Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Snake in Eden


So_crates
 Share

Recommended Posts

Another thing that lost me in PLAF was when Saint Vic explained humans being thrown out of the Garden of Eden and the transfer of ownership of earth to the devil.

Saint Vic touted this transfer as logically logical and legally legal. I just don't understand how.

How does committing original sin (whatever it was) transfer ownership of the Earth to Satan. And if you look, earth isn't Satan's only domain, the whole universe is. For a lack of a better word, I'll call it corruption, exists throught the universe. Mars shows signs of erosion. Jupiter was hit by a comet. Even the sun will eventually use all its fuel and burn out.

Tied into that is: then is eating from the tree of life a physical act too? Eating from the tree of knowledge was whether it was eating an apple or going by either of the ministries two explanations, all were physical acts.

SoCrates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that lost me in PLAF was when Saint Vic explained humans being thrown out of the Garden of Eden and the transfer of ownership of earth to the devil.

Saint Vic touted this transfer as logically logical and legally legal. I just don't understand how.

How does committing original sin (whatever it was) transfer ownership of the Earth to Satan. And if you look, earth isn't Satan's only domain, the whole universe is. For a lack of a better word, I'll call it corruption, exists throught the universe. Mars shows signs of erosion. Jupiter was hit by a comet. Even the sun will eventually use all its fuel and burn out.

Tied into that is: then is eating from the tree of life a physical act too? Eating from the tree of knowledge was whether it was eating an apple or going by either of the ministries two explanations, all were physical acts.

SoCrates

Yet, in TWI is where I learned this verse...The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it....go figure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, in TWI is where I learned this verse...The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it....go figure?

From what I can remeber, Saint Vic said God gave ownership of the earth to man, who when he committed the original sin transfered it to the devil.

My next thought is: God creates laws, why would he worry about being legally legal?

SoCrates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that lost me in PLAF was when Saint Vic explained humans being thrown out of the Garden of Eden and the transfer of ownership of earth to the devil.

Saint Vic touted this transfer as logically logical and legally legal. I just don't understand how.

How does committing original sin (whatever it was) transfer ownership of the Earth to Satan. And if you look, earth isn't Satan's only domain, the whole universe is. For a lack of a better word, I'll call it corruption, exists throught the universe. Mars shows signs of erosion. Jupiter was hit by a comet. Even the sun will eventually use all its fuel and burn out.

Tied into that is: then is eating from the tree of life a physical act too? Eating from the tree of knowledge was whether it was eating an apple or going by either of the ministries two explanations, all were physical acts.

SoCrates

How does committing original sin (whatever it was) transfer ownership of the Earth to Satan?

This was covered in a collateral called "Jesus Christ The Last Adam" by Patricia T. Talley. It has to do with Adam having dominion over the earth, the threefold nature of man and Adam relinquishing his connection to God. The collateral was, at one time, part of the set of little pamphlets that came with the class and was also sold in the bookstore. If I can find my copy, I'll try to post some of it.

Tied into that is: then is eating from the tree of life a physical act too?

This one was covered in the Christian Family and Sex class. The long and short of the answer to this, according to Wierwille, was "yes". I think the class I took must have been one of the very early versions because I have yet to encounter anyone else who remembers the rather graphic explanation that Wierwille gave. He said the "tree" reference was figurative (phallic) and the "eating" reference was literal. Perhaps that part was quickly edited out for future classes. When he presented this, Wierwille said, "I can't show it to you from the scriptures. You'll just have to trust me on this one." That should have thrown up a giant size red flag for me but I was too wayfer brained to see it.

For a guy who claimed to abhor private interpretation, VPW sure seemed to spout an abundance of it himself.

Edited by waysider
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would one want to create their own antithesis..

Questions like this demonstrate why it might be more beneficial to accept it as a myth and learn what we can from the symbolism rather than try to make it "literally" fit like a hand in a glove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would one want to create their own antithesis..

mathematically, if might make some sense. Lotsa "stuff" kind of cancels..

Does scripture say God created Satan as His antithesis? I thought He created him as an angel. Don't angels worship and serve God at His pleasure? With freewill to do so? I don't think they are described as robotic or anything.

Edited by geisha779
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does scripture say God created Satan as His antithesis? I thought He created him as an angel. Don't angels worship and serve God at His pleasure? With freewill to do so? I don't think they are described as robotic or anything.

No, it doesn't say He created Satan as His antithesis. But, isn't that what he became? For thousands and thousands of years, man has struggled with the concept of good versus evil. That displays the essence of antitheses.

(I'm not sure where you got the robotic reference.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't say He created Satan as His antithesis. But, isn't that what he became? For thousands and thousands of years, man has struggled with the concept of good versus evil. That displays the essence of antitheses.

(I'm not sure where you got the robotic reference.)

According to scripture man became God's enemy too....I am not saying we should not look at it symbolically. It just doesn't say God created Satan as his antithesis...obviously it looks like Satan had a choice...so, we wouldn't want to miss that symbolism either. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does scripture say God created Satan as His antithesis? I thought He created him as an angel. Don't angels worship and serve God at His pleasure? With freewill to do so? I don't think they are described as robotic or anything.

