Does Knowledge of Evil Condemn Us?

by JosephAlward 63 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Faithful2Jah

  >>>>>>>> Why wouldn't God just make all men incorruptible to begin with, so he could let all of them have eternal life?

  Joe, you are amazing. I will refrain from making another attack on your memory or reading comprehension skills like I have done in the past. Since maybe your problem is age related or due to some medical condition which you can't help. AC said earlier in this same thread, more than once I believe, "God made us free [able to do both good and evil, aka "corruptible"] so that our love for Him and for others could be true love, being neither forced nor programmed." That certainly makes sense to me.
• 

  Faithful2Jah

  Gweedo: You said >>>>>>>>But he did give Adam and eve eternal life. He permitted them to eat of a tree and live forever.

  No, he didn't. He was only going to let them eat of that tree if they passed their test which they failed. He never gave them eternal life. What book have you been reading? You cant give someone eternal life and then take it away. That's not possible. If they had eternal life they couldn't die. That's what having eternal life means. They died. So they obviously had never been given eternal life.

  So your cookie jar analogy falls flat.

  >>>>>>>>>Did God not punish the talking serpent also. The serpent seduced eve into eating of the tree they were told not to...As PUNISHMENT, as a consequence of this bad act God got angery at this highly evolved talkng serpent and made it crawl on its belly for the rest of its life.

  The serpent was a belly crawler to begin with. Thats what serpents do. God probably just used a low down belly crawling serpent to picture that liar Satan. Then afterwards its belly crawling would act to remind us of his lies.

  >>>>>>>>>> But a god that tells us he is a God of love and yet allows people to suffer disease and all sorts pain and suffering in this world, animals included...is hardly a god of Love, hardly lacking in darkness, hardly perfect. He's a tyrrant.

  So you never allow your kids to suffer any pain to learn a valuable lesson for the future? I know you will say - "Well he didn't have to let us suffer so long." Compared to eternity these past few thousand years will seem like an instant. Guys like you and Joe always think you are wiser than God and are never humble enough to admit that maybe God understands things that you don't.
• 

  JosephAlward

  JosephAlward asked,

  Why wouldn't God just make all men incorruptible to begin with, so he could let all of them have eternal life?

  Faithful says,

  Joe, you are amazing. I will refrain from making another attack on your memory or reading comprehension skills like I have done in the past. Since maybe your problem is age related or due to some medical condition which you can't help. AC said earlier in this same thread, more than once I believe, "God made us free [able to do both good and evil, aka "corruptible"] so that our love for Him and for others could be true love, being neither forced nor programmed." That certainly makes sense to me.

  I had AChristian’s explanation in mind when I composed the question above; I wasn’t sure whether you accepted it or not; that’s why I asked you that question. If my post had been directed to AChristian, I would have skipped the question and gone straight to the rebuttal below. Here it is:

  You imply that God didn't make man incorruptible to begin with because he wanted to have a natural loving relationship with man; he wanted to receive a love from man which comes naturally from man, a love which man chooses to give, a love which is not forced, or automatic, as it would be if God made man incorruptible to begin with. He doesn't want love from men who have no choice but to love him, you claim.
  
  However, what about after God gives man eternal life? You say that this happens when God decides that a man has become perfectly righteous, and at that point either God makes him incorruptible, or he automatically becomes incorruptible.

  No matter how the incorruptibility comes about, it will no longer be possible for the man living for eternity to show a natural love to God, according to you, because his love will not be automatic, since it will be impossible for him not to love God--the now incorruptible man will no longer be able to choose not to love God.

  Since this is exactly the kind of love you say God does not want, it makes no sense for God to grant men eternal life if it means making them incorruptible, for then there would be men living for eternity who could never love God the way he wants to be love.

  It's logically absurd to argue that this god--if it exists--would deliberately give everlasting life to men who could never love him naturally, the way God wants to be loved.

  Does AChristian’s explanation still "make sense" to you?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  GWEEDO

  Dear faithful

  Gweedo: You said >>>>>>>>But he did give Adam and eve eternal life. He permitted them to eat of a tree and live forever.
  No, he didn't.He was only going to let them eat of that tree if they passed their test which they failed. He never gave them eternal life.

  dear faithfu2JAH.

  heres what i said:

  But he did give Adam and eve eternal life. He permitted them to eat of a tree and live forever. He then said if you eat of this other tree you will die, you'll be deprived of the tree of life.

  so...

