Re: For Tom & Inger ( & others) Bringing together the ...

[Guest guest]

I find this concept of " original sin " to be a rather curious one,

really: in reality, Satan was part of the plan of the fall of man into

mortality, and a necessary one at that, and the " original sin " (which

has no logic in cursing offspring in terms of being sinners or being

damned in the biblical sense) was a transgression, not a sin, because

God did not say " Absolutely do not eat of the fruit " but rather " If

you eat, then you will die " while at the same time, before their

innocence was lost, they were married to each other and commanded to

multiply and replenish the earth.

What existed was a paradoxical state: if they never ate of the tree,

they would absolutely be violating the first (and most vital)

commandment of multiplying and replenishing the earth, because until

they had the ability to die, they also did not have the ability to

truly live, where living is defined as having the ability to

reproduce. It was entirely as planned for sequence, though which one

would finally partake of the fruit first (or if they had somehow

managed to partake of it simultaneously, which could have happened)

wasn't the important part, so much as the fact that eventually they

would do so. How long did they exist in the Garden of Eden in their

innocent and perfect state where they could not die? We really have

no way of knowing. Here's a thought: just how long did it take Adam

(and I expect Eve took part in this) to name everything? After

all, as many species of things that we have now that we know about,

there have been a lot of species that have died off completely in

modern times, and lots of evidence that many species existed within

recorded history, but are now gone. But anyway, Satan was a required

option for the plan of salvation, and was used for his true nature

towards bringing the plan to fruition: it's logical that if Adam and

Eve were truly innocent before they were able to know the difference

between good and evil, then surely they couldn't have actually

knowingly sinned. If we are to go on the precept that God is fair and

just, nobody that is innocent of knowing the difference between good

and evil would be punished for doing something that was outside of

their realm of knowledge of being able to decide whether that action

was either one. For that same reason, infant baptism makes no sense,

either, because a newborn simply has no way to commit sin, as they're

still in a rather innocent state for quite awhile, and until they've

been taught or are able to understand the difference, it would be

unjust to damn them for their inability to understand. If anyone

wants to refute the concept of the correctness of infant baptism,

please, point the Bible book:chapter:verse that states that babies are

sinners and need to be baptized at such a young age Effectively,

babies are good/evil developmentally-delayed in comparison to adults

that have learned: there's a certain amount that needs to be taught,

since babies don't come prewired with all the required knowledge or

ability to decipher between the two, and thus, until they've been

sufficiently taught, and taught correctly, they are not held to the

same degree of responsibility as those that have been taught, and

there are provisions for this that don't require baptism before

they're at an age where they can logically be held accountable for

their actions based on their understanding.

>

>

> In a message dated 3/18/2006 1:11:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> vze2txm3@... writes:

>

> Then if he simply described his personal beliefs without referencing

> " Satanism " , would you take that differently?

>

> Prior to reading the message, I presumed that people who claimed to be

> Satanists believed in a being called " Satan " and worshipped him.

Since Satan is

> considered an antichrist, that would be a religion based on

opposition to

> Christianity. From what Gareth says, he's treating Satan as a symbol.

>

> So as I read it, by coming up with a hedonistic philosophy and

identifying

> it with Satan, he is in essence saying it is in direct opposition

to basic

> beliefs of Christians. So even if some things he says are

acceptable, he is

> starting out by being offensive.

>

> Or is this a complete misinterpertation?

>

> - s

>

>

>

> An interesting post that, the one in the link. This does show

Satanism to be

> a very selfish, humanistic view, very individual as well. All

interpretation

> is geared toward what most benefits the Satanist, that stuff in

there about

> not hurting anyone, that's an amusing aside, but the few I have

known never

> bothered about that. Maybe regarding their friends they did, but

only for a

> while. Anyone else was fair game.

>

> Satan is not an anti-Christ but is the usurper. He questioned the

plans of

> God, mainly by refusing to accept the angels being " demoted " to

below Man in

> terms of God's love and will. This is something of a generalization:

basically

> God made angels first and then Man yet favored Man over the angels.

