Evils which thwart Man

Bruce Michael · 05-22-2007, 11:04 AM

Dear All,

The evils which thwart Man were not from the Earthly domain but rather from the spiritual worlds:-

Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against the Powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 6:11-12

LeoSalinas22 · 05-25-2007, 11:50 PM

i don't know bruce, we have no one to blame but ourselves, right? after all, sin originated with Adam and Eve. Eve didn't have to eat the fruit but she did, even if she was tempted by an evil spirit.

juantoo3 · 05-26-2007, 12:03 AM

Kindest Regards, Mr. Michael!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Dear All,

The evils which thwart Man were not from the Earthly domain but rather from the spiritual worlds:-

Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against Principalities, against the Powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 6:11-12

I don't disagree, other than I think this is a bit too big of a blanket. I am of the opinion that most of the evils that thwart humanity are of human origin.

Bruce Michael · 05-26-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeoSalinas22

i don't know bruce, we have no one to blame but ourselves, right? after all, sin originated with Adam and Eve. Eve didn't have to eat the fruit but she did, even if she was tempted by an evil spirit.

Hi Br. Leo,
My Theology starts with Man as a pure being.
(Well I do believe in Orignal Sin etc. etc.)

But definitely we have to contend with spiritual evil from many quarters- that's why we need the armour of God.

The question is: How smart was Eve? Was it a foregone conclusion that she was going to fall for the thimble and pea?

Some people think that the Fall was a necessary event in human evolution- I am not one of those BTW.

I do believe that Adam was a race- the Adamic race.

Best Wishes,
Br. Bruce

Quahom1 · 05-26-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Hi Br. Leo,
My Theology starts with Man as a pure being.
(Well I do believe in Orignal Sin etc. etc.)

But definitely we have to contend with spiritual evil from many quarters- that's why we need the armour of God.

The question is: How smart was Eve? Was it a foregone conclusion that she was going to fall for the thimble and pea?

Some people think that the Fall was a necessary event in human evolution- I am not one of those BTW.

I do believe that Adam was a race- the Adamic race.

Best Wishes,
Br. Bruce

We have to contend with ourselves. Evil has only one power over man (if one can call it power), the power of suggestion. The rest is carried out (manifested) by the energy contained within man.

The devil can't be blamed for man's choices. He's already damned. He just wants man in the same boat as he is. But man has to make those choices and act on them.

I opine that at the end of days, the devil wants to stand before God and point out what he considers the "obvious", that God couldn't even make a corporial being to keep Him company, let alone angels. His arguement could well go like this: "None of your creation, wants to do your bidding. Despite your best efforts, you God...failed in your goal. Only dumb animals carry out your will, because they don't know any better..."

I am reminded of a movie starring James Cagney, wherein he stands at the top of a burning oil refinery and screams out in maniacal glee "Look at me Mom, I'm at the top of the world!", right before the whole thing blows up.

There is a reason, God made man a bit lower than angels. I think it has to do with knowledge. Instead of having all knowledge, we have to learn it (unlike angels), and while doing so, we develope an appreciation for the all of God.

I also note that man is a funny being, in that when another sacrifices themself for one, the one feels they owe a debt. That tends to mold our thinking, and subsequent life. Hence once a man acknowledges the sacrifice Christ made for man, he tends to change himself in order to meet the debt price, that was made for him. (I try to become, what the sacrificer saw me as, so I rise to the level/occassion, I was seen in).

just some thoughts

v/r

Q

LeoSalinas22 · 05-26-2007, 03:56 PM

hello bruce:

Quote:

My Theology starts with Man as a pure being.
(Well I do believe in Orignal Sin etc. etc.)

cool. we have ourselves to blame for our transgressions against God.

Quote:

The question is: How smart was Eve? Was it a foregone conclusion that she was going to fall for the thimble and pea?

well, it is not a matter of intelligience that is a part of the equation. i mean, how would you respond if someone told you that you weren't going to die and that you could be like a god? it is soooo tempting. i for one was told the same thing! 1. i am not going to die because i will be resurrected when i hear Christ's voice and 2. i will be one of the children of the Most Hight! in a sense, the serpent wasn't lying. hope you don't think i'm crazy. anyways, another reason why intelligience isn't a part of the equation is because Adam and Eve at this point have direct contact with God. who needs intelligience when you have the Almighty to back you up. mainly, (imo) temptation is the downfall of man, not smarts. as far as it being necessary for man to fall and that it was already known that we would fall, check these scriptures out, you probably knew them already, but let me know what you think:
Ecclesiastes 7 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart. Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
for some strange reason, the more we suffer through our mistakes, the more we end up being more humble and our love for God grows more. but most of all we have to repent. we cannot forget to repent! very important. i hope you know what i mean.

