I think if anyone has the time, it would be interesting to tally the unanswered questions in this thread.

Darius, I guess you feel the majority of my questions were irrelevent?

Jeff

No tally is needed. Just point to one.

Darius,

Here’s one example:

quote:

---

Darius, are you now defending Satan? Saying that Satan did nothing wrong implies that it was God’s fault. To clarify your point, please tell who you believe is to blame for Eve eating the fruit? Is it Eve, the serpent, or God, or was it both Eve and the serpent, or Eve and God, or the serpent and God, or, perhaps were all three to blame?

---

Your “answer” was:

quote:

---

Jeff, something is wrong with the philosophy that one who is accused does not deserved to be treated fairly. Why would you suggest that I am defending Satan because I spoke the truth about what happened. I am also concerned about the dualistic thinking that assumes that to say that Lucifer did nothing wrong automatically blames God. However, the fact that Lucifer was not immediately destroyed is evidence that God did not blame him. I don't expect you to see this because you probably are as influenced with the vengeance thinking that is throughout Christianity. We just don't understand grace and love. Vengeance is what moves us. Sadly.

---

Your answer was ambiguous. I knew little more about your position after you answered it than before. From your answer I got the idea that you didn’t want to say that you were defending Satan, but you did not state that you weren’t. Also, the other question about who was to blame for eating the fruit went unanswered except that instead of knowing who you felt was to blame, you only told me that Lucifer was not to blame. So I asked more directly hoping to get a more direct answer:

quote:

---

I am asking if you are defending Satan, I am not assuming so. Your statements made it *seem* that 1) you are indeed defending Satan, and 2) that Satan’s innocence implies that God is to blame. Before I assume anything about what you believe, I am asking directly. So, again I ask 1) are you defending Satan, and 2) who is to blame for Eve eating the fruit.

---

These questions remain unanswered. Direct answers to the questions would take a similar form of:

I [am or am not] defending Satan and here’s why I say that…

I believe that [x] is to blame for Eve eating the fruit and here’s why I believe this…

Accusing me of “dualistic thinking” and being ”influenced with the vengeance thinking that is throughout Christianity” does not answer the questions I asked. But please, by all means, feel free to give direct answers now.

Jeff

Jeff, you just proved my point. Instead of dealing with what I had argued you raised a red herring. The discussion was not centered on whether Satan was responsible or not but on what made the Plan of Salvation necessary. My analysis of the question showed that it would require an entire thread to decide whether Satan needed a defense before even considering whether I am in a position to defend him. The outcome of that discussion could never change the facts I had presented to you. The serpent did not lie when he said "you will be like god knowing good and evil." Instead of admitting to the truth of that fact you thought you could paint me with the label of "Satan lover." I refuse to dignify such a tactic.

But the information must be relevant and persuasive. Quoting to me what John says about X is not very persuasive on its face if there is a possibility that John may have misconstrued X. Here is a good example. Generally, everyone will agree that a rescue operation is an act of love. We rescue individuals because they deserve to be rescued by virtue of the fact that they are members of society. Yet, many have taken Paul's unfortunate choice of language to present rescue/salvation as an act of grace, claiming that the human race did not deserve to be saved but God did it anyhow. From this error they are forced to misinterpret the Genesis story so as to present the human race as being in rebellion.

Darius, you just proved my point. Rather than directly answer questions about your position, you just accuse. There’s no “tactic”. I am just trying to understand what you’re really saying. I’m not trying to paint you as anything…you paint yourself by how you respond. I am, however, trying to pin you down on exactly what it is that you believe because at the moment, that’s pretty vague. It’s difficult to discuss ideas when we don’t really know exactly what the idea is. I’m not trying to be your adversary. Please stop acting as if this is so and you probably won’t feel that I am an adversary.

To answer my question, you would not have required an entire thread to determine if Satan needed defending, because that was not what I asked. It was a simple yes or no question. “Are you defending Satan?” Of course getting an explanation for the yes or no answer would just have been pudding but I didn’t even get the direct yes or no.

A any rate, I suppose I can infer from your most recent response that you don’t believe you were trying to defend Satan since you feel that it would take an entire thread to decide if Satan even needed a defense. So I’ll just take it that your answer is “no”, you’re not defending Satan.

But just as a correction, you did not earlier say that “the serpent did not lie when he said ‘you will be like god knowing good and evil’”. You just said the serpent told no lies, which includes that Eve would not surely die. Of course I refuse to admit that the serpent didn’t lie, but not for the reason you state. It’s because we know from the Biblical record and have confirmation in the SOP that the serpent did indeed lie to Eve, and God did indeed hold the serpent responsible.

Still the other question is unanswered. Who do you say is to blame for Eve eating the fruit? That’s an easy question to answer. You don’t need an entire thread to discuss it. It’s YOUR opinion. Just state it and be done with it. Knowing this will help me understand your position better on what made the plan of salvation necessary. Of course it would also help if you clearly stated what you think made the plan of salvation necessary. But if you feel you’ve answered this, could you point to the particular post where you made this clear?

Jeff

Darius, I assume we can agree that Paul is a member of the set of Bible authors. We believe the Bible authors were inspired. If Paul, an inspired writer, erred in his exposition of grace, how then do you trust Moses? If Paul’s writings don’t coincide with your worldview, does that necessarily mean that Paul erred? Does that necessarily mean that people who don’t share your worldview are wrong? I’m sorry though that I keep asking questions, especially since experience has taught me in the last days that questions will only beget more ambiguity.

Jeff

Jeff, I hope you can accept that what occurred could only have occurred if Eve had not heard it from God that she was not to eat of the tree. The serpent's first words were in the form of a question. "Has God said . . .?" In so doing he reveals why Moses wrote that he was clever. By simply asking that question he aligned himself with Eve. She had been informed by Adam and it is obvious that he also needed to be informed. But, she immediately saw the problem in what was inferred which negates the idea that she foolishly followed the serpent into rebellion. She corrected the serpents over-statement but essentially trapped herself when she added Adam's overstatement. God had never said "Don't touch it."

Before we go on, do you find any lie spoken by the serpent here?

Jeff, we are at the crux of the matter. You think that inspiration is something enjoyed by only a few and that it also assigns infallibility to its recipients. That is demonstrably false. Inspiration is simply a means of communication. It is the way in which humans understand what is beyond them. All men are inspired. Saying that X is inspired adds nothing to the discussion. What we do with what we receive is much more important than what we receive. Paul understood that and informed us that he only understood in part. Why do we reject his opinion and claim that he fully understood?

So, it not that I trust or do not trust Paul or Moses. I accept what they have said and see whether it models reality. If if does not then I try to understand what was happening when they wrote. Everything is subject to testing. Nothing human is accepted on face value.