The tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

[GodsGrace]

we have already determined that stealing can be justified though right, to some extent anyway

Cosa??
Please explain.
You mean, like, if someone's hungry?

 

[bbyrd009]

Cosa??
Please explain.
You mean, like, if someone's hungry?

that would be one example, yes, but this might even be extended to murder, by extrapolation.
Now don't get me wrong here though, stealing bread is still a sin

 

[GodsGrace]

that would be one example, yes, but this might even be extended to murder, by extrapolation.
Now don't get me wrong here though, stealing bread is still a sin

Hmmm. I doubt it is if one is hungry.
A sin has to have an evil motive behind it...anything not "good" is evil.
Murder....you mean killing?
Like if I kill someone so they don't murder my child?

 

[faithfulness]

yes, just like that. Unfortunately the only term that really describes this behavior is Codependency, and that is a hard term to define. But picture like a little old lady coming to you as you are comfortably reclining and herding you to sit up so she can fluff your pillow, or something like that. i could set up a more pertinent codependent scenario but it would take a half a page, but the point is to see the manip, codependents are alternately manipulative and...arg, obsequious, sorry, there just isn't a better word, passive-aggressives are just codependents, being codependent.

these are invariably--well not narcissists, also a codependency, anti-codependency--so quite often at least very big hearted people, ok, they are not meaning to do anything but serve, and anyone in their orbit just better get ready to get served, that's all. Now we have an expression "get served" that we openly apply to narcissistic behavior, but i am applying it to non-narcissists, even though standard codependents are also quite narcissistic as well, and there are usually/always self-esteem issues too.
Him

It's a deterministic way of maintaining one's ego while playing at service, is prolly a good def, tho i never thought to express it in terms of determinism before, nice. Someone who is considered more of a narcissist would just have no interest in playing at actual service, but instead prefers "you got served" in the current slang

ob·se·qui·ous
əbˈsēkwēəs/
adjective

1. obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree.
   "they were served by obsequious waiters"
   synonyms: servile, ingratiating, sycophantic, fawning, unctuous, oily, oleaginous, groveling, cringing, subservient, submissive, slavish; More

understand most or all of this is subconscious; no one aspires to be a codependent when they grow up, it just happens, especially in first-world societies; we mostly all have a friend or adversary like this, the non-narcissist codependent i mean.

Try having this convo with them lol, as lovingly as you may, and let the vehement denial be your guide imo. Try suggesting a better MO for a specific situation, that allows the "victim" to...arg, "retain their sovereignty" is how i would put it, but...allows the victim to choose or whatever, retain their free will, and observe how it is rejected; bc in the Coda mind this person needs to be served, we are talking about helping this poor guy, right, and gracefully allowing him room to decline or deny would not be serving them.

Codas will not take a hint, and you can like slowly escalate the hint to comical proportions, you can even start laughing, don't worry, they are not going to get it. Try being baldly honest; imo this is the best therapy.

They are then going to go emo on you, get offended or superior, usually with lots of antics, and they know how to push buttons, ok, so imo don't go into this unprepared, but if you are able to retain your composure and understand that they are doing this bc it is the MO that they have been trained into, just think of them as like a younger sibling that is being willful that you unfortunately can't just beat them up, which is how kids get trained out of that i guess, or at least one way.

TY for this post! This was the first one I read 'fresh' this morning so I think I was more nearly ready to take it as it comes. The word 'archer' came to me about you fwtw. Love scriptures re arrows/mighty men.
So ready to let Him tear down/death to the loathsome 'conditioning' as you described, for the real as in being obsequious to the Lord? Only.
Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him. Heb10:38
Word. Faith draws…Him.​

 

[bbyrd009]

Hmmm. I doubt it is if one is hungry.

forgiven maybe, but a sin nonetheless imo. If you're hungry, fast

A sin has to have an evil motive behind it

yet the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Murder....you mean killing?

um, is there any other kind?