Quote:

Some people think that the Fall was a necessary event in human evolution- I am not one of those BTW.

why not, if you don't mind my asking? i mean, i think it was necessary, how else would we appreciate God's works more? have you ever seen how a spoiled child ends up compared to a child that grew up suffering? there is a big difference.

Quote:

I do believe that Adam was a race- the Adamic race.

you are absolutely right for it is written:
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created
thanks for the response, bruce, and God bless you.

Bruce Michael · 05-27-2007, 06:07 AM

Dear Br. Leo,

>why not, if you don't mind my asking? i mean, i think it was necessary, how >else would we appreciate God's works more?

Every cloud has a silver lining- but I do believe the Fall was a tragedy. If it wasn't, then the corollary is that Father God brought it about.

>you are absolutely right for it is written:
>Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, >and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created

Thanks for that. And this was before the creation of Eve wasn't it?

So let's make it as it stands in the original:
"Male-female created he them;"

So Adam was a hermaphrodite. And it turns out this was indeed the Jewish belief. Later of course there was separation of the sexes.

This helps us understand why hermaphrodites were considered holy in ancient times. And why some of the statues of the gods were double sexed.

With this in mind go to what Christ Jesus says about marriage and the "one flesh"- that's what he was talking about.

God Bless you too,Br. Bruce,

Quahom1 · 05-28-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Dear Br. Leo,

>why not, if you don't mind my asking? i mean, i think it was necessary, how >else would we appreciate God's works more?

Every cloud has a silver lining- but I do believe the Fall was a tragedy. If it wasn't, then the corollary is that Father God brought it about.

>you are absolutely right for it is written:
>Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, >and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created

Thanks for that. And this was before the creation of Eve wasn't it?

So let's make it as it stands in the original:
"Male-female created he them;"

So Adam was a hermaphrodite. And it turns out this was indeed the Jewish belief. Later of course there was separation of the sexes.

This helps us understand why hermaphrodites were considered holy in ancient times. And why some of the statues of the gods were double sexed.

With this in mind go to what Christ Jesus says about marriage and the "one flesh"- that's what he was talking about.

God Bless you too,Br. Bruce,

I'm not so certain as you, pertaining to the origins of man being asexual/bisexual.

1. There is nothing biblical/scriptural that entertains this theory.

2. There is nothing archiological or scientific that entertains this theory.

3. There is nothing historical that entertains this theory.

What there is, is mythological wrotes, and legends.

There are hermaphrodites, yes. However they are sterile for the most part. Holding them in awe in the past, most likely was actually holding them in pity. To have a physically "confused" body, must have been torture to the individual. However, it is not a historically regular phenomenon.

And it is no excuse for people today stating that homosexuality is a natural state of affairs for man.

As has been stated before, what is natural for man is to "rut" just like any other animal. If the female of the species is not receptive, then the male will go after other (if not self dicsiplined). Unlike all other mammals, man has a monthly cycle, instead of an annual or semi annual cycle. Is this true? I don't think so...

We are the only mammals to have sex at the drop of a hat (so to speak), for pleasure, or otherwise?

Base nature is unacceptable. (at least to me).

I refuse to be an animal.

v/r

Q

Bruce Michael · 05-29-2007, 09:43 AM

Dear Q,

>1. There is nothing biblical/scriptural that entertains this theory.

I provided that. Also the NT passage.

>2. There is nothing archiological or scientific that entertains this theory.

There is a good article by a biologist somewhere on the internet that discusses this. Yes the first organisms were dualsexed. I also mentioned the fetus which repeats ancients states in its development.

>3. There is nothing historical that entertains this theory.

Yes it's in Philo, and other Jewish traditions. Not to mention other religions.

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

Quahom1 · 05-29-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Dear Q,

>1. There is nothing biblical/scriptural that entertains this theory.

I provided that. Also the NT passage.

