6:17 PM
– There are a lot of things in them that I agree with and almost nothing that I would disagree about. However, there are things, which I simply don’t understand.
I am absolutely agree and fully realize that the circumstances in Eden are veiled in mystery and that if God had wanted us to know more specifics about Eden, He would have told us.
I am absolutely agree and fully realize that the circumstances in Eden are veiled in mystery and that if God had wanted us to know more specifics about Eden, He would have told us.
Now, knowing that you also fully realize that, I am all the more puzzled about you assuming quite a high level of probability (almost the level of plausibility) for your theory suggesting that God created that kind of tree of life that was sensitive toward Adam’s partaking of the tree of knowledge, and which generated in itself the ability of imparting life into humans only after Adam’s fall.
This theory is, no doubt, also based on a post-fall-from-grace perspective. And, of course, it also assumes a lot of things about something that is veiled in mystery. But on top of that all, it compels one question that, unless answered, makes the whole theory quite “empty”.
The question is: Why did God need to create such an intricate tree of life (sensitive toward Adam’s fall, able to impart immortality only after Adam’s fall) in the first place? Didn’t God block Adam’s way to that tree right after his fall? Doesn’t it show clearly that God didn’t want Adam to receive immortality after his fall? So why then not create a tree of life that would only confer blessings, but never immortality?
Bible may be quiet about the specifics on Eden, but you don’t really need to be quiet in explaining the logic of your own theory to me.
“Without speculating too much in this regard, I suggest our first parents simply were NOT vulnerable to "any possible destructive force . . . that could have potentially killed [them]”
– Wait a moment…but what about the serpent’s beguilement and the presence of the tree of knowledge?! Were they not the very destructive forces that eventually killed them?
After all, it is the serpent’s beguilement and their subsequent partaking of the tree of knowledge that eventually brought Adam and Eve to their physical death, isn’t it?
From the very fact that our first parents believed the serpent’s beguilement and followed upon it by partaking of the tree of knowledge it is very clear that they WERE vulnerable to those two forces, otherwise, they would’ve easily brushed aside serpent’s persuasions and would’ve not partaken of the forbidden tree, or even if they had partaken of it, it would’ve still not resulted in their physical death some 930 years later. Here the fact of vulnerability declares itself.
“Let's assume for the moment that you are right (correct) and I am wrong (incorrect) about the concept of immortality”
– I don’t understand why you present this as an argument. To me, it still looks more like I am trying to understand your way of thinking here, rather than argue with you. I don’t think either one of us would be definitely right or definitely wrong in assuming his own definition of the term “immortality”.
I don’t really care about what terms we are using. However, what I do care about is what we mean by this or that term. If what I mean by “immortality” is not what this words should mean in English, then I will be more than ready to drop using this term and will probably use another term, or better just explain precisely what I meant by it.
And, answering your question about where our thinking diverges most obviously, I think it is here – that is, what you and I have in mind when we say “immortal” or “immortality”.
When I say “immortal” I simply mean “not able to die in any possible circumstance, from any possible reason”. Thus, if I say that someone (or something) is immortal, what I mean by that is that he simply can never die – he can jump from a skyscraper, or drink some poison, or succumb to serpent’s deception and partake of the tree of knowledge, and yet he won’t die.
Consequently, when I say that someone (or something) is mortal, what I mean by that is that he still can die because of some reason.
Our physical bodies that we have now are good examples of something mortal dying due to the inner reason – when we are born we all have this inner reason in us, the element of death, which starts the process of brining us to our physical death from the very moment of our birth.
On the other hand, Jesus’ physical body before His resurrection would be a perfect example of something mortal with no inner reason – there was no element of death in His body.
“What qualitative difference would it make in your (our) understanding of God's plan for the ages and God's plan for your (our) lives on Planet Earth in 2014?”
– Scientists once, for the mere sake of speeding up the informational exchange among them, invented a small practical side tool. Many of them, in fact, found it quite cumbersome. And one of them even said that the tool would only benefit this much and would only be useful in some small scientific circles.
3 hours later…
9:01 PM
Foist things foist, Moe! Here's a paragraph from your latest missive: "for your theory suggesting that God created that kind of tree of life that was sensitive toward Adam’s partaking of the tree of knowledge, and which generated in itself the ability of imparting life into humans only after Adam’s fall."
I'm having difficulty understanding your wording here. What you seem to be saying is that I think the TOL imparted immortality only after A&E partook of the TOTKOG&E. That's not what I'm suggesting, however. I ASSUME Adam was immortal before he partook of the TOTKOG&E. IF he had partaken of the tree of life in his PRE-FALLEN state, his immortality would not have been affected. Somewhere along the line I think I said,
1 hour later…
10:32 PM
whether or not Adam partook of the TOL prior to his fall is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that God prevented Adam's partaking of the TOL after he had sinned, because God, in love, did not want Adam to live forever in a fallen state. Before sin, the TOL was just another tree in the garden, and its fruit probably looked and tasted good!
Make sense? At the risk of repeating myself, I firmly believe God made our physical bodies (again, prior to the fall) to live forever, and we were immortal from the get-go. I THINK(?) you disagree with me in this. And that's OK. I cannot for the life of me see why our disagreement matters in the long run. What's happened has happened. There's no undoing it. As the young people (and others) say nowadays, "It is what it is." Now all we can do is "deal with it"!
« first day (14 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (21 days later) »
Transcript for
Feb14
Feb '1418
Feb23
Discussion between brilliant and rhet…
Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchan...
