[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: My latest post is in RED.......DaveH: pretend world". The reason for that is that the world I live in answers the questions I posed to you (and others in TT.)
jt: I see your big hangup is 'why did God allow sin when he could have prevented it?' which tells me you do not understand the concept of moral freedom among other things.
DAVEH: I think I understand moral freedom quite well. What I don't understand is why Protestants think it is necessary.
jt: What kind of a statement is that?
DAVEH: God had the ability to create a world without sin, and to offer an easy salvation. But that is not the way he did it.jt: God did create a world without sin and He does offer an easy salvation, after all it was he who provided the lamb.
DaveH: Therefore, I believe God had a reason for allowing sin to be a part of his plans. (Hence the subject line to which we are now returning.) I'm trying to find out why Protestants think God 'created sin'. (Or perhaps that's a poor way of stating it......why you think God allows sin to exist.)
jt: God did not 'create sin' - everything he created was good. Sin is not good. Would you rather have a heavenly dictator standing over you with a whip to make sure you do right? This is Satan's plan and it is called 'bondage' it is what Jesus died to deliver us from.
DAVEH: I fully agree. But let me explain it from a different angle, Judy. God created Adam & Eve, knowing beforehand that they would succumb to temptation. (I assume you agree with that.) Then he places a temptation in the garden, knowing they would partake of the forbidden fruit, and what the consequences would be. If instead, God had simply not put that tempting fruit before them, would you the suggest he is a "heavenly dictator "?
jt: I believe that the 'fruit' was symbolic. It was a tree of fallen wisdom ie: the knowledge of good and evil whereas all they had known was good because they were innocent. But God always makes a way of escape and they didn't have to succumb. Especially not Adam. He made a choice. Eve was deceived.
DaveH: Not at all. I think he would be like a parent concerned about the welfare of his children, by shielding them from unnecessary evil. Most parents would not place their children in a dangerous situation when they know the outcome of that situation......
jt: Adam and Eve were created grown people, so they were hardly infants and yes God knew what they would do, he allows us to be tested so that we will see how frail we are.
DaveH: UNLESS there is a good reason for those children to experience that situation. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, Judy. As a parent, I hope you can see the similarity of the situations that I'm trying to convey.
jt: I understand what you are saying but not the point of all of it. Why accuse God? This is just the way it is and if there is more to it that we should know he will reveal this also - in his time. But then I've been doing a little research, and have read that your Church believes that there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and that Lucifer and Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their plans. Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship god and Jesus' plan was to show them how to worship god. Lucifer's plan was rejected, and Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 4:103) Is the above what you believe DaveH?
DAVEH: Yes.
jt: This is interesting. Do you think that Lucifer's plan would have been the better one?DAVEH: No, not at all. The Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better than the Adversary's plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would accuse me of preaching Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan of salvation as enveloped in the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that requires all the steps we've/I've discussed (in TT since I've been posting), starting with Adam & Eve transgressing......which I believe was a fundamental step in that plan. Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation' (as I would think of it....which is distinctly different from the Protestant definition). Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress. BTW......I realize my above explanation might seem convoluted and difficult to follow.....sorry 'bout that.jt: Well I'm sure there is a whole lot more in your explanation than I am able to follow - also we must keep in mind that your gospel is a different gospel and that you are led by a different spirit.Judy
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