>2. There is nothing archiological or scientific that entertains this theory.

There is a good article by a biologist somewhere on the internet that discusses this. Yes the first organisms were dualsexed. I also mentioned the fetus which repeats ancients states in its development.

>3. There is nothing historical that entertains this theory.

Yes it's in Philo, and other Jewish traditions. Not to mention other religions.

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

Well,

Like all things, in order to get the big picture, the context must be taken in whole, not selectively in part.

1. In order to understand Mankind, we need to look at the whole of man's creation. True, the Hebrew text of Gen 5: 2 states God called them "Adomah" which means mankind. However, in order to see the whole picture let us review the passages from Gen 1: 26 through Gen 5: 5. I saw nothing in the NT referring to humans as androgenous. So I fail to see where you provided such.

Now we see that though we call him Adam, she (Eve) was specifically named, thus the roles of the two "sexes" were identified clearly. Adam means mankind or man, and Eve strangely enough means "Life" or "Bringer/Giver of Life".
So, according to Genesis, right from the beginning there was a distinction between the two parts of mankind (or the human race). One was the species identifier, and the other was different within the species...

2. Not only are there a lack of conjunctions in Hebrew, there also appears to be a lack of vowels and other "articles"...yet, the inference to vowel sounds and conjunctions is rather implied by inflection of words within a sentence. Strangely enough old Hebrew is not the only language that does away with intangible clauses, since language originally started out as verbal, not written...so the lack of the word "and" within early Hebronic texts, is no surprise. Same goes for articles such as "a" "an" "the" , and so on. However, this in no way implies that man was of androgenous nature at the beginning of sentient existence.

3. There are no "higher order" animals on earth that are "asexual", nor "hermaphroditic" specific, (that can remain fertile). Within the Human genome, it is quite well established that in order for a human to be male or female, a selective set of "switches" within the genome must be on or off respectively. Now it is true that the mitochondrial DNA is present in both male and female offspring, but that is only half the equation. The male must provide the other half in order for an embronic cell structure to remain viable.

4. Stating there is a good article on the web by some unknown author doesn't help much...

5. Philo and Jewish traditions, not to mention other "religions" is not secular history. It is just as you stated, traditions and other religions.

Now please don't get me wrong. I'm not here to debunk your theory. What I'm stating is that there has been nothing concrete to anchor such theory (not present as of yet). And I don't consider myself a novice in religious writings nor of science (in fact I have to use and develop it everyday in my own job...).

But I'm from Missouri...show me.

v/r

Q

MindFreak666 · 05-29-2007, 03:12 PM

Some people might argue that the "serpent" was not the evil being he was made out to be. After all, why should they not be allowed to "eat from the tree of knowledge"? It is never said why it was forbidden.
And "god" seems like a pretty evil being if you actually read some of the things he says and does in the bible. And nobody could say that he does not say and do some terrible things.
In fact he lied, saying they would die if they ate it, and they didnt die. The serpent told the truth then.
He also said "god doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods"
Yet god opposed this with absolutely NO reason, sounds like a tyrant to me.
Seems the roles of good and evil assigned to god and the serpent are quite screwed up.

pattimax · 05-29-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MindFreak666

Some people might argue that the "serpent" was not the evil being he was made out to be.
Seems the roles of good and evil assigned to god and the serpent are quite screwed up.

Seems to me some people would debate anything.

Quahom1 · 05-29-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MindFreak666

Some people might argue that the "serpent" was not the evil being he was made out to be. After all, why should they not be allowed to "eat from the tree of knowledge"? It is never said why it was forbidden.
And "god" seems like a pretty evil being if you actually read some of the things he says and does in the bible. And nobody could say that he does not say and do some terrible things.
In fact he lied, saying they would die if they ate it, and they didnt die. The serpent told the truth then.
He also said "god doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods"
Yet god opposed this with absolutely NO reason, sounds like a tyrant to me.
Seems the roles of good and evil assigned to god and the serpent are quite screwed up.

Well,

Let's consider the mindset of a parent. Here is a brand new "child" (perfect and clean), no bad habits, excited about life (everything is new and wonderous), wants to explore everything...

But the parent, seeing the stove says, "don't touch the stove. Under no circumstances will you touch the stove". Or better yet, all are at a picnic, and everyone is having fun, but there is a barbaque, and the parent tells the child "don't touch the grill, under no circumstances will you touch the grill".

