Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[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".

[Trapped]

And remember, God is not a liar. He called the trees by what they were. Eat the tree of life - get life. Eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - get the knowledge of good and evil ("....they've become like us, knowing good and evil..."). For there to be poison in the tree means God would have called it "the tree of deadly poison", otherwise we are saying that He named the trees in a tricking way. But that's not what they got when they ate the tree. They got what God said - the knowledge of good and evil.

It was a sin to eat the tree. Death is the punishment for sin. So they got death as punishment (".....let us cut him off from the tree of life lest they eat and live forever...")

This is a major shift from Lee's teaching, but it's a critical one as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually directly looking to change your mind on this one.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

And remember, God is not a liar. He called the trees by what they were. Eat the tree of life - get life. Eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - get the knowledge of good and evil ("....they've become like us, knowing good and evil..."). For there to be poison in the tree means God would have called it "the tree of deadly poison", otherwise we are saying that He named the trees in a tricking way. But that's not what they got when they ate the tree. They got what God said - the knowledge of good and evil.

It was a sin to eat the tree. Death is the punishment for sin. So they got death as punishment (".....let us cut him off from the tree of life lest they eat and live forever...")

This is a major shift from Lee's teaching, but it's a critical one as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually directly looking to change your mind on this one.

Thanks for the responses. But you don't want to hear my take on the fruit.

The question I was addressing was that the fall caused the LGBTQ.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for the responses. But you don't want to hear my take on the fruit.

The question I was addressing was that the fall caused the LGBTQ.

Yer probably right! (in that we don't really want to hear your take on the fruit . . . )

As to the 2nd part, whether the fall caused LGBTQWERTY, this gets to the heart of the matter of whether it's off-the-mark (i.e. sin) or not. My contention is the Bible clearly calls it sin along with a bunch of other things; whereas some do their best to demonstrate that the Bible doesn't actually call it a sin (and perhaps even promotes it).

So assuming it is a sin (as I do), therefore it was something that just came along with the fall as another corruption of the flesh.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

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".

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Here's an article that agrees with your basic premise, but disagrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good." Tree Meaning Article

However, the question remains, why did God use something that would be ingested? (As we know, what we eat becomes part of us.) Why wouldn't he perhaps have said instead, "Don't cross over that river!" as the test? This way nothing would be ingested and therefore assimilated into them.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Good for food verses:

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here's an article that agrees with your basic premise, but disagrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good." Tree Meaning Article

The article ends with this sentence, so I think it actually agrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good":

"In short, the answer to the commenter’s question is, yes, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good. The fault for man’s fall lies with Adam and Eve, not the tree."

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

However, the question remains, why did God use something that would be ingested? (As we know, what we eat becomes part of us.) Why wouldn't he perhaps have said instead, "Don't cross over that river!" as the test? This way nothing would be ingested and therefore assimilated into them.

All I can say here between tasks at work is don't take the Witness Lee approach of looking for "the intrinsic significance of the nature of the element of the command." If God said "don't cross over that river" then what would you say --- it matters where our feet go? It matters what we drown ourselves in? As you know, if you cross over a river, you get wet and muddy. God was simply never concerned with 'what they ate'. It's just not there in the verses. He's concerned with their obedience, and the tree was the way He chose.

I've put forth my personal view somewhere on this forum already I think. Hebrews somewhere speaks of mature believers distinguishing between good and evil. I think the TOTKOGAE was possibly forbidden until, say, Adam and Eve showed they would obey God's commands. Show maturity. Then maybe be allowed to eat the tree. Some things are forbidden until the right time - dessert (after dinner), sex (after marriage), using a gun (after gun training), etc. I can see the TOTKOGAE falling into that category, although as I said, those are just my thoughts and I don't intend to try to convince you of that particular part.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."

Another thing I notice about Genesis 2:9 is it also describes the trees in two ways: 1) pleasing to the eye; 2) good for food. Were all trees both, or were some just pleasing to look at and others good for food?

But I still come back to why use something that was food? Man ingesting food and drink is a big thing in the Bible, is it not? Lots and lots of references to eating, tasting and drinking of the Lord in both the OT and NT. Here's a few: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." "He that eats Me shall live because of Me." "Do this [the Lord's Table] until I come." "He who drinks of the water I give him shall never thirst again." "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." "The marriage feast of the Lamb." God surely seems to be making some key point about taking the right things into us. I can't help but think that it wasn't an accident that He used the fruit of two trees in the garden.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.


When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.


When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.

When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

Yes there is the verse in chapter 3, but don't forget this verse in chapter 2:

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That's the Biblical description of the trees.....not just Eve's view of them.

Yes, WL totally tossed the disobedience aside. How convenient for him to downplay the sin......

[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