Trouble In Paradise

Burdock

Member
And the woman saw that it would be good to eat from the tree and that it was beautiful to look at, and that it was an enjoyable tree to be desired because it would make one wise, and she took of its fruit and ate and also gave of it to her husband, and he ate. Genesis 3:6

What a gigantic mistake that was. Sometimes when I make a mistake I'll think about it and the consequences that came with it and wish I hadn't done that. I wonder if that's where Evan and Eve we're at that point. I mean they knew they had made a mistake as they hid themselves from God and they covered their nakedness, which were two things they never would have dreamed of before the fall.

The Fall of Man explains why sin and misery exist in the world today. Every act of violence, every illness, every tragedy that happens can be traced back to that fateful encounter between the first human beings and Satan. That one act of making the wrong choice brought to God's creation suffering on a scale that's hard to imagine.

When God created Adam, the first man, and Eve, the first woman, and placed them in a perfect home, the Garden of Eden everything about Earth was perfect at that moment in time. Food, in the form of fruit and vegetables, was plentiful and free for the taking. The garden God created was spectacularly beautiful. Even the animals got along with one another, all of them eating plants at that early stage.

Eve falls first. She falls as the weaker one, as the one who is partly taken from the man. But there is no excuse for her fall; she is fully her own person. Yet the culmination of the story is Adam’s fall. Only when Adam falls does Eve fall wholly, for the two are after all one. Adam falls because of Eve, and Eve falls because of Adam; the two are one. They are two and yet one also in their guilt. They fall together as one, yet each carries the whole burden of guilt alone. God created humankind as man and woman—and humankind fell away from God as man and as woman.

How could it happen that Adam did not regard Eve’s deed as a last sign pointing to the one who created him? He was not even able to understand what Eve had done. He was still only able to understand it as another infinite reinforcement of the serpent’s word that pointed out to him his creatureliness and freedom for God. “And he ate.”

My take away from this is, that if I do what God tells us to do everything will work out for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose. If I ignore what God tells us to do, and instead choose the pride of life, I'm in for a train wreck.
 
The Fall of Man shows I have a flawed, sinful nature and can never earn my way into heaven by trying to be a good person. I have to put my faith in Jesus Christ to save me.
 
Last edited:
Instead of believing God, Eve believed Satan. She ate the fruit and gave some to her husband to eat. Scripture says "the eyes of both of them were opened." Genesis 3:7 They realized they were naked and made hasty coverings from fig leaves.

God invoked curses on Satan, Eve, and Adam. God could have destroyed Adam and Eve, but out of his gracious love, he killed animals to make clothes for them to cover their newly-discovered nakedness. He did, however, cast them out of the Garden of Eden.

From that time on, the Bible records a sad history of humanity disobeying God, but God had put his plan of salvation in place before the foundation of the world. He responded to the Fall of Man with a Savior and Redeemer, his Son Jesus Christ.
 
The term "Fall of Man" is not used in the Bible. It is a theological expression for the descent from perfection to sin. "Man" is a generic biblical word for the human race, including both men and women.

Adam's and Eve's disobedience to God was the first human sin. They forever ruined human nature, passing on the desire to sin to every person born since.

God did not tempt Adam and Eve, nor did he create them as robot-like beings without free will. Out of love, he gave them the right to choose, the same right he gives people today. God forces no one to follow him.

Some Bible scholars blame Adam for being a bad husband. When Satan tempted Eve, Adam was with her (Genesis 3:6), but Adam did not remind her of God's warning and did nothing to stop her.

God's prophecy "he will crush your head and you will strike at his heel" (Genesis 3:15) is known as the Protoevangelium, the first mention of the gospel in the Bible. It is a veiled reference to Satan's influence in Jesus' crucifixion and death, and Christ's triumphant resurrection and the defeat of Satan.

Christianity teaches that human beings are unable to overcome their fallen nature on their own and must turn to Christ as their Savior. The doctrine of grace states that salvation is a free gift from God and cannot be earned, merely accepted through faith.
 
The term "Fall of Man" is not used in the Bible. It is a theological expression for the descent from perfection to sin. "Man" is a generic biblical word for the human race, including both men and women.

