The first 3 chapters of Genesis

At the risk of Crevolution having a hernia...I always wish I kept some kind of diary of my own route to salvation. But of course I didn't perceive it being brought about at the time (God not making himself known so as to force us ... and all that jazz) it so logically it couldn't happen.For your (potential) dotage:Your interaction of any substance (aside from a a quip or two here and there) in the Bible Study forum is limited to 4 occasions involving 4 people: Faith, Jaywill, Crevo and myself. A trinity of those happen to be Faith Aloners. The other...well he's has been shown to be just another lilly livered mark like you. The marks debating amongst themselves...sheesh!And now your off in Bible Study yourself for the first time.Good searching Robin.

Your history in Bible Study...oh, and your having been determined an evangelists patsy according to some hereEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Look what you've done! I cannot agree with Robin for fear of incurring your wrath - despite what Jar says reading like the manuals that used to come with Japanese equipment 20 years ago.

I think (in context) that its more a case of (Robins) God brushing aside (their) Adams fig leaf and asking them "have you eaten of the tree?" Of course Adam is going to point any and everywhere. Robin isn't Admin however and cannot banish them from the garden. That is where the analogy breaks down a little

Sure thing. I'm open to what you have to say. At the risk of sounding close minded before you start however I would ask that you keep your first post short so as to see whether your line of reasoning gels at all with mine. You say for example: You are presumably using some model of what it is that constitutes a Christian in supposing that it is indeed fellow Christians I am divided from. I use another model to suppose that there is no division - merely because that model excludes the possibility of that person being a Christian.It could be that what you have to say stems from sheer reasonableness which is not dependant in its foundation on such personal models. It could be otherwise in that you are going to present argument according to a model of things you yourself find reasonable.The more you err towards the former and less the latter the more there may be to profit from it for all.Cheers...

I've a feeling something is going to clash with the universal depravity of unregenerate vs the state of regenerate man somewhere in the not too distant future. But I'll give it a shot if you are still willing.

Rejoicing in such a pathetic view is something of which I should be ashamed. At least you have hit rock bottom. Of that I can take heart. God have mercy on your soul Jar. There is no one else left to care. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Welcome to the twilight zone Percy. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Depends on the knowledge being gained. A child goes from being a child to being a child molester. That is the result of a gain in knowledge is it not?Furthermore: selfishness, greed, perversity, anger, hatred, jealously, violence, laziness etc, etc, are things we come increasingly able to do with age. It is children who cry when caught doing something wrong - not adults.Who ever had to teach a child to lie? And the fact they are so easy to observe in their lying reflects of necessity an expertise in it ourselves. It takes an expert to spot lies this easily.The fall is as plain as the nose on your face.That downward progression is amply covered by Paul in Romans 1. The wrath of God against our denial of our sin ensures it is so. And whoever listened to a child insanely "suppress the truth" when caught in a lie. "I smoked dope but I did not inhale" says one of the most powerful men in the world. "I did not have sex with that woman" says another. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Fair enough. But the progression is in that direction. For every one child molester how many moving in that direction. The sexualisation of children is a fact. This is not to say that those who sexualise children are active child molesters I point to one rape-in-progress of the planet in refutation. Our financial system of capitalism insists the rape go on. (Tip: purchase molybdenum shares - they're can only go up) You will have extreme trouble pointing to how a person can be sinful BEFORE they disobey God. Is not disobeying God not the very definition of sin? So how sinful before the fact?{AbE} The potential for sinning is a different thing than sinning. You seem to be saying that the potential I have to be a child molester (for that potential I have) means I am in fact a child molester.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

And let me welcome you to the word potential. Potential which is on the move and potential which is not. A boulder can sit forever where it is and have the potential to squash you . Or it can be on the move and go about exercising its potential, The difference betwixt me and Adam is that the one potential is inevitable and the other not. I was born with potential on the move. It was a forgone conclusion that I would sin. Not so Adam.

Nor is the contrary. Thus are we given a whole Bible with which to understand. I'm not a Calvinist. At least, my understanding of Calvinsim (unless you are predestined you are without hope: you will never be called, justified, glorified) means I must reject it out of hand. I believe in predestination however - unless you are predestined you will never be called, justified, glorified. Predestination is biblical, Calvinism not.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sin was around before the law though. It wasn't a stain on their character like we were born with. It was just around. There was "do not eat" given however. Given so that sin could get it's teeth into something solid. For without something to get its teeth into it sin couldn't be lured into the open for something to be done about it.

Like a cheetah waiting to pounce!No that is not what I am saying. The law gave sin the chance to express itself. Sin (to personify it) saw the law and went "yum yum - I'll have a piece of that". Whilst around it hadn't a way of expressing itself in the created world. So one was given. Adam didn't have to sin however. Sin was given a means by which to express itself (it saw the law: "do not eat" and sprang into action) and that, as it happens gave the opportunity for Adam to express true choice.A multiplicity of things going on hereknock yourself out chasing after that one. I understand cheetahs are fast but they, like orgasms, don't last long Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Paul sees it otherwise. In personifying it he is telling us not what it is but also that it is not as you say it is. Sin it some kind of thing in and of itself. Law cannot give expression to something that does no exist in some form or other. A potential if you like. Now this isn't strictly Genesis territory. But then again - neither is the word 'sin'. God created them naked so walking around could not have been wrong. They were ashamed because they were now fallen. All sorts came in with the fall - including pain and labour and nakedness being wrong. The new order of things. Thats begging the question PD. For clarification we would have to look elsewhere in the Bible - as you unconciously do when you infer God punishing them. How do you extract Gods actions as punishing without a sense of punishment drawn from elsewhere?There is no point in drawing analogy from your parents. You are presuming no fall in pointing to them. Begging the question.Edited by iano, : No reason given.