What is Faith in the Bible?

[JIM]

It does no good to say something and then deny saying it. I asked "So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires?" And you answered "Yes."

Sinful desires is not sin. Acting on those sinful desires is sin.

And yes, Eve bore the penalty of sin. But she was not the one who brought the condition of being a sinner down on all mankind. It was Adam.

The idea that Adam brought the condition of being a sinner down on all mankind is the terrible lie of Calvinism/Reformed Theology.

Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.

The soul who sins is a sinner.

The Bible never refers to mankind as being "In Eve," only in "in Adam." Concerning the woman God said that from the woman would come the Seed that crushed the serpents head. Eve was not technically in Adam either, but out of Adam. Bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. One.

Being in Adam does not mean being a sinner. The entire human race is "in Adam", even those who have been justified and regenerated. In fact, the one place we even find the phrase, "in Adam" is in 1 Corinthians 15"22 and there it is talking about the whole of mankind, lost and saved.

 

[JIM]

Now if you can prove the self-contradictory notion that to create is not to cause, have at it.

When you can prove to me how high is up, then I might give some thought to your request.

 

[Mr GLee]

Sinful desires is not sin. Acting on those sinful desires is sin.

I would ask?

What is the difference between sinful desires and righteous desires?

If one looks to lust after . . . .that kind of ideology would promote the garden fall. The two building blocks of false pride. . . . lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, the power of lying signs to wonder after as if prophecy .satan working overtime today

The false prophecy "neither shall you touch" The "lust of the flesh in that parable drew them to the hidden tree of eternal in the center of the garden. . then the lust of the eye took over the flesh. Virtue lost

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Reminds me as a Dad of shopping with my children. Look with your eyes not with hands. It does not belong to you. They listened twice then came Mama bear . . .sit in the cart I do not care how old you are lol

 

[makesends]

When you can prove to me how high is up, then I might give some thought to your request.

What kind of answer is that --a response in kind?

If so, you have rather handily demonstrated my point. You mention a ridiculous request, as though 'up' is a distance rather than a relative direction. Likewise, to prove the self-contradictory notion that a caused effect can be uncaused, is a ridiculous request. You cannot explain it, yet you keep talking like it is fact.

 

[makesends]

Sinful desires is not sin. Acting on those sinful desires is sin.

'Sin' (sinfulness) and 'sins', do not describe the same thing, though our sins are derived from our sinfulness.

 

[JIM]

What kind of answer is that --a response in kind?

The issue is not what kind of answer is that. The real issue is what kind of a question is that, and that was my point. Your question, or your challenge was just as unintelligible as mine. So yes, of sorts, it was a response in kind.

If so, you have rather handily demonstrated my point. You mention a ridiculous request, as though 'up' is a distance rather than a relative direction. Likewise, to prove the self-contradictory notion that a caused effect can be uncaused, is a ridiculous request. You cannot explain it, yet you keep talking like it is fact.

If I mentioned a ridiculous request, then you did as well. The difference is that I knew mine was ridiculous, You apparently didn't realize that yours was as well.

 

[makesends]

The issue is not what kind of answer is that. The real issue is what kind of a question is that, and that was my point. Your question, or your challenge was just as unintelligible as mine. So yes, of sorts, it was a response in kind.

If I mentioned a ridiculous request, then you did as well. The difference is that I knew mine was ridiculous, You apparently didn't realize that yours was as well.

That was my whole point from the beginning. I represented your position (that God has created man with free will, which, by your own insistence, is the ability to choose uncaused by God to do so, able in and of itself to choose good or evil) in shortened form: that God has caused man to be uncaused, (or words to that same effect). And you have the insight to show that there can be no such thing, and that it is ridiculous to ask you to prove such a self-contradictory thing. YET it is what you have been claiming all along!

YES I asked you to prove a ridiculous notion. But it was YOUR notion.

 

[JIM]

That was my whole point from the beginning. I represented your position (that God has created man with free will, which, by your own insistence, is the ability to choose uncaused by God to do so, able in and of itself to choose good or evil) in shortened form: that God has caused man to be uncaused, (or words to that same effect). And you have the insight to show that there can be no such thing, and that it is ridiculous to ask you to prove such a self-contradictory thing. YET it is what you have been claiming all along!

YES I asked you to prove a ridiculous notion. But it was YOUR notion.

The ridiculous notion is your notion of what create means and your notion, apparently, of what in this universe has been created. I perceive that you think that God created your physical body, i.e., your flesh. Is that right?

