for me, this has not taken everything into consideration. first, eve was deceived by the serpent, so we have the thought processes to take into consideration which led to the act.

on the other hand, if adam and eve, or either, had thought about the fruit and eating it all on their own we still have the thought processes involved.

the thought processes not rejected led to the sin which lead to control by the enemy and then to inevitable death.

it was not sin when thoughts started occuring to satan about himself. it was when he entertained them, it was because he did not take them to God "Who cleanses from all sin", but held onto them and let them grow and devour him. he did not confess them to God.

Boy, this is opening a can of worms! If you want to open a thread to discuss this, we can, but I think this is a complicated issue, for one thing, and, for a second, I don't think this comparison is an apt one for the question we are considering. To mention just one thing that renders the comparison inadequate, God is our creator (which the respirator is not, nor are we, in relation to the sick guy).



You're saying it would have been impossible for them to die unless God did something? How about Lucifer? What did God do to enable him to die? (other than give him free will)



Not necessarily. Consider Lucifer.



I don't think this considers all the possibilities, as Lucifer's case brings out.



I wouldn't say this. Ever. This, to my mind, is blaming God.



Not necessarily. Consider Lucifer.



Again, I would never say this. Sounds to me like something Satan would argue.



Regarding Adam: "He resolved to share her fate; if she must die, he would die with her. (PP 56)"



Not sure what your point is here. How does this relate to the discussion?

My point is that there death was not due to God's taking an arbitrary action to kill them because they acted against His will. Similarly, this is not the reason Lucifer dies.

Death is the inevitable result of sin. Sin is like poison. If you take a lethal poison, death (baring some intervention) follows. So death follows sin.

Not all of the fruit in the garden of Eden belonged to Adam and Eve. In partaking of that fruit, they were stealing, which is sin. They also had a god before God, which is also sin. They made the fruit an idol. Also sin.

The fruit of their sin is immediately apparent. They ran in shame and fear from God. When questioned, they became blaming each other and God Himself. They had united themselves with Satan's rebellion, a road that could only lead to death (how could it not?), and this is without God's lifting a finger; all the result of sin.

God sought them out, and offered them a remedy out of their predicament. He acted to save them from sin. He gave to them the anti-dote, which is Christ.

Didn't you chastise me once for not taking the context of one of Jones' comments into account, even though it was a few dozen pages away?

Here's what comes immediately after the sentence you quoted:
What were the serpent's words that Adam were thinking might be true? "You will not surely die." Adam wanted to avoid death.

And when Jesus came, he did not beg the rocks to fall on him. Instead, he blamed Eve. "Hey, don't look at me. She gave me the fruit."

It's not really that complicated. tq saw it right away, and was willing to admit that her paradigm might need adjustment.

If one causes the cessation of a life-sustaining phenomenon that directly results in the death of another, it is no stretch to say that one person killed the other. Regardless of how much sugar-coating is desired, the bottom line stays the same.

You said in response to my question of what would have happened if God did not tell them not to eat the fruit:
So God just had to keep quiet, and the fruit would have been safe. Right?


Did he sin by disobeying any of God's explicit commands? What was the "light" that Lucifer "rejected"?

Regarding 114446, I don't know what your point is. It seems clear Adam was willing to die. Surely being willing to die involves the choice to die, doesn't it? How could it not? Anyway, so what? What's your point?



What teresa said was, "I'm going to have to think and pray about that. It seems to be a 'fine distinction'."

I agree that your argument is not complicated and easy to grasp. I just don't think it is apt.



A major problem with your illustration is that the one pulling the plug is not a third party, but the person being given the life-sustaining support.



Death is "the inevitable result of sin," and over and over again the point is made that this is what the wicked choose. For example, "This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice." Again, "When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life."

We see that it is not God who pulls the plug, but the wicked. They choose to separate themselves from God. They choose to cling to sin. They chose to reject Christ. One who does these things is choosing death; these choices are not conducive to life.



It doesn't seem to me you addressed my question. You said, "Sounds like God did something to make it possible for them to die." My understand is that the thing God did to make it possible for them to die was to give them free will. Does your statement, "Sounds like God did something to make it possible for them to die." encompass something other than this? Had God not prohibited the fruit of the TOTKOGAE, would it have been impossible for Adam and Eve to die?



I think this is misrepresenting the issue. The issue is that the fruit was not theirs, but God's. If God had told them, "You may eat of every fruit of the garden," then the fruit would have been theirs, and they would not have been sinning to eat it, as they would not have been taking something which was not theirs.



The context to my question was your statement "Sounds like God did something to make it possible for them to die." It sounds like you may be saying that God enabled Adam and Eve to die by prohibiting them to eat of a certain tree. God made no such prohibition to Lucifer, yet Lucifer was still able to die. Why? Because he had free will. It was having free will that enabled Adam and Eve to die, the same as Lucifer.

Regarding your questions, the answer to the first one is "yes," and the answer to the second is various things, including light regarding who Christ was. Why do you ask?

??? God prohibited Lucifer from transgressing His law. Sin came to existence when Lucifer refused allegiance to God's law.

Evil originated with the rebellion of Lucifer. It was brought into heaven when he refused allegiance to God's law. Satan was the first lawbreaker. {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 3}

Doesn't God make a difference between pure Rebellion like as Satan case versus being deceived and committing sin without knowing. I know I have seen these texts, I think there are at least 3 that makes clear there's no forgiveness for pure Rebellion which is the sin against the Holy Spirit.

Yes, there are several texts speaking about that. Here are some of them:

"It would not have been safe to suffer any who united with Satan in his rebellion to continue to occupy heaven. They had learned the lesson of genuine rebellion against the unchangeable law of God, and this is incurable." {SR 17.1}

"But after this terrible exhibition, after hearing the horrible cries of those who went down into the bowels of the earth, after seeing the 250 men consumed by fire, we would suppose that rebellion would have been cured. But history records the fact that the congregation murmured against Aaron and Moses, saying, 'Ye have killed the people of the Lord.' Does not this show us the great danger of murmuring and rebellion? It seems that rebellion is next to incurable." {RH, October 10, 1893 par. 4}

"I was not surprised at all to learn that these men, who have had so great light, should make rapid strides in determined apostasy. This experience reveals to us the fact that true rebellion is incurable." {9MR 366.2}

"The principle of rebellion is incurable. Satan revealed his true sentiments through the actions of the priests [who crucified Christ], who had been blessed with evidence upon evidence, but who would be hardened, not convinced, by more evidence." {12MR 412.2}

??? God prohibited Lucifer to eat from a certain tree?

Regarding Lucifer's sin:



"Sin originated in self-seeking." It was Lucifer's desire to put himself first that led him to sin by misrepresenting God, in order to win their homage to himself.