Adam's and Eve's disobedience to God was the first human sin. They forever ruined human nature, passing on the desire to sin to every person born since.

God did not tempt Adam and Eve, nor did he create them as robot-like beings without free will. Out of love, he gave them the right to choose, the same right he gives people today. God forces no one to follow him.

Some Bible scholars blame Adam for being a bad husband. When Satan tempted Eve, Adam was with her (Genesis 3:6), but Adam did not remind her of God's warning and did nothing to stop her.

God's prophecy "he will crush your head and you will strike at his heel" (Genesis 3:15) is known as the Protoevangelium, the first mention of the gospel in the Bible. It is a veiled reference to Satan's influence in Jesus' crucifixion and death, and Christ's triumphant resurrection and the defeat of Satan.

Christianity teaches that human beings are unable to overcome their fallen nature on their own and must turn to Christ as their Savior. The doctrine of grace states that salvation is a free gift from God and cannot be earned, merely accepted through faith.
Yes that is Augustinianism . That came from him via Gnosticism , Greek Philosophy and Paganism that he married with Christianity
 
I’ll prove it tomorrow I’m just starting a family movie with my kids and grandkids:)

No... you'll spout the same old nonsense because you just constantly watch movies instead of pray.

:)

All have sinned, only way that can be true, is all are sinful.

Bible - 1, civic - 0.
 
Poisoning the well

One especially insidious means of tarnishing a debate with emotional bias is the attempt to discredit information by maligning the source of the information. Some people often adopt the old saying, “Consider the source,” in order to end an argument before they properly evaluate it. The fallacy of Poisoning the Well lies in the fact that even a disreputable person can sometimes offer a formidable argument; even a liar sometimes hits on the truth, sometimes even when he intends to lie! The truth of an argument does not necessarily depend on the reputation or character of the source making it. While corrupt character may imply a greater likelihood of mischief, no strictly logical connection exists between reputation and truth.

Literally, poisoning a well was an act of warfare used in ancient and medieval times to plague and kill unsuspecting villages. Even today, poisoning a water supply remains a feared terrorist tactic. If you poison a well—the source of water—then anyone who draws water from it will be poisoned. If someone knows you have poisoned their well, they will refuse to accept water from it. Likewise, if someone successfully discredits their intellectual opponent, then an audience will instinctively reject that opponent’s arguments as well. Both activities are nearly as criminal as the other—the one defrauds property, the other reputation. The particularly evil aspect of Poisoning the Well is that the perpetrator, by discrediting the source of opposing arguments, does not neutralize his opponent’s immediate argument only, but also any argument his opponent may give in response afterwards. Wikipedia
 
it is true eve ate and God did NOT want that...

He would not cause the fall out of some 'other plan'...

His creation was complete and declared Good.

The one who disobeyed Him and hurt us all...
and brought us all into this Egypt...
where we still are

is Adam.

God's goal is to restore His desolated Paradise and all His sons and daughters
 
Last edited:
Absurd and unproven.
‘Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.” ‘

– John Wesley, The Works of the Late Reverend John Wesley (1835 Edition), volume 2, p. 110


‘Calvinists have tried to say that the doctrine of man’s total inability is the historic position of the Church, but that is simply not true. Many take for granted that the Church has always held to the doctrine of total inability. Yet a study of history reveals that the doctrine of free will was universally taught by the Early Church, without exception, for the first three to four hundred years. The Early Church was continually defending the doctrine of free will and refuting the Gnostic’s who held to the doctrine of total inability and determinism or fatalism.



The Gnostic’s had a predestination philosophy, or a fatalistic mentality of “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be.)”[1] But the Early Church believed that man’s free choice had a major contribution or ultimate determination to his course and destiny. The Gnostic’s, who claimed to be the real Christians, taught that man’s nature was so corrupted and ruined that man did not have a free choice between good and evil; while the Early Church taught that God has granted the faculty of free will to the nature of all mankind and has preserved that free will so that it has not been lost, as we shall see.



