Thank you for your patience in this conversation. I would be pleased to continue it. I wasn't offended by what you wrote, and apologize for coming across as if I were. It just didn't make any sense to me to build a case on a fallacious premise, so I'm sorry if i came across as either agitated or affronted. My bad.

> You can not logically have a plan before infrastructure.

It seems to me that I can, and I would be wise to do so. Yesterday there was an earthquake of 5 (Richter) in northern CA. Suppose I live on a fault line. I can devise a plan, which would certain involve a contingency strategy, before I even start to design my house on paper, knowing that there are reasonable odds of tectonic movement. Even though I may build my house with earthquake-resistant designs and materials, according to the best engineering and architecture available, before I built I understood the possibility and rough probabilities of seismic activity and therefore formulated a plan in the event of failure. Part of my plan certainly affects the way I build, but there's only so much I can do to preclude tragedy. The rest is beyond my control. So you see I'm not buying material to repair a fault in the house I have yet to build, but have a plan in the event of earthquake, knowing that the possibility inexorably exists. It's not a question of building it right the first time. The decisions of Adam and Eve were not within God's control, since they were beings of free will. He could only plan for the probability of failure.

> Would not a parent at least take the clip out of the weapon? Would not a better parent hide and lock up the weapon?

Of course a parent would. No reasonable parent would act any differently. But I still think your analogy isn't accurate to the situation.

> Sin was not possible if God did not put the tree in the garden.

Here's where you're off the mark. Sin was possible on many fronts. Let's play with a possibility. I happen to think the tree was a literal tree, but that's not absolutely necessary. Adam and Eve had many opportunities to sin against God. God put them in the garden to work it and care for it. Suppose A&E had said, "No, you twit, do it yourself." God asked Adam to name the animals. He could have refused. Suppose God had given Eve to him and he slapped her and said, "Now get my supper, wench." The opportunities for sin were rife. Sin wasn't dependent on the presence of the tree. So even if the tree wasn't literal, it still represents what was going on there. But maybe to see the Garden without the tree would help you to understand, according to my examples, that sin was always an option for a being who had a free will but not a nature incapable of sin. That's why I think your loaded gun analogy doesn't cut it. God wasn't putting a loaded gun there, and therefore He was liable for their misuse of it.

> God told man not to kill.(Exodus 20:13) Later he tells men to slaughter man, women, child, and beast of the sinning Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). God not only wanted them to break a commandment but told them to do it.

Just like in our society, and in every society, killing is not only justified but right in certain situations. Our legal system doesn't hold you liable for killing in self-defense, killing as an act of war, killing accidentally (as in "I turned around and bumped my friend and he fell off the cliff"), or capital punishment for crimes committed. It was no different then. Our courts have variations of liabilities for killing: homicide, manslaughter, second degree manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. We all understand the nuances. In Exodus 20.13, the root word is ratsach, meaning “Violent killing of a personal enemy; murder; slay; illegal killing inimical to the community; blood-vengeance killing; one who kills out of enmity, deceit, or hatred.” The command forbids acts of violence motivated by hatred or malice, and rejects the right of a person to take the law into his own hands out of a feeling of personal injury. The law clearly distinguished between planned and accidental or unpremeditated killings (Ex. 21.12-14). The prohibition isn't against all killing, only "unauthorized" killing.

> I would ask why the Holy Spirit was guiding these men to compile an authentic bible but not guiding Adam away from the forbidden fruit.

God did guide Adam away from the forbidden fruit. He clearly said, "You are NOT to eat this, and if you, you'll be doomed to death." It's really clear. And they understood it (Gn. 3.3).

> Implies those in the council have read the complete bible before it was compiled.

Since the analogy implies that God is the "father" in the story, it's safe to say that God, in his omniscience, knew what he wanted in the Bible before it was written. If you're talking about councils such as the Council of Nicea, the Bible was completed before the Holy Spirit guided them as to what to include and exclude. I'm not sure I'm understanding your point, but what I'm saying makes sense in both cases.

> If you're saying the holy ghost only gives information and leaves you to make your choices

That's exactly what I'm saying. The work of the Holy Spirit doesn't swarm over our free will and ability to choose. He can only guide, convict, or teach, but never force. We always have the choice to ignore or disobey.

> How do we know the authors of the bible listened to this advice to a T?

