Ron,I MUST protest! You said:"Man's agression is the result of his union and communion with a Spirit whose nature is to steal, and to kill and and to destroy. [John 10:10] We are under the sway of a cosmic vandal and only regeneration can cure the condition. Our condition cannot be repaired with education or meditation or reincarnation, which is why Christ said, unequivocably, ye must be born again. To suggest any other cure for man's condition is to preach another gospel, and the anger of God rests on such."AGGRESSION is spelled with two G's.I will take Jake's sound advise when he said;"Clutch,Laugh all you want."22 ¶ A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.Proverbs 17:22Clutch
Ron, I agree with the cure, not the cause. Evil is a progression that began as a seemingly very small thing, eating something prohibited by God. Yes this was an act of independence. And Genesis 1:29 tells us what was prohibited. The myriad forms of outward sin we see today unfolded from the first cause. We sought to be like God, having power over life and death (among animals, at first). The Jewish sacrifice of lamb's blood is symbolic of our original sin, and a (poor) means of apologizing to God by offering Him the fruits.Jake
Jake wrote Ron, I agree with the cure, not the cause. Evil is a progression that began as a seemingly very small thing, eating something prohibited by God. Yes this was an act of independence. And Genesis 1:29 tells us what was prohibited. The myriad forms of outward sin we see today unfolded from the first cause. We sought to be like God, having power over life and death (among animals, at first). The Jewish sacrifice of lamb's blood is symbolic of our original sin, and a (poor) means of apologizing to God by offering Him the fruits.You see this is your import into the scripture rather than a drawing out of what is actually there. Gen 1:29 is not a command or a prohibition it is a simple permission. The prohibition comes in Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die When Adam transgressed this cleary stated prohibition he died, on the very day. He chose to live by self-provided knowledge rather than revelation. Notice it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was to get his revelation from God, not from earth bound resources. He defied this prohibition and has fed from the same tree ever since.Your notion of outward sins unfolding from the first cause as the first eating of meat is just nonsense. The notion that a lamb's blood was never a symbol of any kind of sin. Lambs were offered as burnt offerings not sin offerings.
Ron,Clearly, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbolic one, as is the Tree of Life. Their fruit was what happened to us when we disobeyed God or obeyed Him. Otherwise they would have been called an "apple tree" or some other specific name.The act of eating something forbidden is the clue. THe story is the same in evolution, as well. Protoman was an herbivore. Then they became scavengers, transgressed their way into being hunters, and then became canibals and warriors. In Genesis we eat something forbidden, begin killing, and then become nomadic (Cain the restless wanderer).If there hadn't been this agreement between these disparate sources, I wouldn't be following this line of thought. But it is clearly there and so there is confirmation between the stories.Don't discount this as nonsense. It fits together very well.Jake
Jakeas an exposition of Gen 1 & 2 it is nonsense. Did you notice that there were two trees in the centre of the garden and that man was permitted to eat of all trees but one; hence the other tree in the centre that was not the trees of the knowledge of good and evil was available to him.He made a choice which caused him to be banned from eating the fruit of the tree which was previously available to him.I do call it nonsense. It only fits together well because you ignore anything that doesn't fit. If we remove all the things that don't fit it fits; there's a surprise.
In Chinese, there is an idiom, which literally translated means, "The chicken talking to the duck." It designates a complete failure in communication.In this case, the presuppositions are so wide apart that no meaningful conversation could follow. I see no common ground at all on which the "debate" could continue!