TheologyWeb Campus - Unorthodox Theology 201 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Let the rocks fly. en Thu, 17 May 2012 05:31:29 GMT vBulletin 5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/misc/rss.png TheologyWeb Campus - Unorthodox Theology 201 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Necessary Elements of Free Will... http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150865-Necessary-Elements-of-Free-Will&goto=newpost Tue, 08 May 2012 19:37:48 GMT Many Christians see belief in free will as the foundation in our Theology of 1. the necessity to keep GOD at arm's length from creating evil and 2. for the created person to be able to fulfill GOD's plan for them to love and to worship. So let's take a look at this idea...

Free will:
1. The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Religious free will demands that in a situation so serious that the decision self creates both our eternal characters and our eternal relationship with GOD, this decision must to be free of every and any coercion in the least possible way.

Necessary Elements of Free Will:
1. Free will can't be coerced:
1a. Nothing in their created nature could force, coerce or constrain them to choose this or that. This implies that they were not created with any moral, intellectual or emotional impulse to seek good or evil. This must include free from all constraints of biology, genetics and family and other social sources.

1b. Nothing in their experience could force, coerce or constrain them to choose this or that. This means that nothing that happened to them during their time deciding, (such as experiencing GOD's power and glory or experiencing the proof of the truth of reality), coerced them to choose one way or another.

1c. Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could force, coerce or constrain them to choose this or that. This implies that the promises, ideas and arguments of their peers and supposed peers could NOT have any coercive or constraining effect upon their choice but only offer possibilities for their consideration.

In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.

[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.

2. Consequences of the choice must be known but not proved:
2a. The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.

2b. But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.

Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a choice, is described as making a choice based on faith.

Question for discussion:

1. Do these areas of no coercion fully cover all situations so there would be no constraint upon the decisions of a created individual IF they were created and treated in this manner, or is some type of coercion left out?

Peace, Ted ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 ttruscott http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150865-Necessary-Elements-of-Free-Will Thoughts on Gen. 3:5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150785-Thoughts-on-Gen-3-5&goto=newpost Thu, 03 May 2012 22:11:45 GMT Gen 3;5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, *knowing good and evil.* Knowledge right from wrong, good from evil is the base of all religious maturity and perfection as per: Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil, 1Kings 3:9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. ... Gen 3;5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Knowledge right from wrong, good from evil is the base of all religious maturity and perfection as per:

Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil,

1Kings 3:9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong.
and
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.


No one has ever rationally explained to me how knowing the difference between good and evil is bad.


Gen 3;5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

We are to become like Jesus and emulate the Christ to fulfill HIS plan for us as per:
Colossians 3:8-17, Ephesians 4:11-24: (Esp: 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.)

1 Peter 1:15-16, "But as he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, 'be ye holy; for I am holy'."

Romans 8: 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

1 John 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.


How does "ye shall be as gods" as a bad thing, reconcile with our becoming like Christ?

No one has ever rationally explained to me how becoming like GOD is bad.

Gen 3:5 [For] God 430 [doth] know 3045 [that in the] day 3117 ye eat 398 [thereof, then your] eyes 5869 [shall be] opened 6491 , [and ye shall be as] gods 430, knowing 3045 good 2896 and evil 7451.

Lets take out the words added to make the English flow...

Gen 3:5 God 430 knows 3045 day 3117 eat 398 eyes 5869 opened 6491, gods 430, knowing 3045 good 2896 evil 7451.

There certainly seems to be room here for an interpretation that does not contradict the verses previously mentioned...

Peace to all, Ted ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 ttruscott http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150785-Thoughts-on-Gen-3-5 John 9:1-3 Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150743-John-9-1-3-Jesus-Heals-a-Man-Born-Blind&goto=newpost Tue, 01 May 2012 23:37:13 GMT John 9 1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, *who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?*” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” Has anyone something to share with us as to why the disciples thought that he might have sinned before he was born if his soul was created at his birth, innocent of all sin? And did Jesus rebuke them?... John 9
1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

Has anyone something to share with us as to why the disciples thought that he might have sinned before he was born if his soul was created at his birth, innocent of all sin?

And did Jesus rebuke them? Nope, He just answered normally as if the question was completely legitimate, just as if they believed that all men live as spirits in Sheol where they can fall into sin before they come to be born into a body on earth...

just like Pre-conception Existence Theology teaches.

