I changed my mind. We're gonna go.
The quoted passage does not teach that the ten commandments were given to Adam and Eve, more so given and binding before or after the fall of mankind.
No passage teaches specifically that the ten commandments were given to Adam and Eve. I've already admitted that. So what are you on about?
Such is amoral, is it not?
Besides, if one considers the commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, such belief could not be implied nor inferred in it. However, what it implies is that they do not have such knowledge, and that if and when they eat of it, they would have such knowledge.
Lots of stuff can be implied or inferred. That's how language works. The possibilities are not limited to your imagination's capacity.
The passage you quoted does not support what you say the character of God is, that is, “selfless, other-centered love”.
The Son is not some “other” or different being.
The Son is the 2nd person of the Godhead and as such is distinct in some way, at least. If this were not so, He could not pray to His father. The seperate personalities of the trinity defer to one another throughout scripture. They are selfless and other-centered in their relation to one another. If you don't buy it, you don't buy it. You have the right to be wrong.
To me, love is a characteristic of God and so of the children of God. And so to me, regarding the child of God, loving God supremely and neighbor as himself, more than it may well be a code, is the manifestation of such character, the fruit of it, so to speak.
Thank you for your opinion, but the 2 great commandments do not originate with you, so I don't understand the "to me" remarks. And thank you for admitting that the two great commandments "may well be a code." I would remind you that upon those two, hangs all the Law and the Prophets and, most especially, as is obvious, the ten commandments..
I agree that laws were created by God. And that said, before any law was ever created, there was no law. So that, it could not be said that there was law before all creation. As such too then, God is correctly not bound by anything, much less some law He created. His cooperation with the laws He created is not that He is bounded by it or that He could be bound by it, but that such perceived cooperation is due to the character of God. Besides, whatever law that God created, is not for Him to be bounded by it, but were made for His purpose/s, to His glory.
God's law is a transcript of His character and thus exists in eternity. Your God is too small, to coin a phrase.
So you don’t know. That is basically because nowhere in scriptures can one read about that, even about the belief that the Edenic pair were given the ten commandments (be it before or after the fall). So that, nothing could be concluded on the matter of whether the ten commandments were given and binding to to mankind from the very start of the creation of mankind, more so, before the transgression of Adam.
Again, I've already admitted that there is no text which explicitly says that Adam and Eve were given the ten commandments, but I contend that there is plenty enough biblical evidence to conclude that they were.
Pardon me, but “It is impossible for sin to exist when there is no law” are your words, not God’s. And it is correct to ask you, not God, what you meant by that and why you say that, when you say you agree that
Romans 4:15 does not mean to say that for sin to exist there must be a law given.
Given; existed. We've been all over this. There is a distinct difference between knowing a law and a law merely being in existence. I'm sorry you can't grasp that simple reality. "It is impossible for sin to exist where there is no law" means exactly the same thing expressed in Romans 4:15. Sorry you can't see that, as well.
According to you, the born again man are not slaves, but the scriptures says otherwise and speaks of them in such figure.
Romans 6:18 having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God,......
So, how does that affect the “freedom of choice” of those figured to be slaves of sin and of those slaves of righteousness?
In the figure of being slaves, either of sin or of righteousness, such slave figure makes the “freedom of choice” of both somewhat curtailed, limited or restricted, is it not?
You debunked the theory you suggested here in your
post #163 where you quote Galations 5:13. Don't blame me for that.
I am going to ignore whatever baseless things you say here. They are uncalled for in a christian forum. Such are but empty words, unprofitable, and worthless, if I may say so.
You, of course, may say so, but you do err in using the word "
baseless," since I already explained that I've been down this long and winding road with you before, so I
base my claims on documented prior experience with your behavior.
By the way, are you the authority who could judge and prevent me or anybody for that matter from participating in any forum here? If so, then I'll respect your judgment and resolve.
No, I am not the authority. That's why I made a request, instead of giving an order.