There are those today who make the doctrine of total inability an essential doctrine of the Christian faith and are quick to condemn anyone who would dare question or challenge it. But in the times of early Christianity, the doctrine of free will was considered orthodox and the doctrine of total inability was heretical. Being considered orthodox or heretical is merely a matter of dates. The Early Church said that only Gnostic’s deny the freedom of the will; yet many denominations of our day say that only heretics affirm it.



Gnosticism vs. Early Christianity



In the days of the Early Church, the debate between the freedom of man’s will vs. the total depravity of man’s nature was one of the major divisions between the early Christians and the Gnostic sects. Beausobre said, “…those ancient writers, in general, say that Manichaeans denied free-will. The reason is, that the Fathers believed, and maintained, against the Manichaeans, that whatever state man is in he has the command over his own actions, and has equally power to do good or evil.”[2] W. F. Hook said, “The Manichaeans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of sinning.”[3] Lyman Beecher said, “…the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church… natural inability was to that of the pagan philosophers, the Gnostic’s, and the Manichaeans.”[4]



There were many different Gnostic groups in the days of early Christianity, who also denied the freedom of man’s will, such as Marcionism started by Marcion. But one of the greatest competitors and threats to the Early Church was the Manichaeans started by Manes, a Persian philosopher, also known as Mani.



The Early Church debated the founder of this Gnostic group in the “Acta Archelai,” also known as “The Disputation with Manes.” Archelaus, a bishop in the Early Church, represented their doctrine that God does not make us with ruined natures but has given us free will. Mani took the Gnostic position that man’s nature was totally depraved and corrupted and that man did not have a free will.



The judges of the debate ruled in favor of Archelaeus and ruled against Mani, stating that man does in fact have free will as opposed to a depraved nature. The belief of early Christianity is stated in the debate in this way, “All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment… our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to sin… And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments. Whoever despises them and turns aside to what is contrary to them, shall yet without doubt have to face this law of judgment… There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases.”[5]



This debate of constitutional liberty vs. constitutional corruption between Mani and Archelaus dealt with the very core of Early Christianity vs. the emerging Gnosticism. The danger that the Early Church saw with the Gnostics was that they professed to be Christians and they claimed to be teaching Christian doctrine. In fact, the Gnostic’s declared that they were the real or true Christians who had special knowledge that others did not. The Church considered Manichaeans to be imposters and Manichaeism to be a counterfeit. The leaders of Christianity were worried that Gnostic doctrine might corrupt the Churches.



The Gnostics, for example, taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself. Hans Jonas said that in Gnosticism, “The human body is of devilish substance and – in this trait exceeding the general derogation of the universe – also of a devilish design.”[6] Because the Gnostic’s viewed the flesh as a sinful substance, they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and that is why the Scriptures called them “antichrist” (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3). “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 Jn. 1:7).



Gnosticism believes that sin is the substance of the body, which is inherited at conception, so that man is born sinful or with a sinful nature. The Early Church, on the other hand, taught that sin was a free choice of the will, which is originated by the individual. The Gnostics taught that man was sinful by nature, while the Early Church taught that man was sinful by choice.



It was referring to these Gnostic groups that John wrote, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). We can see then that the teachings of the Gnostics were condemned in the Scriptures.

True and proven. What absurd is to deny the truth of the historical facts.

hope this helps !!!
 
‘Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.” ‘

– John Wesley, The Works of the Late Reverend John Wesley (1835 Edition), volume 2, p. 110


‘Calvinists have tried to say that the doctrine of man’s total inability is the historic position of the Church, but that is simply not true. Many take for granted that the Church has always held to the doctrine of total inability. Yet a study of history reveals that the doctrine of free will was universally taught by the Early Church, without exception, for the first three to four hundred years. The Early Church was continually defending the doctrine of free will and refuting the Gnostic’s who held to the doctrine of total inability and determinism or fatalism.



The Gnostic’s had a predestination philosophy, or a fatalistic mentality of “Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be.)”[1] But the Early Church believed that man’s free choice had a major contribution or ultimate determination to his course and destiny. The Gnostic’s, who claimed to be the real Christians, taught that man’s nature was so corrupted and ruined that man did not have a free choice between good and evil; while the Early Church taught that God has granted the faculty of free will to the nature of all mankind and has preserved that free will so that it has not been lost, as we shall see.



