User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50

Thread: Eating Forbidden Fruit

  1. #16
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,931
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 866 Times in 799 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121121
    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    What ilk of death was the Lord referring to ? Death to innocence ?
    Maybe. I have heard spiritual death.

  2. #17
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Thus it is in merely thinking about rebelling against His prohibitive imperative that we gain awareness of ourselves as being free, as being the freedom that we already are, prior to encountering prohibition. Prohibition is the road to knowing one's freedom.

  3. #18
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Eve knew she was free to disobey the ...you shall not eat... prohibitive imperative, she already had freedom; and, she realized and saw her freedom precisely in the face of the prohibition attached to eating the fruit, so, it was not eating the fruit per se that woke her up to her freedom, it was the mere thought of eating what was forbidden, it was by imagining the future possibility of eating the prohibited fruit, whereby she reflectively awoke to her freedom.

  4. #19
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    God is never self-inconsistent in any way.
    When He both created Adam and Eve with personal freedom and then set a prohibition against the exercise of that freedom, He enacted an apparent contradictory and inconsistent stance. So when you so stringently assert that He is never self-inconsistent you are clearly blindly predicating your assertion upon a long established Christian supposition that God is infallible; however, it is apodictically certain that in the instance wherein He created man, and, then, commanded man not to do a specific free act, does indeed constitute a self-inconsistent contradictory action.
    If, indeed, prohibition was established in order to bring man to consciousness of the freedom God gave man, then that would somewhat qualify an ascription of contradictory conduct to the Lord, for, perhaps He did it in order to bring man to an awareness of his personal freedom by proscribing a particular act, i.e., eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; nonetheless it was via self-inconsistent actions that God brought man to the recognition that man is free.

  5. #20
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,063
    Thanks
    13,445
    Thanked 21,019 Times in 11,802 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147701

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    When He both created Adam and Eve with personal freedom and then set a prohibition against the exercise of that freedom, He enacted an apparent contradictory and inconsistent stance.
    The is nothing "apparently contradictory" about that. Your theory is bogus from the start.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  6. #21
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,183
    Thanks
    31,429
    Thanked 8,010 Times in 5,087 Posts

    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147625
    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    What ilk of death was the Lord referring to ? Death to innocence ?
    Dead to Him.

    Separation from Him.

  7. #22
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    The is nothing "apparently contradictory" about that. Your theory is bogus from the start.
    You are responding with mere pure assertion, without supporting your assertions with an account of the reasoning behind what you only assert. Wherein lies the non-contradiction ? How is my hypothesis bogus ? Merely to say there was nothing self-inconsistent, and merely to say what I am suggesting is bogus, is far distant from demonstrating your assertions, which assertions mean nothing absent supporting explanation(s).

  8. #23
    LIFETIME MEMBER jamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    12,063
    Thanks
    1,462
    Thanked 1,333 Times in 1,167 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    328449
    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    When He both created Adam and Eve with personal freedom and then set a prohibition against the exercise of that freedom, He enacted an apparent contradictory and inconsistent stance. So when you so stringently assert that He is never self-inconsistent you are clearly blindly predicating your assertion upon a long established Christian supposition that God is infallible; however, it is apodictically certain that in the instance wherein He created man, and, then, commanded man not to do a specific free act, does indeed constitute a self-inconsistent contradictory action.
    If, indeed, prohibition was established in order to bring man to consciousness of the freedom God gave man, then that would somewhat qualify an ascription of contradictory conduct to the Lord, for, perhaps He did it in order to bring man to an awareness of his personal freedom by proscribing a particular act, i.e., eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; nonetheless it was via self-inconsistent actions that God brought man to the recognition that man is free.
    Paul explains, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)

  9. #24
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,063
    Thanks
    13,445
    Thanked 21,019 Times in 11,802 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147701

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    You are responding with mere pure assertion, without supporting your assertions with an account of the reasoning behind what you only assert. Wherein lies the non-contradiction ? How is my hypothesis bogus ? Merely to say there was nothing self-inconsistent, and merely to say what I am suggesting is bogus, is far distant from demonstrating your assertions, which assertions mean nothing absent supporting explanation(s).
    YOU have provided no contradiction.

    God allowed them to choose and they chose badly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 9th, 2019)

  11. #25
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    YOU have provided no contradiction.

    God allowed them to choose and they chose badly.
    Jehovah's contradictory stance consists his first creating man as freedom and, then, positing a thou shalt not, whereby the man was expected to live up to Jehovah's expectations that man would not eat of the fruit in regard to which He issued the "not".
    It is so simple, so clear, you simply refuse to see the inconsistency because your God is a priori infallible for you, that's okay, fine. good.