Like if I kill someone so they don't murder my child?

i had more in mind justifying killing someone to save a million people, but sure. The fact that God must have removed a hedge in your case would surely only be discussed after the fact anyway

 

[bbyrd009]

for the real as in being obsequious to the Lord?

imo obsequious is like codependent, there is not a scenario in which either is "good."
one can serve without being a doormat, etc. For whatever reason John Baptist's sacrifice comes to mind; we get painted a picture of a religious guy, baptizing new "converts" in the Jordan, right. Not realizing that rivers divide, and JohnB knew how his actions would be perceived by the PTB. Dunking ppl in the divide was really a big FU to The Man, perceived from another pov. JohnB knew that his head (God) would be cut off for this

 

[GodsGrace]

forgiven maybe, but a sin nonetheless imo. If you're hungry, fast

yet the road to hell is paved with good intentions
um, is there any other kind?
i had more in mind justifying killing someone to save a million people, but sure. The fact that God must have removed a hedge in your case would surely only be discussed after the fact anyway

The Road to Hell
Those that had good intentions did Not have evil motives!
It's just that sometimes the best laid plans can go wrong and someone's good intention turns out badly.

As to murder...
Of course murder and killing are different.
Murder is the sin.

 

[bbyrd009]

This was the first one I read 'fresh' this morning so I think I was more nearly ready to take it as it comes.

weird, i have noticed that too, going either way, reading or posting

 

[bbyrd009]

Those that had good intentions did Not have evil motives!

ha well but see that that is the point; they had good intentions, but all they had was good intentions

As to murder...
Of course murder and killing are different.
Murder is the sin.

well, i notice that all of the flora was given to eat first, and only later did meat come in to the picture; kind of like no money/money for now or something.
So, imo accidental killing is one thing, and intentional killing is another. And i am a meat eater, even if i avoid CAFO and do my best to eat "animals that have only ever had one bad day," these are irrelevant to the animal that died i guess

 

[GodsGrace]

ha well but see that that is the point; they had good intentions, but all they had was good intentions

Right. Sometimes intentions count for nothing.
But we always say it's the heart desires that count.
So if I have a good intention and it goes haywire,,,
Am I responsible??

 

[bbyrd009]

Right. Sometimes intentions count for nothing.

saying intentions count for anything is like saying believing hard enough will get you saved or into heaven, imo

So if I have a good intention and it goes haywire,,,
Am I responsible?

let your yes be yes, and your no be no
so imo if you said you were gonna do it, then what are you going to do lol, "try" to do it?
You strike me as someone that would make that clear up front, "i'll try to do this," where at least you have not made a pledge or whatever

 

[Uisdean]

There is also a deeper lesson revealed in Scripture;

The Order Of Gods Design FOR The Vessels He has created and made, called manKIND.

Male- then Female, then Children.

Male, a weak vessel, With the Greater responsibility TO Hear, Learn, Teach, Oversee the weakER and weakEST Vessels.

The weakER Vessels, Female, responsibility, TO also, Hear, Learn, Teach, Oversee the weakEST Vessels, Children.

Both Adam and Eve Heard God say; Do Not Eat from the Tree of Good and Evil.

Where was Adam when Eve...
1) heard the Serpent speak to Eve?
2) Eve became Captured by the the Serpents attention?
3) Eve looked at the Serpent?
4) Eve listened To the Serpent?
5) Eve talked To the Serpent?
6) Eve looked at the Tree of G & E?
7) Eve reached out and Took Fruit of the Tree?
8) Eve ate what SHE took?

It is the Same Lesson throughout Scriptures...the Order of responsibility to Oversee.

Further the result of consequence is revealed in Genesis.

Dealt with first is the Culprit... the Serpent.
Then the Female...Then the Male.

God Bless,
Taken

Yeah. Adam was right there, watching. Question is, what would I have done? What do I do daily as the priest in my home to assist my wife spiritually?

BTW...God only told Adam that he was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of K of G & E. Gen 2: 15-17. In verse 18 God begins the process of finding a helper for Adam. So...all you Hebrew scholars: when God says "you" in these verses, is it singular or plural? If it is singular, then we have an interesting question. I'm guessing it's plural. Also, it makes me wonder what Adam told Eve about the tree. Because she says that she is not to touch it. God did not say anything about touching the tree.

Rejoice Always!!!

 

[Enoch111]

Because she says that she is not to touch it. God did not say anything about touching the tree.