Peace, Ted ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 ttruscott http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150743-John-9-1-3-Jesus-Heals-a-Man-Born-Blind More on the RCC http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150708-More-on-the-RCC&goto=newpost Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:41:35 GMT In further studying the RCC, I continue to make discoveries which surprise me. One of the issues concerns the umbrella of the main stream Christian church discussed here on Tweb. Included under this umbrella are the churches claimed by one another to be true Christian churches. The claim is made that all past differences have been laid aside, and all of the recognized denominations are now a part of the same happy family of the Body of Christ. Meanwhile, in July 2007, Pope Benedict... In further studying the RCC, I continue to make discoveries which surprise me.

One of the issues concerns the umbrella of the main stream Christian church discussed here on Tweb. Included under this umbrella are the churches claimed by one another to be true Christian churches. The claim is made that all past differences have been laid aside, and all of the recognized denominations are now a part of the same happy family of the Body of Christ.

Meanwhile, in July 2007, Pope Benedict XVI made an announcement to the world which disavowed this belief as professed by those posters whose comments I have seen on Tweb.

http://www.catholic.org/internationa...y.php?id=24660

Here are a few of the points made:

Yet, Christian communities “born out of the Reformation” do not share that union as they “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders,” the Vatican congregation said.

“These ecclesial communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called churches in the proper sense,” it said.



Thus, according to many, many websites about this declaration, the Pope reaffirmed the questionable Catholic position that Anglican holy orders are worthless. His speech produced a firestorm of negative reactions from leaders of Reformation born denominations.

How is it that so many posters on Tweb refuse to acknowledge this? Why do you continue to pretend to be a part of the same family of main stream Christianity when the Papacy of the largest church institution of the world denies that you can achieve salvation unless you join the RCC?

As evidence in support of the RCC’s viewpoint of the Pope, the following quote was found here:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/R-Pope...my_power_Jesus

I had to research all of the claims made at the site to determine their authenticity. I found both correct references and false references. I could not find anything that indicates the following is false:

Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God....dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority....I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do...wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods (emphasis added).ix

ix. Decretales Domini Gregori IX Translatione Episcoporum, ("On the Transference of Bishops"), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), Column 99; (Paris, 1612).



Now, inasmuch as the RCC claims that the Pope is infallible, my purpose is to show that this is Biblically impossible and false by quoting passages and making personal comments.

First of all, the RCC claims that Jesus made Peter the “rock” upon which Jesus built His church. However, Jesus is the foundation “rock”/cornerstone of His church. The RCC does admit that elsewhere in the Bible that Jesus is also a “rock” in the foundation of His church. However, to look to Peter as the rock upon which they built their religious institution cannot help but place Jesus in second place. Also, ironically, it is Peter himself who taught that Jesus is the foundation rock; he does NOT claim to be that rock. In fact, Peter DOES teach that members of Christ’s church ALL become “lively rocks” that build up the church. No individual member is singled out as having any special place in the church; thus including himself among the lively rocks.

Romans 3:23 (KJV)
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;



How can the Pope be infallible when Peter was a sinner???? Peter was not above the law; how can the Pope claim to be above the law especially since he claims he is Peter’s successor????

In fact, it was only a few passages after Jesus spoke to Peter those words which the RCC base their entire Divinity upon, when Jesus spoke again to Peter saying:

Matthew 16:23 (KJV)
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.



Obviously, Peter was NOT infallible!

Romans 2:11 (KJV)
11For there is no respect of persons with God.



How can the RCC disregard this teaching? By claiming the Pope is infallible, they make God to be a respecter of persons when they say that the Pope infallible!!!

Acts 10:25-26 (KJV)
25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.



Why does the RCC allow anyone to bow down to ANY PERSON????

Romans 1:18-32 (KJV) (comments in italics are mine; bold emphasis is mine)
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (do not the Pope and Leaders of the RCC claim to wise in all matters pertaining to God to the point that they proclaim a person needs to look to them as the “church” in order to get knowledge about God?)
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (The Vicar of Christ is worshipped by both the Leaders of the RCC, as well as the laity)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...olic_idols.htm

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (While most people read this as only a source to identify why women become lesbians, I also see it as a precursor to Nuns, who believe it to be a sign of their exceeding love and devotion to Christ. However, to not be married frustrates the entire Plan of Salvation – as the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth was given to Adam and Eve, and has never been rescinded.)
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (See how disobeying the commandment that a Bishop needs to be married has wrought havoc and sin and pain!!!!)
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (I cannot help but see this as a description of the RCC and their history.)



BTW, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE LETTER WAS WRITTEN TO “ROME”!!!!!!

Here are some more passages which I believe warn against institutions like the RCC:

Colossians 2:8 (KJV)
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.



Matthew 6:24 (KJV)
24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Who do the Catholics worship and serve; the Pope, or God?)