  He allowed them to to eat of the tree of life so long as they didn't eat another tree. THEY WERE GRANTED ETERNAL LIFE ON CONDITION THEY DONT DO SOMETHING ELSE

  What book have you been reading? You cant give someone eternal life and then take it away. That's not possible. If they had eternal life they couldn't die. That's what having eternal life means. They died. So they obviously had never been given eternal life.

  what are you reading? They were permitted to eat a fruit that would permit them to live forever. THEY WERE GRANTED THEREFORE ETERNAL LIFE DUMMY. It makes no difference whether eternal life was programmed into their DNA or whether they had to eat something to gain it. IRRELEVANT. Living forever is living forever no matter how you get it silly. So long as they didn't eat of a certain tree they would have been allowed to live forever. They were initially granted eternal life therefore...its very simple.

  So your cookie jar analogy falls flat.

  it holds perfectly

  >>>>>>>>>Did God not punish the talking serpent also. The serpent seduced eve into eating of the tree they were told not to...As PUNISHMENT, as a consequence of this bad act God got angery at this highly evolved talkng serpent and made it crawl on its belly for the rest of its life.

  The serpent was a belly crawler to begin with. Thats what serpents do. God probably just used a low down belly crawling serpent to picture that liar Satan. Then afterwards its belly crawling would act to remind us of his lies.

  ????????????????

  probably probably probably.

  He also took away the snakes voice as punishement too it appears. I've never run across a talking snake as yet...have you?

  >>>>>>>>>> But a god that tells us he is a God of love and yet allows people to suffer disease and all sorts pain and suffering in this world, animals included...is hardly a god of Love, hardly lacking in darkness, hardly perfect. He's a tyrrant.

  So you never allow your kids to suffer any pain to learn a valuable lesson for the future?

  Ever been to a cancer ward? YOU SHOULD HEAR THE SCREAMING AT NIGHT....

  I'd never give my kids, if I had any, cancer. If they did get cancer I'd do all in my power to relieve them of that fate. God doesn't seem to care however.

  There is a big difference between a the little bit of suffering I would allow my kids to endure and what God allows. Your analogy is the one that falls flat dude
• 

  aChristian

  Gweedo,

  You wrote: So long as they didn't eat of a certain tree they would have been allowed to live forever. They were initially granted eternal life ...

  You read the story a bit differently than I do. Apparently, because you understand the words "eternal life" differently than I do. You read the story of Adam and Eve as saying "eternal life" was something Adam and Eve already had, and would continue to have so long as they stayed away from that tree.

  I read it as saying that "eternal life" was a gift God said He would give to Adam and Eve if they stayed away from that tree for a predetermined, but unmentioned, period of time. If they had managed to do so, God would have then allowed them to eat from the tree of life. Doing so would have then made them immortal, something they obviously were not, since we know they both later died.

  The difference in the way we understand the story comes from the different ways we understand the words "eternal life." As a former JW and a nonChristian, you still have the JW understanding of "eternal life." JWs say that in the new world, even after the 1000 years have ended, some people who have been given "eternal life" might still sin, and when they do God will then ZAP them. This kind of "eternal life" does not sound very "eternal" to me.

  As a Christian, I have the Christian view of eternal life. "Eternal life" to Christians means "immortality." (1 Cor. 15) Having "immortality" means a person possesses within themself the ability to live forever. Adam and Eve were able to die and so obviously they were never given "eternal life" by God as Christians understand it, immortality.

  You wrote: There is a big difference between the little bit of suffering I would allow my kids to endure and what God allows.

  So you admit that you would allow your children to suffer for a while in order to learn valuable lessons or to achieve a greater good. Let's say, for instance, they had to undergo a long painful surgical procedure in order to avoid much longer and much greater pain later on in their life. Then you would most likely allow them to suffer for hours, or days, or weeks, or maybe even months. But if God, with our eternities in His view, for very similar reasons, allows some of us to suffer for similar or, in some cases, slightly longer periods of time you condemn Him for doing so.