First off, is the grill evil? No, it's just hot! Does it serve a constructive purpose? Yes. It cooks food (by those that know how to use it). Is the fact that there is a grill in the back yard or park, evil on the parent's part? No, they know how to use it for the benefit of all present.

So, the smells coming from the barbaque grill are soooo good. Makes the "child" curious, on how that is making such good smelling food. Then some dip**** sees the kid hovering near the grill and says, "go ahead and lift the lid...you want to see where the good smells are coming from...it won't hurt you...just lift it a little...you'll learn alot...kid says "my parent said don't go near the grill".

The dip**** counters, "Aww, there ain't nothing to worry about, you're just wanting to peak at how the meat cooks, you ain't gonna stick your hand inside or nothin'..."

So the child tentatively reaches for the handle, only he didn't realize that the wooden covering has long fell off, and the parents were using thermal gloves to open the lid to check the contents...

...and he grabs the handle and lifts the lid...

He drops it fast as he can, but not fast enough. And he runs for the stream to cool his hand (and hide his pain from his parent). But the parent hears the cry of pain, and goes searching...

Meanwhile the dip**** is thinking out loud "Dumb kids...don't know enough to leave well enough, alone..." Parent hears that and knocks the dip**** into next week, then goes looking for the pained child...only he is hiding in pain, misery and fear, because the scar is evident on his hand...he can't hide it from his parent.

But he lies anyway, and instead of punishing the child in pain, the parent says "no more barbaques or picnics in the park for you."

Is the parent punishing the child?, or protecting him from himself? Is the parent waiting until the child understands what can hurt him if he disregards the parent's instructions?

(lol) I am such a child. I have the scars across my palms to prove it...

Consequently I am now (among other things), a fire fighter.

Sound a bit like the beginning in the garden?

v/r

Q

wil · 05-29-2007, 05:00 PM

Seems to me G-d put a bunch of stuff in motion...

And along the way we modified...

ie not many animals tend gardens, most just utilize the bounty that G-d provides.

now it seems that animals that organize themselves into civilizations/tribes/packs whatever as they go on they end up developing some sort of methodology to tend gardens, to provide for the general welfare and common good and when this is done in a caring, compassionate, loving way it works....with some hiccups but it works...

But now us that decide to shortcut whatever system...G-ds system or man's system...we end up sinning...taking a less than honorable route...an 'evil' one.

To me evil is just lack of G-d/good.

Now obviously one of the shortcuts of the lack/evil possiblities is setting up a society/gov't based not on compassion, caring....

Quahom1 · 05-29-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

Seems to me G-d put a bunch of stuff in motion...

And along the way we modified...

ie not many animals tend gardens, most just utilize the bounty that G-d provides.

now it seems that animals that organize themselves into civilizations/tribes/packs whatever as they go on they end up developing some sort of methodology to tend gardens, to provide for the general welfare and common good and when this is done in a caring, compassionate, loving way it works....with some hiccups but it works...

But now us that decide to shortcut whatever system...G-ds system or man's system...we end up sinning...taking a less than honorable route...an 'evil' one.

To me evil is just lack of G-d/good.

Now obviously one of the shortcuts of the lack/evil possiblities is setting up a society/gov't based not on compassion, caring....

I don't know Wil. Did I miss making the point? When we are TOLD, "do not do this", and are given a reason, but we ignore the warning and do it anyway, who's fault is it? When we think we know better despite the warnings of much wiser people (think school of hard knocks wisdom), and we totally screw up...what is that? Sin? or Stupidity? or both?

And I know of no animal that tends an organized garden, save man. So I think the "animal" part can safely be left out. We don't even have the same chromosome numbers as the rest of any other animals, in fact we are one of a kind on this planet concerning our DNA, thinking, use of tools, mating habits/frequency...everything we do is against nature's rhythms and cycles...ever wonder why? (I do)...

v/r

Q

edit: according to the laws of nature, we should not exist, we don't adapt, we force nature to adapt to us...no other living creature on earth does that...

We don't even adapt to the vaccuum of space. We carry our environment with us, and fight the laws of nature in order to maintain that environment around us. We make nature remain at bay, while we dance amongst the stars...(what do you think now?)