But then, comes another amusing question: Through His foreknowledge God knew Satan was going to rebel, yet He created him anyway. Why?

Just as through His foreknowledge He knew man would eat the fruit of the tree in the garden of Eden, yet he put it there anyway. Again, why?

SoCrates

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then, comes another amusing question: Through His foreknowledge God knew Satan was going to rebel, yet He created him anyway. Why?

Just as through His foreknowledge He knew man would eat the fruit of the tree in the garden of Eden, yet he put it there anyway. Again, why?

SoCrates

And I have an amusing answer... but, first, let me ask you a few questions. Just what do you think God's foreknowledge means? I am curious how you believe that works with God? Can you actually explain that about God to me? It seems you must have a handle on it if,if,if you are judging God's actions by your understanding of His foreknowledge? Where did you learn about His foreknowledge?

Maybe God had a plan...and as unfair as it may seem to you...scripture doesn't say everyone is chosen, it says many are called. Many are given a choice.

Why shouldn't God put a tree any where He likes in a garden He created? He provided them with every good thing...they lacked nothing...Adam communed perfectly with God...and they were not hungry or lonely or bored or cold or in need in any way. They did nothing to deserve all the wonderful things God provided them after He created them...including fellowship with Himself. Which BTW is the greatest thing of all. God wasn't being cruel when He told them not to eat of it. They had plenty to eat....He wasn't starving them and then telling them not to eat....God did not tempt them in any way. He is God...He said don't do it...but He gave them everything...and the ONE RULE He gave them...they wouldn't keep. Are you trying to imply, the Creator, was not just in expecting them to keep ONE LOUSY rule? I expect more from my pets!

Let me ask you....why shouldn't He put it there? After creating man, creating the garden, supplying all good things....and only asking one thing......why shouldn't He have had the expectation they would listen to Him.

Same with Satan, God made him beautiful....gave him a purpose.....provided....so, why shouldn't He expect Satan to remain in his office? Are these expectations that are reasonable?

But, a just God, would allow people the choice to come to Him freely....no? Not only did they disobey their creator.....the One who gave them everything...but, they made a choice in doing so. Here is the kicker...there was punishment for disobedience, BUT, God Himself made clothes out of skins to cover them.....blood was shed. You want to talk about some symbolism....even though man sinned, God paid their price......God did it!! God provided the sacrifice. Blood continued to cover until the perfect sacrifice came along..... and the perfect sacrifice shed blood to cover us. Sorry to be the bearer of good news guys, but God Himself, did that too.

Now, what is the proper response to someone who gives you life...provides good for you....and when you inevitably screw up... they still cover you. Is it to complain? To say it is still not good enough....to say you could have done it better? Is the proper response to reject it and figure it out yourself with better ideas? What if the truth is...there is no other way to save yourself? What if there is one costly and precious way provided through the shedding of blood...and we reject it? Jesus said..He was the way God provided...either He was or He wasn't. Our choice to accept or reject Him. Is God unfair if He doesn't accept another way other than the costly one He Himself provided?

Maybe, God had a plan? Just brainstorming here. :)

Edited by geisha779
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have an amusing answer... but, first, let me ask you a few questions. Just what do you think God's foreknowledge means? I am curious how you believe that works with God? Can you actually explain that about God to me? It seems you must have a handle on it if,if,if you are judging God's actions by your understanding of His foreknowledge? Where did you learn about His foreknowledge?

My understanding of God's foreknowledge is His ability to see into the future. One way I've had it explained to me was visualize a cone. God is at the point and all of time is on the disc at the bottom. So God can see all of time at once.

Maybe God had a plan...and as unfair as it may seem to you...scripture doesn't say everyone is chosen, it says many are called. Many are given a choice.

Why shouldn't God put a tree any where He likes in a garden He created? He provided them with every good thing...they lacked nothing...Adam communed perfectly with God...and they were not hungry or lonely or bored or cold or in need in any way. They did nothing to deserve all the wonderful things God provided them after He created them...including fellowship with Himself. Which BTW is the greatest thing of all. God wasn't being cruel when He told them not to eat of it. They had plenty to eat....He wasn't starving them and then telling them not to eat....God did not tempt them in any way. He is God...He said don't do it...but He gave them everything...and the ONE RULE He gave them...they wouldn't keep. Are you trying to imply, the Creator, was not just in expecting them to keep ONE LOUSY rule? I expect more from my pets!

Don't you think your getting just a tad defensive here? All I asked was a simple question. I didn't say anything about his right to put a tree where he wanted. I didn't say anything about it was wrong not to let them eat it. I didn't say his rule was wrong.

Let me ask you....why shouldn't He put it there? After creating man, creating the garden, supplying all good things....and only asking one thing......why shouldn't He have had the expectation they would listen to Him.

I don't leave a loaded gun around a child, even if I told it not to play with it. I don't leave a book of matches lying around the house, even though I alert my neices and nephews to the dangers of playing with them. And these precautions are based on what might happen, nonetheless if I could foresee it will happen.

Is it to complain? To say it is still not good enough....to say you could have done it better? Is the proper response to reject it and figure it out yourself with better ideas?