Eve was being inventive. That's all. You are right. "God did not say anything about touching the tree".

Eve could have touched that tree all day long, and nothing would have happened. But adding the idea about touching is similar to what people do with Scripture today. They add "Holy Tradition" or extra-biblical revelations to what is found in the Bible, and thereby come up with some strange doctrines.

 

[Episkopos]

Eve was being inventive. That's all. You are right. "God did not say anything about touching the tree".

Eve could have touched that tree all day long, and nothing would have happened. But adding the idea about touching is similar to what people do with Scripture today. They add "Holy Tradition" or extra-biblical revelations to what is found in the Bible, and thereby come up with some strange doctrines.

Or actually experience the visitation of the Lord and come up understanding the bible for the first time... which then sounds strange to the majority.

 

[Enoch111]

Or actually experience the visitation of the Lord and come up understanding the bible for the first time... which then sounds strange to the majority.

If it's true it's not new, and if it's new it's not true.

We have a whole bunch of so-called *prophets* today who claim to be receiving new revelations. But when you examine them closely, they are simply a re-hash of what have already been revealed.

 

[Episkopos]

="Enoch111, post: 439786, member: 7853"]If it's true it's not new, and if it's new it's not true.

Which Pharisee said that? Not one of the more open ones I would think. Jesus was seen as an upstart bringing in new-fangled ideas....much like His followers today.

We have a whole bunch of so-called *prophets* today who claim to be receiving new revelations. But when you examine them closely, they are simply a re-hash of what have already been revealed.

Do you realize that there is a whole dimension of the Spirit to discover while we are yet walking in these mortal bodies?

Most believers have yet to scratch the surface of the experience of the early believers. It is ALL to be rediscovered.

 

[Taken]

Yeah. Adam was right there, watching. Question is, what would I have done? What do I do daily as the priest in my home to assist my wife spiritually?

I cannot say.

[QUOTEBTW...God only told Adam that he was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of K of G & E. Gen 2: 15-17. [/QUOTE]

The woman was told to not Eat and not touch the tree.
Gen 3:3

In verse 18 God begins the process of finding a helper for Adam. So...all you Hebrew scholars: when God says "you" in these verses, is it singular or plural? If it is singular, then we have an interesting question. I'm guessing it's plural.

God IS mysterious. He introduces us, He prepares us, He reveals to us.

Adam a male and Eve a female is introduced to us via the verbal and written word.
God calls THEM by ONE Name; Adam.
Then the Husband and Wife; called ONE.
Thus the mystery...."THEM" signifying a plural, yet "ONE" signifying a single.

It is a preparation for something bigger than what is Carnal. ONE God, ONE man... yet they become JOINED....YET remain separate.
God is not man, and man is not God.

Also, it makes me wonder what Adam told Eve about the tree. Because she says that she is not to touch it. God did not say anything about touching the tree.

Sure He did, review Gen3:3

Rejoice Always!!!

Amen!
God Bless,
Taken

 

[GodsGrace]

saying intentions count for anything is like saying believing hard enough will get you saved or into heaven, imo
let your yes be yes, and your no be no
so imo if you said you were gonna do it, then what are you going to do lol, "try" to do it?
You strike me as someone that would make that clear up front, "i'll try to do this," where at least you have not made a pledge or whatever

bb, in this discussion I'm assuming (dangerous) that those who INTEND to do something will then go ahead and actually DO IT. Otherwise we're just talking about a WORD instead of how these intentions could turn out.

IOW, if the person DOES NOTHING, how does it turn out badly? See what I mean.
You've gone to discussing a word instead of the result of doing something.

I don't ever say I'll try to do something...I either do it or I don't.
TRY doesn't mean too much to me. My son's been TRYING to come visit me for the past 18 months but I still haven't seen him (them - his family). Trying means nothing to me.

Now I forgot what we were talking about!
LOL

 

[bbyrd009]

Which Pharisee said that? Not one of the more open ones I would think. Jesus was seen as an upstart bringing in new-fangled ideas....much like His followers today.

ty. John the Baptist knew he was not going to be making any friends with the Sanhedrin

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't ever say I'll try to do something...I either do it or I don't.

well so much the better imo, and yes ezackly "try" is code for "prolly not" right