 

[Mr GLee]

The ridiculous notion is your notion of what create means and your notion, apparently, of what in this universe has been created. I perceive that you think that God created your physical body, i.e., your flesh. Is that right?

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed (Dying mankind) were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; (dying mankind) but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Invisible )

Two kinds of seeds Christ the spiritual unseen eternal and dying mankind like the Son of man Jesus

Flesh gives birth to flesh. Spirit life give birth life to spirit.

Dying flesh return to dust and the temporal spirt given under the leter of the law death it reruns to the father of all Spirit life

Can't clone an eternal spirt. No DNA

John 3: 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

If Jesus the Son of man was born again then surely the rest of the born-again sons of God, born of God members as the chaste virgin bride

 

[makesends]

The ridiculous notion is your notion of what create means and your notion, apparently, of what in this universe has been created. I perceive that you think that God created your physical body, i.e., your flesh. Is that right?

Now maybe we're getting somewhere, actually arguing instead of being argumentative! (Ok, probably not, but I'll play).

Of course, we are God's creation., both physically and spiritually. (Not sure this comment is quite what you are getting at, but, mentally, isn't really a separate designation from those two.) We were not. What we are, God did.

I am curious how your first sentence relates to your question, so I'm playing along. Normally, I don't like leading questions. But at least that first sentence is maybe identifying a difference in definitions in a way that makes our mindset difference visible to you: You say, (if I'm reading you right), that it is ridiculous to suppose (as I do) that God has created everything in the universe (and again, this reminder, that sin is not in and of itself a thing, though God has created all things, intentionally such that there 'be' sin).

 

[JIM]

Now maybe we're getting somewhere, actually arguing instead of being argumentative! (Ok, probably not, but I'll play).

Of course, we are God's creation., both physically and spiritually. (Not sure this comment is quite what you are getting at, but, mentally, isn't really a separate designation from those two.) We were not. What we are, God did.

I am curious how your first sentence relates to your question, so I'm playing along. Normally, I don't like leading questions. But at least that first sentence is maybe identifying a difference in definitions in a way that makes our mindset difference visible to you: You say, (if I'm reading you right), that it is ridiculous to suppose (as I do) that God has created everything in the universe (and again, this reminder, that sin is not in and of itself a thing, though God has created all things, intentionally such that there 'be' sin).

The normal interpretation is that God created Adam and Eve. He also created the natural laws, including procreation, by which the rest of all humanity was and is produced. Thus God did not individually create us physically, but instead created the basic mechanism through which all the rest of humanity has come about. What He has created individually in each of us is our spirit. They are not, in any way whatsoever, effected by what Adam did or didn't do.

So yes, sin first appeared in Adam's sin and his (spiritual) death through his sin. But that did not affect our spirits. Our spiritual death resulted from our sin (Rom 5:12).

 

[David Lamb]

I would ask?

What is the difference between sinful desires and righteous desires?

The bible speaks of desires which are righteous. Here is one example:

“But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.” (1Co 12:31 NKJV)

 

[makesends]

The normal interpretation is that God created Adam and Eve. He also created the natural laws, including procreation, by which the rest of all humanity was and is produced. Thus God did not individually create us physically, but instead created the basic mechanism through which all the rest of humanity has come about. What He has created individually in each of us is our spirit. They are not, in any way whatsoever, effected by what Adam did or didn't do.

So yes, sin first appeared in Adam's sin and his (spiritual) death through his sin. But that did not affect our spirits. Our spiritual death resulted from our sin (Rom 5:12).

Sounds gnostic.

I agree that the usual (I won't say "normal") use of Genesis is that God created the beginnings, and not what developed of it, (except for occasional interventions to steer it back straight). And there is a certain validity to that point of view, though there is too much to misunderstand as a result. There is a superstitious mindset resulting from that being held as THE basic assumption, that denies God as the intentional causer of every individual event (down to the motions of leptons and quarks or whatever they are composed of) and, indeed, of them as existing only in him having their very being, their existence sustained as such an all moments. Was God to "withdraw his hand" they would not only cease to exist, but cease to have ever existed.

There is no room within the truth of existence, that allows for chance events or random existences --(not even in an atheistic logical analysis of the universe).

Thus, the fact that God made his creation, intentionally so that (among many other intentions) sin would come to be, he is not "the author of sin", nor does he tempt anyone. But to some, like yourself, that is equivocating. But to those same some, like yourself, it is not equivocating to say that God does not, in creating, cause that sin come to be. Thus, you hold to theism, but for the occasional divine intervention.

Take a good look at the attribute of God, "Immanence". This is not occasional intervention into an otherwise self-sustaining existence.

