why shouldnt god hold my hand? he made me, so im his responsibility, ultimately. i never signed a contract that said i relinquish god of his responsibility of me. as well as this, hes omnipotent, so it wouldnt be any effort for him to hold my hand and not hinder his work as being god.
God's not holding anyone's hand. Life is for us to live, not for us to be guided through. If you want a guide, use the bible. But you still have to live.
But they were not ignorant of language and concepts. They may not have experienced "evil" or its consequences; they may not have been able to write a theological discourse on "evil." However, the concept of obedience is a simple one. Children have to be taught it, Adam and Eve knew it. They were given instructions, they were told the consequences, and they understood the concept of obedience (and, consequently, disobedient). Arguments have been put forth by more intelligent people than me that demonstrate that it was possible (some would say likely) that animals were able to and did die before Adam. If that is true, then they most certainly would know what death was. Furthermore, it is assumed that Adam ate. The Hebrew word indicates death to be like that of a branch broken from a tree. As soon as the branch is severed, it is as good as dead... it is effectively dead. The actual death process takes time, but it is enevitable. If Adam spent any time in a garden, he would be familiar with this concept of death. That is, unless you want to insist that not even plants could die, even in the midst of digestion. Of course, "death" might mean separation from God (this would be consistent with the whole of scripture). This would also mean that while Adam had never experienced separation, an understanding of language would allow him to understand the idea and concept. Similarly, I have never experienced prison, but I am well aware that going there would not be a good thing for me. I don't think that the Knowledge of Good and Evil are necessary predicates to understanding the instructions given by God or to understanding the consequences. As such I do not see how I have a "luxury" simply because I have experienced and done "evil." Maybe, maybe not. I am not so bold as to make an assertion like that. However, we can debate the principles, regardless, yes?
SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD - by Rev. Johnathon Edwards "He's got the Whole World In His Hands" - Christian Children's Song The Psalms are full of being in God's hand. Do you actually want me to list verses in the Bible about it? I will.
So, you mean to tell me that they understood death without ever have seen one incident of it? Without ever having understood firsthand, secondhand or thirdhand? If they had never experienced the "consequences" before how could they FULLY understand it? Even a child doesn't fully understand why they should obey until they disobey. But, we keep giving them chances. Point being: ADAM AND EVE were AS Or LESS Knowledgeable than a child according to reading your Holy Book and apply some common sense. Where do you get that they were not? Where's this in the Holy Book? I see that it contradicts the Paradise apparently shown here in Eden. Where's that in your Holy Book? Well, if you can assume a talking snake eating dust, I will assume such a miraculous event as undying plants in PARADISE --that God called "good". And if God called it "good", it surely would be perfect. If He's perfect, he couldn't see anything else as good. Where did Adam have even a secondhand experience with death according to your Holy Book until AFTER the "Fall"? So, you don't think we need to understand WHY to "obey", just to do it, without question? You haven't proven by your book that Adam understood it, just a bunch of apologetic guesswork, but now you say that he wouldn't even have to know it, just to obey. That's funny, because obviously Adam had something called "human nature" which made him a curious fellow--all babies have it. And since he did it "before the Fall" you can't attribute that to the "Fall". Thus, God created this "human nature" designed to fall? Indeed. I believe there are several questions to aimed at "God" and his so-called gift of "free will" and his attributes, etc.
Those are non biblical and YOU KNOW IT Libertine. The Psalms may talk about David being in God's hands, not God HOLDING EVERYONE'S HAND. You twist words woot woot woot
So, David is the only one in God's hand? And all those little children who sing the song are mistaken? It's funny how you Christian Fundies want to GUESS WORK when the Bible doesn't get specific. You want to explore "other sources" and interpret. However, when I do it, you want to stick exclusively to the Bible, and then get specific..."David's in His Hand, but it doesn't say we ALL are"...pssshhhtt... WTF, are you trying to pull, buddy? I am much too wise and see right through this type of crap. It's whatever suits YOUR viewpoint. Ha ha ... get real
Since when does singing a song make the lyrics right? Where have I guess worked, mate? You guys look at it from the most akward angle or twist words in order to get it to work. Is it not true? Know who is talking, and who he is talking to. We're not all the king of Israel.
are you judging me? If i were to tell you god told me himself i would go to heaven no matter what, would you believe me? with god anythign is possible
When we take literally the Bible (at times) you all go into "interpret" mode. When I bring in to focus all your Christian practices (kid's songs, etc.) you go into "It's not literal in the Bible" mode. - Ha ha... Now, everyone can see your game.