Excellent question! Thank you. The record of the Bible is that the Bible only contains the writings of those who listened to a T. 2 Pet. 1.21 lets us know that the HS didn't force the writers, but moved them, and they responded. Many places in the Bible note that they wrote what God had told them to. An analogy: you come into the retail store and want to know which items on the shelf were ordered and then stocked on the shelves. Well, they all were. That's what my store is. If something comes that I didn't order, I don't put it out. And if I ordered it, I put it out; that's why I ordered it, and it's here for sale. God spoke his Word, and when people wrote it down faithfully, it made the cut. That's why it's here.

> Validity of council?

Ah, you changed a word on me here. I said "counsel" meaning "advice." You changed it to "council" meaning "a legislative group of people assembled to process agendas." When the Holy Spirit counsels someone, he advised, guides, convicts, and teaches. That has nothing to do with Jewish councils or church councils.

> I believe you misinterpreted what I said when it comes to free will...

Here's the deal: God is ALWAYS stepping in and wooing us, trying to guide, "shepherd" us, motivate us, and influence us. Always. He never stops. But he can never force. He can only guide, woo, and try to influence. The decision always lies with us. Even with Jonah, Jonah always still had a choice. After the fish barfing on the beach (Jon. 2.10), Jonah could still have gotten up and said, "Nope!" and walked away. Check out Jonah 3.1-2. God talked to him again, and Jonah had to choose. Even with Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), God may have knocked him off his ride and onto his backside, but you hear and see Saul responding according to his own free will. God is always at work drawing people to himself. But he can't override our free will, ever, unless with our free will we say, "Do with me what you want." But then he's not really overriding our free will, is he?

> I am accustomed to answers along the lines of: "Who are you to question Gods word/motive/character/plan" or "It comes down to faith". I appreciate your answers and how you avoid blanket "I dont feel like questioning anything" answers.

Thanks. I never use those kinds of answers, because there are real answers to questions. I'm enjoying the conversation with you. Keep asking, and I'll be glad to keep talking.

I did not mean to offend you. The tone of the 2nd half of your response seems to imply I did offend you. If this is the case I sincerely apologize. I appreciate the time taken out of your day to answer and reply to these questions/comments and in no way intended to attack you or your beliefs.

>First of all, the system did not yet exist when the plan was initiated, and secondly, God is incapable of creating a system characterized by defect (James 1.17; Gen. 1.1-2.3).

Theres a few holes in the logic here.

You can not logically have a plan before infrastructure. Your examples are flawed as well. You are comparing God's plan before anything, to man's preparation to prevent historical precedence from reoccurring. Completely different situations. A more reasonable analogy would be a man buying material to repair a fault in the house he has yet to build. Why would the man not just build the house correctly the first time? Why prepare for the fallout when you can prevent in the first place?

> We have to acknowledge that there was knowledge on God's part that the human race would fall. Yet no logical reasoning necessitates that knowledge implies causality.

1.Except in the loaded gun example.Would not a parent at least take the clip out of the weapon? Would not a better parent hide and lock up the weapon? Sin was not possible if God did not put the tree in the garden. If I have knowledge of a loaded weapon within reach of my child, am I not accountable to remove the weapon before damage can be done? Under the logic you seem to be laying down, as long as I call an ambulance before the child goes into the room I am not in fault. After all I did warn the child not to touch the weapon. You are correct; Knowledge does not imply causality, but knowledge can and, in the loaded weapon example, does imply liability.

>There are zero that give the idea that God WANTED many to sin. Your reasoning shows signs of a priori reasoning: you are reading your interpretation into an event where it doesn't appear, and you hold to it lacking any evidence. That's not logic, it's bias and prejudice.

God told man not to kill.(Exodus 20:13) Later he tells men to slaughter man, women, child, and beast of the sinning Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). God not only wanted them to break a commandment but told them to do it.

2. If you reread my post, I hope you would see that I believe the author did intend to portray Jesus as before time. I was pretending to side with the absurd belief that the countless references to Jesus being uncreated, were false. This is black and white in my mind and as your citations reinforce.

>...the role of the Holy Spirit in guidance, and comprehension of free will.

I would ask why the Holy Spirit was guiding these men to compile an authentic bible but not guiding Adam away from the forbidden fruit. The analogy of: If your father has been to Chicago....Implies those in the council have read the complete bible before it was compiled. Which obviously is illogical and false. That analogy is silly at best and does not apply. If you're saying the holy ghost only gives information and leaves you to make your choices, which is what I believe you are saying: How do we know the authors of the bible listened to this advice to a T? After all Judas walked with Jesus and still betrayed him. Point being: Man falls flat on his face after walking with God, why wouldn't he do the same after only feeling the presence of God?