2 Cor 11:12-15 (KJV)
12But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.



Matthew 22: 37-40 (KJV)
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It is the requirement of the RCC that a person must follow and accept all of their dogmas, as taught in their Catechisms, and NOT as taught in the Bible. How can a person even get to know God and love Him with all their heart, soul, and mind, when the RCC demands that you can only accept the “knowledge” they teach you about Him? At that point, you can only love what they teach you about Him; it is not a “knowledge” which you received personally from the Holy Ghost who is the ONLY source of spiritual Truth on the Earth.



In a letter written to the church by Pope Boniface in 1302, he said:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/R-Pope...my_power_Jesus

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.xii
xii. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Rome: 1302).



This is absurd!!! Salvation comes from Jesus Christ!!!! Does the Vicar of Christ, i.e., the Pope, believe that he has replaced Christ? Or has he actually usurped Christ’s Power and Authority to save??? Which is it??? Remember, we cannot serve God and mammon at the same time!!!

According to the RCC:

pope_worship.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...olic_idols.htm

"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist (communion wafer) are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema." (One exhausted definition of "Anathema" = To be damned and put to death) Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Original text with English translation, by Rev. H.J. Schroeder, O.P., B. Herder Book Co. 1960, p.79, Canon 1.



However, who is the Creator? Christ, or the Priest??? Consider the following:

Acts 7:48-51 (KJV)
48Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
49Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
50Hath not my hand made all these things?
51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.



In addition to showing that something a man makes, be it a wafer and/or a cup of wine, cannot be the actual body and blood of Christ because Christ dwells in Heaven, it is blasphemous to believe that a man has more power and authority than Christ Himself, by claiming that something made by man can become the body and blood of Christ just because the man “blessed” it. We take the Sacrament “in remembrance” of Christ!

I would also point out that the above passage makes it VERY clear that we need to follow the teachings of the Holy Ghost; NOT the teachings of man. Yet the RCC demands you follow their dogmas. What happened to teaching people the need to follow the Holy Ghost??

One of the most shocking things I learned about the RCC as I was doing research on their beliefs brought me to tears. I actually wept when I saw this. It has to do with their many Catechisms. Now, first I will try to present how the Vatican sees Catechisms. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, I found out (emphasis added):

The word katechesis means instruction by word of mouth, especially by questioning and answering. Though it may apply to any subject-matter, it is commonly used for instruction in the elements of religion, especially preparation for initiation into Christianity.

It is worthy of note that, though texts of Scripture are not quoted, the second catechism contains a large number of questions and answers relating to the Holy Scripture, among others the following: "Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians? — The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians, because they are taught by the Church; still, the reading of it is very useful and recommended to all."



This seems to be pretty self-explanatory. IOW, catechisms, though they do not quote Scripture, do address questions and answers pertaining to Holy Scripture. However, studying Scripture is not “necessary” because the RCC teaches “scripture”. Now, regardless that the RCC said that reading Scripture “is very useful and recommended to all”, this is obviously not as important as learning the RCC’s dogmas!! I would ask, therefore, when and where the RCC got their power and authority to create man-made dogmas which people MUST agree to; and, when and where did they get the power and authority to have their dogmas hold a superior and supreme meaning ABOVE the Word of God???

The Catholic Encyclopedia had this to say about the Roman Catechism:

Catechism, Roman - This catechism differs from other summaries of Christian doctrine for the instruction of the people in two points: it is primarily intended for priests having care of souls (ad parochos), and it enjoys an authority equalled by no other catechism.




Here is something else that I did not know before. Although the Catholic Bible includes the original Ten Commandments, the Catechetical “formula” of the Ten Commandments is distinctly different. Here is a version I found on a Vatican website:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...sm/command.htm

A Traditional Catechetical Formula

1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.

2. You shall not take
the name of the LORD your God in vain.

3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.

4. Honor your father and your mother.

5. You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery.

6. You shall not commit adultery.

7. You shall not steal.

8. You shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor.

9. You shall not covet
your neighbor's wife.

10. You shall not covet
your neighbor's goods.



The glaring and inescapable change (which you would not even be aware of if you were to believe the RCC’s claim made earlier: The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians, because they are taught by the Church;) is that they entirely deleted the second commandment. In order to still come up with “ten” commandments, they broke apart the 10th commandment into two separate commandments. Thus, the “scripture” from the Bible which IS being taught by the RCC is a blasphemous version of scripture. As we can see from the catechetical formula, the RCC is teaching a lie!!

Here is the original 2nd Commandment:

Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV)
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.