No complaint. Just questioning what doesn't make sense to me. If I had did that in the ministry I would have left a lot sooner.

What if the truth is...there is NO OTHER WAY to save yourself? What if there is one costly and precious way provided through the shedding of blood...and we reject it? Is God unfair if He doesn't accept another way other than the costly One He Himself provided?

There are a couple of flaws in this argument. First, one has to accept that one needs to be saved. Two, one has to accept this is the only way, what if there are others? How do we know there are not others?

Neither argument can arrive at a conclusion by reasoning, so being a skeptic, I just put them in my "Don't Have Enough Information" file.

Maybe, God had a plan?

I'm nowhere as smart as God, but a contradictions exist even in the plan scenerio. If God can create anything he wants, why not cut to the chase and create that perfect universe he wanted in the first place? Why put human beings through the whole spiritual battle scenerio?

Again, this is something for my Don't Have Enough Information file.

SoCrates

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of God's foreknowledge is His ability to see into the future. One way I've had it explained to me was visualize a cone. God is at the point and all of time is on the disc at the bottom. So God can see all of time at once.

Don't you think your getting just a tad defensive here? All I asked was a simple question. I didn't say anything about his right to put a tree where he wanted. I didn't say anything about it was wrong not to let them eat it. I didn't say his rulke was wrong.

I don't leave a loaded gun around a child, even if I told it not to play with it. I don't leave a book of matches lying aroumd the house, even though I alert my neices and nephews to the dangers of playing with them. And these precautions are based on what might happen, nonetheless if I could foresee it will happen.

No complaint. Just questioning what doesn't make sense to me. If I had did that in the ministry I would have left a lot sooner.

There are a couple of flaws in this argument. First, one has to accept that one needs to be saved. Two, one has to accept this is the only way, what if there are others? How do we know there are not others?

Neither argument can arrive at a conclusion by reasoning, so being a skeptic, I just put them in my "Don't Have Enough Information" file.

SoCrates

I was having fun, and in no way meant to sound defensive or offensive. I am really sorry about that...I have GOT to use those smiley things more. Or tone it down a bit. :)

I just think it is good to look at things from different perspectives.

The loaded gun analogy is good, but, maybe a bit extreme. It was a tree(I guess) and God was perfectly reasonable to expect them to leave it alone. They were not children...they were fully formed and fully informed. :) Smiley icon!

Maybe don't write the gospel off just yet, When you really begin to examine it...it is full of depth and some fascinating answers to the questions it addresses, which are those existential ones we wrestle with from time to time. But, you are absolutely right. One hears this particular explanation...one examines it...one mulls it over, and compares it to other explanations....and one thinks about it. Reason it out...because you really can do that...consider the options and because there is more to it than a verbal confession....there is much more depth there. What did Jesus offer as a way....what did He say....what did He say about Himself and the human condition? What does this love of God mean? If you don't think it through and genuinely see it and accept it...place your faith and trust in Him...it is nothing more than what we did in TWI.

Scripture doesn't offer a defense for the existence of God...it simply declares it...explains our relationship to Him....and offers what it declares as the only acceptable way. There are many ways...but, one thing the scriptures do give you is plenty of info!

I have read your posts and I relate to what you say...finding out that TWI sold us a bill of goods...after we poured our heart and soul into....it can kind of ruin the bible for us. I have truly been there. The really scary part is...what I found out...is that it is really not about abundance and red drapes...it is actually a bit about suffering. So, we really do have to see something better and beyond THAT option...to actually put our faith in Him. :)

If we are looking for an abundant life of stuff now....Jesus probably isn't going to be our first choice, His blessing runs much deeper. He promised persecution, trials, tribulations, and suffering. Hooray! But, He also promised Himself....much better than anything I will ever have here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry! I will try to tone it down!

No worries, you guys can debate away. I don't want to come off too grumpy. Just a wee bit shorter on a forum board improves readability. Of course I have been accused of having a short attention span......lol....think that was James Trimm who used to post chapter length banter.

To quit crying and get back on topic, it really is a good question. Scripture is specific that the world was delivered to the devil in the temptations of Jesus, by the devil's own words.

Who is to say he didn't steal his spot from Adam's disobedience. It even says Jesus did not think equality with God a thing to be grasped, or taken. The devil and eventually Adam thought it could be taken. Who's to say that the devil didn't set himself in charge and no one was around to stop him since Adam was fallen. I am not sure that this is the case, but it makes more sense than something being legally legal. To me any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great topic and one which is debated not just amongst ex-Wayfers.

Really it belongs in Doctrinal.

But do carry on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking back on Eden and snakes and all that the most fricken hilarious thing from my perspective now is that the greatness of TWI's "Biblical Research" that culminated in all of that teaching seems to be an artist's depiction on the ceiling of a Catholic church.

I mean what kind of moron buys the fact that your scripture commentary is based upon the divine scholarship of Michaelangelo?

To me it just highlights how TWI's "Biblical Research" really occurred. The top morons come to a conclusion. Then they seek for supporting evidence of that conclusion inside and outside the Bible. Man directing God again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...