Satan,

> originally called Lucifer (roughly meaning the bearer of light), was

God's

> second in command. This order caused Satan to turn against God,

question his

> will and even try to usurp his position. His worst offense, however,

was to

> convince a third of all the angels to side with him. As a result,

they were all

> cast out of Heaven.

>

> Satan's original Biblical role was something of a hostile jurist, an

accuser

> of Men and a tempter. For example: it was Satan that brought " charges "

> against Job and also tormented him. Over time he became seen as the

> personification of evil. To me this is logical because of his past.

Satan went from being

> the closet thing to God as ever existed to evil. Why? Because he

chose to defy

> God by giving in the jealousy, envy and probably hatred and performed

> treason, sedition, corrupting angels (also beings close to God) away

from God, and

> leading a revolt against God. So, since Satan committed several of the

> cardinal sins, probably the first to do so, it is logical that evil

began with his

> actions and therefore that he would be the ultimate personification

of them.

> Likewise, as angels are agents of God that sometimes help Man, it is

logical

> that the fallen angels as agents of Satan, would seek to harm Man,

God's

> favored.

>

> I'm rambling a little since it is late and I was about the go to

bed. Satan

> could be a symbol whether he exists or not. It is perfectly accepted

for a

> existing being to be a symbol. Most of the world considers Hitler to

be a symbol

> of evil (I know he's dead now, but he did exist at one time) while

others

> might consider Mother Theresa as a symbol of charity (yes, I know

she is dead

> too).

>

> Existence aside, is Satan responsible for all the bad and evil in

the world.

> In one sense, yes. Biblically he did tempt Eve into the Original Sin

which

> got Man kicked out of the Garden of Eden and into a harsh world of

pain and

> hardship, likewise if he is the originator or evil itself with his

rebellion,

> then without him evil would never have come to be. On the other

hand, maybe

> not. We don't know the extent of his omnipotence, but it is less

than that of

> God, so perhaps he or his minions are responsible for some things,

more by

> tempting humans to do bad than causing the acts directly (after all,

their goal

> is not to kill humans, but to corrupt them). But, many bad things

are probably

> just a result of the Fall from Grace of Humanity brought about by the

> Original Sin, disease and death being but two examples. But we will

never really

> know, at least not in this lifetime, if an event was influenced by

supernatural

> forces, though we might strongly suspect it at times.

>

> Bear in mind this. It was often said that the greatest feat Satan

could ever

> accomplish would be to convince Man that he does not exist. If he

could do

> this, then people would begin to question the existence of evil

itself. If they

> no longer believed in evil, or at least in Divine Judgement, then

what would

> restrain them from following their basest instincts and indeed

being more

> drawn to unrighteousness? What better way could he possibly devise

to corrupt

> the souls of Humanity and drawn them away from God and closer to him/

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As much as drinking something too hot isn't a " sin " exactly if you're

told that if you do it, you'll be burned, neither was the partaking of

that fruit, but it was very much required for them to fulfill the

commandment to go forth and multiply, because they couldn't possibly

do that until they got burned. The fall was a requirement in the

grand scheme of things, and Adam and Eve were very much aware of what

the plan was, even if they didn't fully understand it in terms of

consequences with the knowledge they had at the time they were placed

in the garden of Eden.

>

> In a message dated 3/18/2006 11:34:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> I find this concept of " original sin " to be a rather curious one,

> really: in reality, Satan was part of the plan of the fall of man into

> mortality, and a necessary one at that, and the " original sin " (which

> has no logic in cursing offspring in terms of being sinners or being

> damned in the biblical sense) was a transgression, not a sin, because

> God did not say " Absolutely do not eat of the fruit " but rather " If

> you eat, then you will die " while at the same time, before their

> innocence was lost, they were married to each other and commanded to

> multiply and replenish the earth.

> Genesis 15 - 17: The Lord took the man and put him in the Garden of

Eden to

> work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man,

" You are free

> to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the

tree of

> the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will

surely die. "

>

> With the full verse we can see that God did say not to eat the fruit

by

> saying " must not " and " will surely die. " It is no different from a

parent telling

> a child they " mustn't " drink drain cleaner because " it will kill

them. " Both

> cases are a warning not to do something. In the case of Adam and

Eve, they

> fell from grace. In the case of the child, they would suffer a very

gruesome

> death.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You can quibble about it being a quibble, but the net result is that

Adam and Eve were aware of the plan in general, and that they were

commanded to multiply and replenish the earth (the wording of that

makes you wonder if it had been filled before... but *that's* a

quibble and that may be due to how it was translated throughout the

ages anyway ) while also being aware that the only way they would get

to the state where they could fulfill *that* commandment (which would

allow the rest of the plan to succeed) was to partake of that tree.