 

[JIM]

Sounds gnostic.

I agree that the usual (I won't say "normal") use of Genesis is that God created the beginnings, and not what developed of it, (except for occasional interventions to steer it back straight). And there is a certain validity to that point of view, though there is too much to misunderstand as a result. There is a superstitious mindset resulting from that being held as THE basic assumption, that denies God as the intentional causer of every individual event (down to the motions of leptons and quarks or whatever they are composed of) and, indeed, of them as existing only in him having their very being, their existence sustained as such an all moments. Was God to "withdraw his hand" they would not only cease to exist, but cease to have ever existed.

There is no room within the truth of existence, that allows for chance events or random existences --(not even in an atheistic logical analysis of the universe).

Thus, the fact that God made his creation, intentionally so that (among many other intentions) sin would come to be, he is not "the author of sin", nor does he tempt anyone. But to some, like yourself, that is equivocating. But to those same some, like yourself, it is not equivocating to say that God does not, in creating, cause that sin come to be. Thus, you hold to theism, but for the occasional divine intervention.

Take a good look at the attribute of God, "Immanence". This is not occasional intervention into an otherwise self-sustaining existence.

Have you heard about Quantum Physics? It is the study of matter and energy at the most fundamental level. It aims to uncover the properties and behaviors of the very building blocks of nature. In a very real sense, it is a study in the characteristic probabilities of nature. It is a study of the random events of matter and energy at the most fundamental level. God, in His infinite wisdom has created a physical universe that exists and functions on the basis of chance and random events.

 

[makesends]

Have you heard about Quantum Physics? It is the study of matter and energy at the most fundamental level. It aims to uncover the properties and behaviors of the very building blocks of nature. In a very real sense, it is a study in the characteristic probabilities of nature. It is a study of the random events of matter and energy at the most fundamental level. God, in His infinite wisdom has created a physical universe that exists and functions on the basis of chance and random events.

Well, no, Quantum Physics, as far as scientific investigation has progressed, is only study of matter and energy at the most fundamental level so far. But yes, it does "aim" that way.

Notice that what you call "probabilities" and "random" are common terminology that only show that WE humans, limited in knowledge, don't know what will happen. We can even calculate what seems most likely to happen, but that does not mean it will happen, as history consistently has shown. Math concerning probability does not establish anything but "probably". The notion that it can actually be this or that is faulty. It will only be one of them.

Again, the facts of physics are not driven by "probably". That is only our guesswork concerning them.

 

[JIM]

We can even calculate what seems most likely to happen, but that does not mean it will happen, as history consistently has shown

But we cannot calculate, for example, the radioactive decay of any single atom of a radioactive material. That is, indeed, a completely random occurrence.

 

[makesends]

But we cannot calculate, for example, the radioactive decay of any single atom of a radioactive material. That is, indeed, a completely random occurrence.

No. It is not. It is only beyond our human ability to calculate, and certainly beyond our ability to know. Your worldview is humanocentric, as though truth is whatever we say it is, and as though fact depends on our notions.

 

[JIM]

No. It is not. It is only beyond our human ability to calculate, and certainly beyond our ability to know. Your worldview is humanocentric, as though truth is whatever we say it is, and as though fact depends on our notions.

You think God is personally selecting the specific atom and the specific instant when it decays? That's a good one. I would like you to find that bit of nonsense in His word. Your worldview is 2500 BC as if scientific fact today depends on ancient man's notions.

 

[makesends]

You think God is personally selecting the specific atom and the specific instant when it decays? That's a good one. I would like you to find that bit of nonsense in His word. Your worldview is 2500 BC as if scientific fact today depends on ancient man's notions.

That specific atom and all events concerning it, are what they are, only in him and by his decree. They have no independent existence. There is no such thing. They are not God, but they do not exist apart from God's active work.

Has nothing to do with when man thought of this. Has nothing even to do with man. It has only to do with God.

Do you actually think anything continues to exist on its own, once set in motion? Where do you think existence comes from?

 

[JIM]

That specific atom and all events concerning it, are what they are, only in him and by his decree. They have no independent existence. There is no such thing. They are not God, but they do not exist apart from God's active work.

Has nothing to do with when man thought of this. Has nothing even to do with man. It has only to do with God.

Do you actually think anything continues to exist on its own, once set in motion? Where do you think existence comes from?

But what you call decree is the real issue here. You present God and His decree as the puppeteer of the universe. And that, I think, is a terrible devaluation of God's true character and being.

And personally, I am really, really happy, in fact, ecstatic to cast that low level view of God into the dumpster.