  12. #26
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,183
    Thanks
    31,429
    Thanked 8,010 Times in 5,087 Posts

    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147625
    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    Jehovah's contradictory stance
    Question begging.

    consists his first creating man as freedom and, then, positing a thou shalt not,
    If there's only one possibility given in a situation, then it's not possible to be free to choose otherwise.

    God gave Adam and Eve a law, and that law was "don't partake of the law."

    Question for you:

    If a man loves a woman, and wants her to live with him as his wife, is the best thing for him to do to take her to his home and board up the windows and doors and never let her leave?

    Or would it be better for him to bring her to his house, and tell her that if she ever wants to leave, she is free to do so?

    The latter, yes?

    We'd call the former mentally unstable.

    God is mentally stable, he will not keep someone against their will.

    When He gave Adam and Eve the command, "do not partake of the law," He gave them an out, an exit from being with Him.

    However, disobeying God has consequences.

    whereby the man was expected to live up to Jehovah's expectations that man would not eat of the fruit in regard to which He issued the "not".
    Man was expected to love God, his Creator, but was given the ability and option to choose otherwise.

    That, by definition, is free will.

    God created man to be free, and to be with Him for eternity, but choosing other than God has consequences, specifically, that one becomes separated from God.

    It is so simple, so clear, you simply refuse to see the inconsistency because your God is a priori infallible for you, that's okay, fine. good.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Right Divider (April 10th, 2019),Yorzhik (April 10th, 2019)

  14. #27
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Carmarthenshire
    Posts
    8,443
    Thanks
    165
    Thanked 814 Times in 709 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    181760
    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    Is Jehovah a self-inconsistent creator for both making Adam and Eve free and forbidding them to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ?
    If by "free" you mean with free will they did not possess it. Adam and Eve were created mutable. Eve fell from innocence and Adam became a sinner for her. The last Adam became sin for His bride. Selah.

    PS Both the first and Last Adam acted out of love.
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

  15. #28
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,964
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 319 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    400373
    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    Is Jehovah a self-inconsistent creator for both making Adam and Eve free and forbidding them to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ?
    Your definition of "inconsistency" is incorrect. To be inconsistent, God would have had to make Adam and Eve free but also to have known all their actions exhaustively before He made them.

    Tell me about your concept of what a God should be. Would God need to know the future exhaustively in order to be God? and if He didn't would He be excluded from being God?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yorzhik For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 10th, 2019),ok doser (April 10th, 2019),Right Divider (April 10th, 2019)

  17. #29
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,063
    Thanks
    13,445
    Thanked 21,019 Times in 11,802 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147701

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by hishignicityesq View Post
    Jehovah's contradictory stance consists his first creating man as freedom and, then, positing a thou shalt not, whereby the man was expected to live up to Jehovah's expectations that man would not eat of the fruit in regard to which He issued the "not".
    It is so simple, so clear, you simply refuse to see the inconsistency because your God is a priori infallible for you, that's okay, fine. good.
    Once again, there is nothing contradictory about that.
    Man is free with limits. You are just looking for something to complain about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  18. #30
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Your definition of "inconsistency" is incorrect. To be inconsistent, God would have had to make Adam and Eve free but also to have known all their actions exhaustively before He made them.

    Tell me about your concept of what a God should be. Would God need to know the future exhaustively in order to be God? and if He didn't would He be excluded from being God?
    I am precisely familiar with contradiction and self-inconsistency. I am degreed in Philosophy.

    I am positing that it is self-inconsistent to both posit freedom and attempt to posit against freedom freely acting of its own free accord, by implementing a "thou shalt not" against a possible future act, which is precisely an attempt to obviate freedom. It is indifferent whether or not Jehovah can or cannot know the future. Some persons I have interacted with over this question claim that God knew his law, injunction, promise, prohibition, or whatever you wish to call a shalt not, would be disobeyed. It does not matter whether he knew it would be ignored or did not know. The central consideration is that, clearly, he did both create and freedom and immediately posit against freedom with law, prohibition, command, denial... which, simply, is contradictory and self-inconsistent...
    An authentic Deity, after creating man as free, would know better than to even attempt to instruct the man not to act freely in regard to the forbidden fruit, for men are not determined either to act or to refrain from action by given states of affairs like prohibitions or laws. All determination to either action or inaction is negation, i.e., upsurges in and out of the nothingness that is the intended future which man is desirous of ushering into the world...God to be God does not need to know the future, he needs to know how his creation, man ticks when it comes to originating an act or a forbearance to act. A god who posits law/prohibition/injunction/demand/command exhibits that he does not know how man ticks, therefore, he did not create man....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us