Yes, there were consequences, but either way, there were consequences,

and they were put in a situation where the only way to succeed at one

commandment was to violate a safety warning, as it were, and by what

they stated in scripture, they were aware that this was a necessity,

and Satan tempting them as a " necessary evil " as it were (again).

Without evil, there can be no good, and without choice, there is no

right or wrong action, either, somewhat similar in concept that you

can't fly without both lift and drag, in that one will get you

somewhere, but the other will allow you to control where it is you

get: a negative input (all a matter of perception) can be vital to

getting a positive output as a result, by steering things. After all,

wasn't it Satan's plan in the beginning that all would do exactly as

they were told, and they'd make it, but all the glory would go to him?

By that definition, there could be no wrong, or right, either,

because they had no options available at all, if that plan had been

enacted.

>

>

> In a message dated 3/18/2006 3:38:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> As much as drinking something too hot isn't a " sin " exactly if you're

> told that if you do it, you'll be burned, neither was the partaking of

> that fruit, but it was very much required for them to fulfill the

> commandment to go forth and multiply, because they couldn't possibly

> do that until they got burned. The fall was a requirement in the

> grand scheme of things, and Adam and Eve were very much aware of what

> the plan was, even if they didn't fully understand it in terms of

> consequences with the knowledge they had at the time they were placed

> in the garden of Eden.

>

>

>

> This is just quibbling. The intent was that they were not to eat

from the

> Tree. One would not advise someone against doing something if there

wasn't a

> negative consequence for doing it.

>

> The other problem here is that of free will. Adam and Eve had free

will and

> they could have chosen not to eat the fruit. They probably would not

have had

> Satan not intervened with his temptation of Eve. God may well have

known that

> Man would fall, but Man did not. The fact that they were fated to

fall, even

> though they did not know it, does not absolve them from violating

the edict

> not to eat the fruit.

>

> They did and they were punished for it. I see this very much as the

old

> style of raising children. They would told not to do something that

would hurt

> them, but if they did it anyway and got hurt, then they would learn

not to do it

> again and to take future warnings more seriously. It also taught that

> actions have consequences and not always pleasant ones.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ah, a case of my memory of the source of something not being exact!

That is, not that I didn't remember it, but rather I couldn't remember

the exact book/chapter/verse.

The source for this statement is: http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/5/11

and be sure to read the surrounding context. Perhaps, though, one

should read the introductory explanation here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/pgp/intrdctr

Before people squawk about the translator, etc. may I strongly suggest

that exactly the same questioning is done for *all* scripture of any

denomination, and keep in mind the telephone game, combined with such

things as translators interpreting what they consider important and

salient points, and that given 100 translators of anything beyond " My

name is ___ " you're likely to get more than 100 different

translations, even if they don't have an agenda of what they see

should be continued through to the other side of translation.

I anticipate that someone will say " But it has stuff in it that isn't

clearly translatable from the King version! " and the question

that makes sense to ask is " What makes you think all of the original

meaning from the source language(s) came through during the King

translation, especially considering the power of the church in

politics of the realm? " and " How many different translations from

start to finish from one language to another did all of the passages

go through? " as food for thought.

>

> Re:

>

> > until they had the ability to die, they also did not have the

ability to

> > truly live, where living is defined as having the ability to

> > reproduce.

>

> I don't understand this. What tells us that Adam and Eve couldn't

> reproduce until they ate the fruit of that tree?

>

>

> Yours for better letters,

> Kate Gladstone

> Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> handwritingrepair@...

> http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> 325 South Manning Boulevard

> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> telephone 518/482-6763

> AND REMEMBER ...

> you can order books through my site!

> (Amazon.com link -

> I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Strict,

Just wanted to comment on a few things here.