I do not think it is necessary to provide a reason about why I believe the RCC found it necessary to delete the 2nd of the Ten Commandments, as it should be obvious.

jo
Attached Images
]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 jo7241974 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150708-More-on-the-RCC In the Garden: 1. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150697-In-the-Garden-1&goto=newpost Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:45:36 GMT Genesis 2:18 - And the LORD GOD said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis 2:20 - And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam* there was not found an help meet for him.* Adam was supposedly given life in a state of moral cleanliness, variously described as being one of innocence, purity, sinlessness, righteousness, and sometimes even holiness. The general idea is that... Genesis 2:18 - And the LORD GOD said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:20 - And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Adam was supposedly given life in a state of moral cleanliness, variously described as being one of innocence, purity, sinlessness, righteousness, and sometimes even holiness. The general idea is that Adam was faultless in GOD's sight before he disobeyed the command in Eden.

Yet scripture says: It is not good that the man should be alone. Who is at fault for his aloneness, his not goodness? Well Adam certainly could not help the state of his creation so it wasn't him...yet the implication remains that God created something not quite perfect which is contrary to His attributes and not possible.

In fact in Gen 1:31, everything was very good. So, in all this goodness, how did it slip by that Adam's state was not good? Well, to my mind, since I don't think that God makes anything sort of good nor almost perfect, not lets things slip by, I think it must be a clue pointing somewhere else. Perhaps something not good slipped into Adam's experience between Gen 1:31 and Gen 2:18?

We do have proof that something became not good between these two verses as Peter tells us,
2 Peter 2:4 - For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.
We know the angels fell before the 'fall' in the garden as the snake arrived in a sinful state. So obviously not everything is being told here but hints are given.

Perhaps the evil angels are not even being considered in the everything of verse 1:31 and so the phrase everything was very good is meant to apply only to God's physical creation of the earth (perhaps the whole physical universe) but not to the prior creation of spirits, the angels, some of whom were not so good.

Another thing not usually considered is that IF the fallen angels were being held to be the role model of badness for the sinful church, then their badness could be called 'good' for the purpose of chastening, converting and sanctifying the fallen church.

[Of course most people ignore all this and usually not good gets twisted to mean not bad.

It is a fundamental hint to me that if the ordinary meaning of scripture is interpreted to mean the opposite of that ordinary meaning by everyone, then the chances are that everyone is bending the scripture to mean what it has to mean to satisfy their orthodox take on reality. In other words if you gave this verse to someone who did not know the bible and asked them to interpret it, they would answer that there was something wrong, something not right about Adam's aloneness.]

So does not good to be alone mean “Adam was in rebellion to GOD's will for him,” or just about anything else?

Does alone imply separation from God in the garden due to sin? Or just "unable to produce children" as per the orthodox?

Genesis 2:18 also says that GOD had to make an “help meet”, (NIV - suitable helper), to fix Adam's bad situation, but this is not irrefutable proof Adam was in rebellion because it is possible to interpret “helper” so that it means “reproductive partner” rather than “someone who would be instrumental in convicting Adam of his spiritual rebellion.”

And “suitable” is not proof either, because it too can be interpreted as meaning “better than any animal” rather than “because Adam had already rejected GOD, someone else had to be found whom he would accept as a marriage partner so that he could learn about his spiritual marriage to HIM”.

Let's just look at the lead up to this:
Genesis 2:15,16 - And the LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD GOD commanded the man, saying...

It is obvious that after being commanded by God that Adam is either in rebellion to the command (unrighteous) or in compliance (righteous).

Now, if Adam was righteous he would be faithfully following GOD's will for him, viz., willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do, right? And what did GOD want him to do?

Well, it seems that, in addition to dressing and keeping the garden, et cetera, GOD wanted him to get married and that, to get his wife there, Adam had to go into a deep (but possibly conscious sleep, and donate a bone and some flesh. And was Adam willing to comply with GOD's will for him in this? Well, he was, but only after GOD had brought him all the animals first and they had all been shown to be unsuitable:

Genesis 2:20 - And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Now, in regard to this little episode, I wonder why GOD had to resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable? If Adam was willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an animal was not what HE wanted? Moreover, just whose idea was it that one of the animals might work? It certainly could not have been GOD's, could it?

Since this was the situation, how can we believe that Adam was righteous, preferring to comply with GOD's will above all else? How can Adam be this reluctant/rebellious to doing this GOD's way and, at the same time, be faithfully willing to fulfil HIS purpose for him?

Peace, Ted ]]> Unorthodox Theology 201 ttruscott http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150697-In-the-Garden-1