clearly, I'd say.
So, yes, her problem was that she considered it, but that first sin was in going directly against God's instructions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
LOL Chockfull !!!!
Still not sure of why the name mix up – either you’re always on my mind
or it’s a sign of old age…which reminds me of a funny family story: grandma – new in our country (yup a bona fide just-got-off-the-boat-type-grandma) would babysit for our mom and dad. She would get our names mixed up – or even call us by one of our cousins’ names. We wouldn’t respond even if she was looking right at one of us but saying a different name. Then “Why you no come?” she’d ask. one of us: “Grandma, that’s not my name.”…so eventually she’d just use a "generic" form of address – for example: “hey you, get a you pajamas on now”....grandmas - ya gotta love their adaptability.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I’m fairly certain LCM got this original sin theory from the Jewish myth of Lilith. She was supposedly made from the same dirt as Adam, but he or God (idk) kicked her out of the garden because she would not submit to Adam. If I remember correctly she is referenced in other ways as well, including being sexually wanton. Also, if I remember correctly Lilith in Hebrew meant something like a creature of the night or even a monster of sorts. I don’t know if there were specific people he ripped off for the specifics of what knowledge means and linking in knowing in the biblical sense but once on that tract I don’t think it would be too hard to twist it to fit.
My theory on how LCM came across it is that there was a Metallica video in the early 90s that depicted Lilith in the garden with Eve and it may have depicted the two of them together, I don’t remember but I do remember being in the Advanced Class in the early 90s and LCM teaching this and then showing that video. He spun it as, see this validates my teaching. The devil is getting bold now that I’m teaching it. I think it was the other way around he got it from the video and then looked into it. I also remember him kind of liking Metallica but I may be wrong on that one.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given how whacked said theory is, what difference does it make where he got it from? Neither it, nor vpw's perverted opinion on what the original sin is ever made any sense.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Please, for those of us who weren't around then, elaborate on VPW's version. I only learned Craig's fantasy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Masturbation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I bet that was based on a firsthand account
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.