" ...before their innocence was lost, they were married to each other

and commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. "

No, they were not commanded to replenish the earth. No human existed

on earth before Adam and Eve. The Bible said that all the animals

were brought before Adam so that he might find a suitable companion.

None fit the bill so Adam was put into a sleep. God took his rib and

made Eve. From those two stem all humans, and all humans were wiped

out in a subsequent flood through which only Noah, his wife, and his

immediate family and their wives and husbands survived. THEY were

encouraged to go forward and replenish the earth.

You will remember that when Cain killed a man and was sent away to

wander the earth, he was afraid he would be killed by others.

We must ask ourselves: " What others? " (Because at this point there

APPEARED to be only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. (After these two came

Seth.) However, the Bible says:

Genisis 5:4

" After the birth of Seth, Adam lived another 800 years, and he had

other sons and daughters. "

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

You also may be confused with the lines " Let us make man in our

image. " That has to do with God speaking to the angels, which were in

existence before man.

The " If you eat, then you will die " warning meant merely that God

would take away their immortality. Remember that after they ate of

the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were then forbidden to

eat of the tree of life. And later, after Adam and Eve's and their

descendents lived for many hundreds of years, God mentions that these

people should not be immortal and limits each new generation to no

more than 120 years.

" What existed was a paradoxical state: if they never ate of the tree,

they would absolutely be violating the first (and most vital)

commandment of multiplying and replenishing the earth, because until

they had the ability to die, they also did not have the ability to

truly live, where living is defined as having the ability to

reproduce. "

Again, there is no such commandment, and God's statement was meant

only to indicate that they should not be immortal.

" ...it's logical that if Adam and Eve were truly innocent before they

were able to know the difference between good and evil, then surely

they couldn't have actually knowingly sinned. "

The sin was going against a direct command given to them by God.

Theyt even discuss the ethics of what it will mean if they go against

God and do it anyway. This is how they knowingly sinned.

" For that same reason, infant baptism makes no sense... "

The purpose of Baptism is to infuse the infact, child or adult being

Baptized with the Holy Spirit. To do this, the infant must be

ritually washed clean of any sin given to him through heridity by

Adam and eve and all his other sinful ancestors.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Whoops...okay...they were told to go forth and replenish the earth...

(Genesis 1:28)

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, " Be fruitful, and

multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion

over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every

living thing that moveth upon the earth. "

But they were not replacing people who were already there.

As Ihave stated...

No human existed on earth before Adam and Eve. The Bible said that

all the animals were brought before Adam so that he might find a

suitable companion. None fit the bill so Adam was put into a sleep.

God took his rib and made Eve. From those two stem all humans, and

all humans were wiped out in a subsequent flood through which only

Noah, his wife, and his immediate family and their wives and husbands

survived.

You will remember that when Cain killed a man and was sent away to

wander the earth, he was afraid he would be killed by others.

We must ask ourselves: " What others? " (Because at this point there

APPEARED to be only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. (After these two came

Seth.) However, the Bible says:

Genisis 5:4

" After the birth of Seth, Adam lived another 800 years, and he had

other sons and daughters. "

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

The other sons and daughters and their offspring were the ones Cain

was afraid would kill him.

You also may be confused with the lines " Let us make man in our

image. " That has to do with God speaking to the angels, which were in

existence before man.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

OK, I see Leif replied himself now, while I was typing my last message.

Good. Hope this clears it up then so we can move on.

And I still insist the graphic post be removed from the archives, in

accordance with the rules.

Inger

[Guest guest]

Why should anyone regard *any* scriptures as accurate?

I'll now answer the question: because scriptures rely on belief of

many things that can't be empirically proven to be true, regardless of

how it was written, just because non-LDS don't believe it doesn't mean

that it is less valid and correct than all the other translations (the

book of Moses as referenced there is another translation of Genesis

from its source) which are at least as likely to be translated

incorrectly or added or removed from. What on earth should make the

King Bible the end-all absolutely correct translation based on

the reality that many things happen throughout time? What about the

translations that Tom points to, that are in more modern english?