There are those today who make the doctrine of total inability an essential doctrine of the Christian faith and are quick to condemn anyone who would dare question or challenge it. But in the times of early Christianity, the doctrine of free will was considered orthodox and the doctrine of total inability was heretical. Being considered orthodox or heretical is merely a matter of dates. The Early Church said that only Gnostic’s deny the freedom of the will; yet many denominations of our day say that only heretics affirm it.



Gnosticism vs. Early Christianity



In the days of the Early Church, the debate between the freedom of man’s will vs. the total depravity of man’s nature was one of the major divisions between the early Christians and the Gnostic sects. Beausobre said, “…those ancient writers, in general, say that Manichaeans denied free-will. The reason is, that the Fathers believed, and maintained, against the Manichaeans, that whatever state man is in he has the command over his own actions, and has equally power to do good or evil.”[2] W. F. Hook said, “The Manichaeans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of sinning.”[3] Lyman Beecher said, “…the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church… natural inability was to that of the pagan philosophers, the Gnostic’s, and the Manichaeans.”[4]



There were many different Gnostic groups in the days of early Christianity, who also denied the freedom of man’s will, such as Marcionism started by Marcion. But one of the greatest competitors and threats to the Early Church was the Manichaeans started by Manes, a Persian philosopher, also known as Mani.



The Early Church debated the founder of this Gnostic group in the “Acta Archelai,” also known as “The Disputation with Manes.” Archelaus, a bishop in the Early Church, represented their doctrine that God does not make us with ruined natures but has given us free will. Mani took the Gnostic position that man’s nature was totally depraved and corrupted and that man did not have a free will.



The judges of the debate ruled in favor of Archelaeus and ruled against Mani, stating that man does in fact have free will as opposed to a depraved nature. The belief of early Christianity is stated in the debate in this way, “All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment… our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to sin… And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments. Whoever despises them and turns aside to what is contrary to them, shall yet without doubt have to face this law of judgment… There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases.”[5]



This debate of constitutional liberty vs. constitutional corruption between Mani and Archelaus dealt with the very core of Early Christianity vs. the emerging Gnosticism. The danger that the Early Church saw with the Gnostics was that they professed to be Christians and they claimed to be teaching Christian doctrine. In fact, the Gnostic’s declared that they were the real or true Christians who had special knowledge that others did not. The Church considered Manichaeans to be imposters and Manichaeism to be a counterfeit. The leaders of Christianity were worried that Gnostic doctrine might corrupt the Churches.

NOTE: edited for typos and clarification.

I think the situation is that we are on a prison earth and totally disabled from being able to get out
if not God act .... yet, a soul's choice affects if she get out. So i don't think either side is right... mostly because
all the terms used by either side are tainted and set up in dualistic thinking.

the problem with the gnostic term is that it is a slur which is not all-encompassing. I've been accused of it... yet I don't check off all its boxes..
for me, a real gnostic is an esau with a hidden agenda, who may even say the 'right things' but who hates God... and who can also fit into pagan concepts of knowledge... the only way to know is to talk to that specific soul.... it's true that the umbrella term fits many new agers, pagans, and some mystico-lunatics who follow platonic ideas... and sometimes it is easy to spot someone who is not belonging to God... just because they do not love God and do not care and instead are pursuing knowledge and self-advancement of some spiritual type. but the label is a bit of a stop phrase, as all such things are. once its labeled..then one judged and threw away a soul. yet there was a time when many others who are now doing that judging, may have been very far from God... and labeling them a drug addict and loser would not help them then.


The Gnostics, for example, taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself.

yes it is, but that gnostic term if given as a generality without any context, is how Satan tricks us, by skipping context.

The flesh God made in paradise is NOT sinful but is His temple but after the fall... and what adam did to us...
we were now no longer in the situation God made us anymore... but subject to a different 'nature'.

The idea is to distinguish what context the term flesh has. This flesh after the fall is very susceptible to carnal thinking...

because the soul is listening to it rather than to God...