Truth be known...Christianity died a long time ago...but PAUL-IANITY is alive and well and contaminating the World.
This is conjecture. You assert that there was no death at all before the Fall. That nothing could die (not even plants). I make no assertion that strong. I ask "is it possible that other things could die"? The scripture in this passage makes no mention. It doesn't even say that Adam was immortal. People pull this concept of "no death before the Fall" from extrapolation from other passages in scripture. If you hold this position (or if you argue from it) then you accept it as true. I do not claim to know that there was not physical death before the Fall and I do not claim that the interpolation was a correct exegetical reading of the texts. These are things that you assert a priori through your argument (meaning that they must be true in order for your propositions to stand). Could you please back them up? Word games? What do you mean by "FULLY understand"? Must I have an experience with something in order to understand it? Why is experience necessary to an understanding? I get what you are saying. I would agree that someone who has been to prison has a much deeper understanding of the prison system, prison life, etc. than I do. Does this mean I cannot understand at all because I have not experienced it? I would say no. There are many concepts which are understandable without experience (like moving at near-light speed). I would argue this point because I am not sure that a child fully understands why should should obey even AFTER they disobey. Punishment gives them an understanding of why they should not disobey. This is a different concept than understanding why they should obey. The first is simple (merely to avoid punishment), the second is far more complex. Reasoning for obedience is vast and varied, but some basic reasons for obedience are love for the parents, respect for the parents, a need to experience praise, self-respect, honor, etc. A child could understand the desire to avoid punishment. Shoudl an adult, with a full understanding of the reasons for obedience (full, even if experience is required), be granted an excuse for disobedience simply because he had only knowledge of the concept of punishment and no "experience" of it? If so, then what say you of heinous criminals who know punishment conceptually, but have never experienced it? Should they be given a second chance just because they didn't have a "full" understanding of the consequences? You assert that they are less knowledgable based on a passage that is a few verses in length and then proceed to categorically assert that they are less knowledgeable. If you say that you must have experienced something in order to understand, then you are asserting that they could not have ever experienced it. Please back this up using the text. I give the text a plain reading. It gives us no indication that they had no concept of death. The context would seem to indicate that they understood. This is an implication that you force into the issue. I make no assertion that they had experienced it, I simply pointed out that some have made the argument that it was possible. If it is possible, then you must show that it is impossible in order for you to assert that they had no experience with death. Really? Where does it say that Eden was a paradise where nothing could die? Gen 2:17. The Hebrew is "dying you will die." It is also given a sense of unalterable certainty with the word "surely." The idea presented is one of protracted, but certain, death. It might also deal with a duality of immediate spiritual death which results in eventual phsyical death over time. I don't assume the talking snake, it is there in the text (we can disagree as to the factualness of it, but I do not assume that it is there). You must justify your assumption that it is impossible that anything died before Adam. You are reading into the text what is not there. I have drawn conclusions not nearly as strong as yours from what IS there. I do not assert that he did, simply that it was possible. And this is still irrelevant if understanding is not contingent upon experience. You are mixing your arguments. Adam had plenty of reasons to obey. Your argument focuses on that he might not have had sufficient reason to not disobey (because you do not think he understood the punishment). The context assumes that he understood it. You must show how this assumption is incorrect and that was impossible for him to understand at all. I do not ascribe motives to Adam. I do not think that we can. It could have been a lust for power, a desire rooted in becoming like God, who knows? I know I don't. The last comment is a tangent that need not be addressed here (though I assure you, it has been addressed). You can start another thread if you want. Looking forward to it.
