Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know if I can buy it. A just God would never find innocents guilty for what a couple of guilty people do.

But there was something not good in man, right? As evidenced by the eating in the garden of the bad fruit, a poison was taken into mankind which was genetically passed along. Adam & Eve weren't the only ones to die as their children had the malady too, and therefore also physically died. Outward actions, like the law, could not take care of the poison itself, only the resultant behaviors. Mankind needed a New Adam, with a new life, to be descendant from.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Thats why God sent the flood right? By your logic, if God saved Noah and his family and they were righteous, then He would have been sure to make sure the most righteous animals were saved. And God must have loved all the sea animals because they werent impacted by water raging on. Noah would have been really surprised to see a pregnant male seahorse.

God saved some through the flood, but sin and therefore death still reigned after the flood, right? There was still corruption in the flesh. Again, mankind needed a New Adam to be descendant from.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But there was something not good in man, right? As evidenced by the eating in the garden of the bad fruit, a poison was taken into mankind which was genetically passed along. Adam & Eve weren't the only ones to die as their children had the malady too, and therefore also physically died. Outward actions, like the law, could not take care of the poison itself, only the resultant behaviors. Mankind needed a New Adam, with a new life, to be descendant from.

We can't help but draw pictures in our head of how it must be, based upon Bible stories. So we draw poison into the story of the "fall," when it's not even in the story. And then claim that we're all born with that poison in us, and that's why all men are flawed and broken ...

... and that's why there are LGBTQIA++.

Here's the problem with the fall doctrine, as I see it : we're all fallen going back to Adam, and Eve, specially Eve.

So it was fallen man that wrote the books of the Bible ; it was fallen man that selected the books that formed the Canon. Therefore, the Bible is a fallen book. It does, after all, tell of good and evil.

Do you see the problem with the doctrine of the fall?

Originally Posted by StG

God saved some through the flood, but sin and therefore death still reigned after the flood, right? There was still corruption in the flesh. Again, mankind needed a New Adam to be descendant from.

God wasn't satisfied with the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Or He would have reversed the damage done by the fall. He didn't.

[Trapped]

Don't have time to post a lot but StG touched upon my nerve related to the two trees, so I have to pipe in briefly! I'm with awareness on there not being poison in the TOTKOGAE. Sons to Glory, can you explain (on another thread is fine so as not to derail this one) why you think there is poison from the tree? I know we've discussed this elsewhere...to me the verse evidence is overwhelming that there is no poison.

awareness, Jesus died to save us from the punishment of death for our sins. Just before He died, He said "it is finished"....in other words, the debt has been paid. He paid a debt, a fine that we owed. That's what His death was for.

God raising Him from the dead shows us that God was satisfied with this sacrifice. And as to the damage of the effects from the fall not being reversed.......the response there is "not yet". Don't put short-term blinders on yourself!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Don't have time to post a lot but StG touched upon my nerve related to the two trees, so I have to pipe in briefly! I'm with awareness on there not being poison in the TOTKOGAE. Sons to Glory, can you explain (on another thread is fine so as not to derail this one) why you think there is poison from the tree? I know we've discussed this elsewhere...to me the verse evidence is overwhelming that there is no poison.

awareness, Jesus died to save us from the punishment of death for our sins. Just before He died, He said "it is finished"....in other words, the debt has been paid. He paid a debt, a fine that we owed. That's what His death was for.

God raising Him from the dead shows us that God was satisfied with this sacrifice. And as to the damage of the effects from the fall not being reversed.......the response there is "not yet". Don't put short-term blinders on yourself!

Agree with the part addressed to awareness!

As to the poison, those are my words. Something got into man as evidenced by eating the fruit. Whatever got into mankind, and his genes, caused death. (and I know we talked about this in another place, but obviously I didn't get any light that changed my thinking . . .) If not poison, what would you call that which got into mankind and caused death?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Agree with the part addressed to awareness!

As to the poison, those are my words. Something got into man as evidenced by eating the fruit. Whatever got into mankind, and his genes, caused death. (and I know we talked about this in another place, but obviously I didn't get any light that changed my thinking . . .) If not poison, what would you call that which got into mankind?

Rom 3: All have sinned. (This rebuts awareness who thinks we all are blamed for Adam's disobedience)

Rom 6: The wages of sin is death.

It's logical to think that A&E were "poisoned" by the fruit of the TOKOGAE, but the scriptures don't say it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Agree with the part addressed to awareness!

As to the poison, those are my words. Something got into man as evidenced by eating the fruit. Whatever got into mankind, and his genes, caused death. (and I know we talked about this in another place, but obviously I didn't get any light that changed my thinking . . .) If not poison, what would you call that which got into mankind and caused death?

What Ohio said.

The Bible never says death is caused by something that got into us. It is crystal clear that death is wages.

The wages of sin is death. Death is wages. Death is our wages, what we earned, for our sin. Death is our punishment. This is why God cut them off from the tree of life -- that was their punishment, so they would die (by not being able to eat the tree that allowed them to live forever).

Death is punishment, over and over again. It's not death due to poison, but punishment.

Sin is in us, but from the act of disobedience, not from the fruit. Since we sinned, we were punished by God with the death penalty. The wages of sin is death.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sin is in us, but from the act of disobedience, not from the fruit. Since we sinned, we were punished by God with the death penalty. The wages of sin is death.

What is the point of the fruit then, which purpose is to be eaten and therefore gets into us? From what I remember of the other thread, it was being said that the fruit itself wasn't bad, but rather the act of eating the fruit, right? So why did God not want man to eat it? Was it just to say, "Don't cross that line, because I said so!" just to see if they would be obedient? Or was it because there was something deadly about the fruit?

I think perhaps both are true here.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What is the point of the fruit then, which purpose is to be eaten and therefore gets into us? From what I remember of the other thread, it was being said that the fruit itself wasn't bad, but rather the act of eating the fruit, right? So why did God not want man to eat it? Was it just to say, "Don't cross that line, because I said so!" just to see if they would be obedient? Or was it because there was something deadly about the fruit?

I think perhaps both are true here.

Not true. The Bible is explicit that the tree was "good for food". There is no way to slice it whereby deadly fruit can be called "good for food".

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What is the point of the fruit then, which purpose is to be eaten and therefore gets into us? From what I remember of the other thread, it was being said that the fruit itself wasn't bad, but rather the act of eating the fruit, right? So why did God not want man to eat it? Was it just to say, "Don't cross that line, because I said so!" just to see if they would be obedient? Or was it because there was something deadly about the fruit?

I think perhaps both are true here.

Well from what I read from it, once A and E ate the fruit, their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked. So maybe sex or something else was bad? Or having knowledge

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

God wasn't satisfied with the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Or He would have reversed the damage done by the fall. He didn't.

He wasnt satisfied with the Flood either.

[Sons to Glory!]

Quote: Originally Posted by awareness
"God wasn't satisfied with the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Or He would have reversed the damage done by the fall. He didn't."

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He wasnt satisfied with the Flood either.

Dear sister, of course you could say He wasn't satisfied with the flood, because it was essentially just a reboot of the flesh . . . until that which was Perfect would come in Christ. (He also wanted to do away with some particularly evil things that were happening prior to the flood) And this is where awareness is blatantly wrong: God did undo all the damage done by the fall, in Christ. We simply haven't seen it manifested completely yet. This is faith, to trust and wait on Him and the full salvation of the kingdom coming soon.

Why is He waiting so long? I think 2 Peter 3:9 explains it: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."