Now, if after determining context you have someone going on about self-advancement to spiritual nirvanas and Christ is not in the picture except as an example of an enlightened man, then yes you have some sort of gnostic gaia worshiping going on.

that said, the flesh, the flesh body souls are imprisoned in on this earth is NOT the one He made in Paradise.

And yes this body is evil.


Hans Jonas said that in Gnosticism, “The human body is of devilish substance and – in this trait exceeding the general derogation of the universe – also of a devilish design.”[6] Because the Gnostic’s viewed the flesh as a sinful substance, they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and that is why the Scriptures called them “antichrist” (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3). “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 Jn. 1:7).
This body which we are now in is indeed related to the Context of After the fall...
and is a devilish substance. and so is this universe, affected by the fall and satan...
therefore, not good either.

Context.

Gnosticism believes that sin is the substance of the body, which is inherited at conception, so that man is born sinful or with a sinful nature. The Early Church, on the other hand, taught that sin was a free choice of the will, which is originated by the individual. The Gnostics taught that man was sinful by nature, while the Early Church taught that man was sinful by choice.
well if you were born into this body then yes... you inherited the situation Adam got us into.

accepting that body as 'good' is a choice... yes. accepting Christ is a choice...
we are free to choose this world, its body and nature...
and we are free to instead choose Christ.

the soul is made by God and cannot be sinful if she is IN His protection in paradise...
But we are not in paradise now are we.
It was referring to these Gnostic groups that John wrote, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). We can see then that the teachings of the Gnostics were condemned in the Scriptures.
by your definitions I would be gnostic of course. Don't worry I gave up on explaining why that term, and the term calvinism, predestination, and the term free will are all commandeered and used by the evil realm to create lies and factions... psyops basically.


Christ never discusses free will in the ways defined by people on forums do...
neither does He discuss the predestination term and all its invented baggage.

These terms are forms of dualistic thinking which is the thinking of the tree of good and evil.... which is the evil realm.
 
Last edited:
it is true eve ate and God did NOT want that...

He would not cause the fall out of some 'other plan'...

His creation was complete and declared Good.

The one who disobeyed Him and hurt us all...
and brought us all into this Egypt...
where we still are

is Adam.

God's goal is to restore His desolated Paradise and all His sons and daughters
Yep, Adam wasn't paying attention.
 
Adam's job was to care for eve and Protect her as the weaker one...
though of course she was not lesser than him.. because male (as speech)
gave her all her context and as female she was his core of love...
and now satan (as speech) started to give
her context.

So, where was adam by allowing satanic realm to speak to her ?
Obviously not protecting her.
 
When God created Adam, the first man, and Eve, the first woman, and placed them in a perfect home, the Garden of Eden everything about Earth was perfect at that moment in time.
Good morning,
may I remind
1.
that the earth was the home of the demons flung to the earth by Michael and the whole host of holy angels, Rev 12:4-9?
2.
That there had been a not good that had been fixed so all was good, to whit, Adam's being alone with no suitable helper.
3.
that Adam's looking amongst the animals for his suitable helper can imply that he was not the perfectly holy or faithful person depicted pre-eating but was already not in tune with GOD because GOD knew HE had Eve waiting in the wings for him so whose idea was it that he would look for his help (help with what is also in here) amongst them? Not GOD's for sure so was Adam being rebellious or confused?

If Adam was merely making a mistake then all GOD had to do was to tell him, "No, they are unsuitable for your needs, I've got a better plan." to bring him into line, right? No need for the charade of looking for his suitable helper among the animals.
4.
the small matter that the word for cunning in evil (`RM) as applied to the serpent is the same word used to describe Adam and Eve but is translated as naked (`RM), (a common metaphor for being sinul in the rest of the Bible). When they ate and their eyes were opened they saw only the nakedness they had before they ate. If it means sinfulness after they ate it probably refers to their sinfulness before they ate except for our preconceptions.
and 5.
Then there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate.

The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol into his human body, sown into the world as per Matt 13:36-40, and as the first person in the garden, thus being the first to bring evil into world.
 
Back
Top Bottom