For that matter, whom can say with absolute proof that every other

religious text other than their own is absolutely wrong? The reality

is that truth about such things is not up for choice: only the belief

of which interpretation is. Either there is one correct choice that

is absolute truth or at least the most complete truth, or everything

is similarly flawed to some degree or another: it is a logical

contradiction to say that all scripture and beliefs of all religions

are absolutely true, because they conflict too much.

I don't anticipate being able to persuade anyone that my beliefs are

absolutely correct or the most correct, but anyone else stating that

mine are less correct or wrong are building their house upon sand,

since religious beliefs and scripture require faith in things not seen

that can't be proven by empirical science. So, too, people will judge

that if I make such claims, I too, am building my house upon the sand.

How will we know for sure which is correct, finally? Well, if we do

have a life after death of any sort, we'll find out then... and if we

don't have any sort of continued existence of consciousness, then

there's a lot of wrong people, and nobody will know by death that

there was nothing true to believe in other than the " We're born, we

live, we die, and become food for other life " line of thought, which

is what we can prove empirically.

>

> Re:

>

> > Ah, a case of my memory of the source of something not being exact!

> > That is, not that I didn't remember it, but rather I couldn't remember

> > the exact book/chapter/verse.

> >

> > The source for this statement is: http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/5/11

> > and be sure to read the surrounding context. Perhaps, though, one

> > should read the introductory explanation here:

> > http://scriptures.lds.org/pgp/intrdctr

>

> Why should non-Mormons here (including me) regard Mormon scriptures

as accurate?

>

>

> Yours for better letters,

> Kate Gladstone

> Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> handwritingrepair@...

> http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> 325 South Manning Boulevard

> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> telephone 518/482-6763

> AND REMEMBER ...

> you can order books through my site!

> (Amazon.com link -

> I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

>

[Guest guest]

(Sorry, Inger, I just have to answer this post.)

'Fill' is a more correct translation of the Hebrew, rather

than 'replenish', as Tom explained why. If you look at Gen 1:22 the

same Hebrew word is translated 'fill', whereas it is translated

in :28 as 'replenish'. In King ' time, 'fill' and 'replenish'

meant the same thing, but in our time it is confusing, because they

mean different things now. Other translations use the word 'fill' in

verse 28: WEB, BBE, NWT, DBY, YLT, NIV, NAS, AMP, ESV, NLT, NLV, NKV,

NAB, RHE, RSV, NRS, CSB.

>

> Whoops...okay...they were told to go forth and replenish the

earth...

>

> (Genesis 1:28)

> And God blessed them, and God said unto them, " Be fruitful,

and

> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion

> over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over

every

> living thing that moveth upon the earth. "

>

> But they were not replacing people who were already there.

>

> As Ihave stated...

>

>

> No human existed on earth before Adam and Eve. The Bible said that

> all the animals were brought before Adam so that he might find a

> suitable companion. None fit the bill so Adam was put into a sleep.

> God took his rib and made Eve. From those two stem all humans, and

> all humans were wiped out in a subsequent flood through which only

> Noah, his wife, and his immediate family and their wives and

husbands

> survived.

>

> You will remember that when Cain killed a man and was sent away to

> wander the earth, he was afraid he would be killed by others.

>

> We must ask ourselves: " What others? " (Because at this point there

> APPEARED to be only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. (After these two

came

> Seth.) However, the Bible says:

>

> Genisis 5:4

>

> " After the birth of Seth, Adam lived another 800 years, and he had

> other sons and daughters. "

>

> New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

>

> The other sons and daughters and their offspring were the ones Cain

> was afraid would kill him.

>

> You also may be confused with the lines " Let us make man in our

> image. " That has to do with God speaking to the angels, which were

in

> existence before man.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry. I could have sworn I read you post that but went back and

couldn't find it so I thought maybe I was mistaken and that

the 'fill' definition was just in MY head. I'm not feeling well and

having worse brain & memory problems than usual!

>

> Yes, - and I pointed out the same thing a few posts ago.

>

>

> Yours for better letters,

> Kate Gladstone

> Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> handwritingrepair@...

> http://learn.to/handwrite,

http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> 325 South Manning Boulevard

> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> telephone 518/482-6763

> AND REMEMBER ...

> you can order books through my site!

> (Amazon.com link -

> I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

>