  The fact is, someone who didn't know and understand why you were allowing your child to undergo a very long and very painful surgical procedure might also question your love and compassion. In the same way that you now question God's.
• 

  aChristian

  Joseph wrote: [You claim God] doesn't want love from men who have no choice but to love him. ... However, what about after God gives man eternal life? You say that this happens when [man is made] incorruptible. ... it will no longer be possible for the man living for eternity to show a natural love to God, according to you ... [for] the now incorruptible man will no longer be able to choose not to love God. ... Since this is exactly the kind of love you say God does not want, it makes no sense for God to grant men eternal life if it means making them incorruptible, for then there would be men living for eternity who could never love God the way he wants to be loved.

  Good questions, Joseph.

  The answers can be found by understanding why Christians are called "The bride of Christ."

  Before a woman becomes a man's bride she is free to either give her love to him or to any other man. However, once she freely falls in love with a man, and freely decides she wants to spend the rest of her life with him, and freely consents to become his bride, and then freely makes legal vows to love, honor and cherish only him, and freely makes a legal vow to be completely faithful to him, she then willingly gives up the freedom she previously had to give her love to another man.

  When Christians freely consent to become part of "The bride of Christ," and freely make vows to faithfully serve Him forever, they then willingly give up the freedom they previously had to give their love to another god. After they do so, God will grant them the ability to eternally maintain their faithfulness to Him. This ability is called "incorruptibility." He will then also grant them the ability to live forever. This ability is called "immortality." (1Cor. 15)

  By God not creating people incorruptible to begin with, He allowed us all the freedom to decide for ourselves who we will give our love to. To those who freely decide that they want to give their love to Him, and who freely decide that they want to do so forever, God will give the ability to do what they have already freely decided that they want to do.

  That's a very big difference than God forcing or programming everyone to love and serve Him from the start of their lives.
• 

  Faithful2Jah

  Gweedo: I think AC answered the rest of your questions very well. But he missed one. Maybe he did because he thought you were just kidding, not seriously asking a question. But just in case you were I'll answer it.

  You said >>>>> He also took away the snakes voice as punishement too it appears.

  The snake never could talk. Satan just used that snake like a ventriloquist uses a dummy. You know what a dummy is don't you? That thing you called me. Me, the guy who is so dumb that he puts an apostrophe between the e and s in the word "snake's" and so dumb that he spells "punishment" differently than you do.
• 

  JosephAlward

  AChristian,

  I do not find anywhere in your response the answer to my question; you've avoided the central dilemma resident in your theology.

  You've repeatedly argued that God didn't make man incorruptible to begin with because he wanted to have a natural loving relationship with man; he wanted to receive a love from man which comes naturally from man, a love which man chooses to give, a love which is not forced, or automatic, as it would be if God made man incorruptible to begin with. He doesn't want love from men who have no choice but to love him, you claim.

  If your understanding is correct, then it would make no sense for God to put man in a position where it would be impossible for him to give to God the only type of love you claim God wants--the natural love which comes only from those who have the freedom to choose not to love God if one wished.

  You don't deny, do you, that those who are made incorruptible and then granted eternal life no longer have the option of choosing not to love God, do you?

  You seem to be suggesting that one of the conditions that must be met by the potential "brides" of Christ is that they must agree to give up their freedom not to love God. That certainly would seem to make sense to me, but the fact that the future bride willingly gives up this right to choose not to love God does not take anything away from my argument that the now incorruptible and eternally living man no longer has the freedom to choose not to love God. It doesn't matter that the bride willing gave up this freedom; God now will receive from man exactly the kind of love you claimed he never wanted: love which is impossible not to give. Thus, for an eternity, the incorruptible man will be offering to God the kind of love he doesn't want.

  This seems to be totally contradictory behavior from God, and that's why I think your theology is nonsensical.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Faithful2Jah

  Joe said >>>>> God now will receive from man exactly the kind of love you claimed he never wanted.

  What AC said God never wanted was a love man had not freely chosen to give him.

  Joe said >>>>>> I think your theology is nonsensical.

  Face it, Joe, to you all theology is nonsensical. You know as well as I do that no matter how anyone believing in God explained their beliefs to you, you would say they are "nonsensical."

  AC: Your comments made sense to me. I've saved them to disk along with some other stuff you have written for future reference.
• 

  Faithful2Jah

  AC: Sometimes I wonder why you bother with these guys. : (