>Your last paragraph shows, in my opinion, a lack of understanding about the validity of counsel, the role of the Holy Spirit in guidance, and comprehension of free will.

Validity of council? I do not recall much if anything about that in the bible. I only found a few verses referencing Jewish councils during the time of Jesus. Almost all of which opposed Jesus. (Acts 5:27-39). Please show me what I missed or failed to find.
(John 16:14)& (1 Corinthians 12:1-11) Spell out pretty clearly what the Holy Spirit does.
What appears to not be taken into account in your reply are the effects of human nature and the exercise of free will. Judas walked with Jesus and betrayed him. Adam saw God and disobeyed him. Why would the invited attendees of this council not do the same?

I believe you misinterpreted what I said when it comes to free will. I stated " If God can and does step in or push us one way, then we truly have no free will" It was a conditional statement. IF God does NOT step in or push us one way, then we have free will.

I am accustomed to answers along the lines of: "Who are you to question Gods word/motive/character/plan" or "It comes down to faith". I appreciate your answers and how you avoid blanket "I dont feel like questioning anything" answers.

Thanks for your comments. I'll do my best to address them, but hopefully they will engender more discussion as we refine our thinking.

A plan neither assumes nor necessitates failure. For instance, the U.S. has nuclear missiles in bunkers all over the country and in some places in the world. There is also a plan (protocol) in place for how those are to be used in the event of an act of aggression against us or one of our allies. That by no means implies that our enemies have no choice but to attack us or that our action has determined theirs, and therefore we are the guilty ones. The plan doesn't determine the infraction.

That is an analogy off to the side of the theological question, but I think it pertains. Perhaps I'll put another analogy on the table before I proceed. The Germans in WWII had defensive bunkers along the Normandy coast with the expectation that at some time during the war an attack would confront them at that beachhead. Their plan didn't cause the attack we call D-Day. The plan didn't determine the action.

Now let's go to the theology. Eph. 1.4 -5 says that God chose believers before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight, and predestined us to be adopted as his children through Christ. That's all well and good, but there's nothing in that verse that says Adam & Eve were forced to sin because that was the plan. The PLAN was that people would be redeemed out of the cesspool of failure, not that the failure would take place. The plan didn't determine the infraction.

Then there's 1 Pet. 1.20. Christ was chosen before creation to be a sacrificial lamb. It logically implies several things:
- God knew humanity would need to be redeemed.
- Jesus was the one appropriately marked out for sacrifice. Jesus' death was God's intention, not an afterthought, to bring about that redemption. His role was divinely established.
- It's not logical to assume God's plan was a response to a defect in the system. First of all, the system did not yet exist when the plan was initiated, and secondly, God is incapable of creating a system characterized by defect (James 1.17; Gen. 1.1-2.3). Everything about the plan was good.
- We have to acknowledge that there was knowledge on God's part that the human race would fall. Yet no logical reasoning necessitates that knowledge implies causality.
- The text explicitly states that the plan had the good of humanity in mind, not its detriment.

Matt. 16.21-23. There is no doubt that Jesus' death for the sins of humanity was part of an eternal plan, not a response to an unforeseen action. Yet again, foreknowledge doesn't create causality.

Your questions are good, and I appreciate you asking them. A greater question is possibly, "Knowing that humanity would sin, why did God proceed with creation?" Couldn't a lot of pain and suffering have been avoided if God looked at what he knew would happen and changed his mind: "Nope, I'm not going to go in this direction. Too much suffering if I create a world of people." It's really a question of comparative values, which I'm quite certain we as humans don't have enough information to make a reasoned judgment about. If I'm in a dog park, I can't reasonably conclude that no one is blowing a dog whistle, because I can't hear dog whistles, and my presence in the park, and being the owner of a dog still don't qualify me to make that judgment. I don't have sufficient access to the situation to judge reliably, and all of the necessary information to render a judgment is not available to me. The factors at hand underlying your implied condemnation of God are...
- that you can assess the levels of pain and pleasure in history
- that you know to what extent pain is detrimental to life vs. to what extent it has its benefits
- that you are capable of judging the good to humanity that has issued from suffering

and many others, without belaboring my post. On to your objections.

1. God knew man would sin, and placed the tree so man would sin. I can easily go with the first, since we believe God is omniscient and has foreknowledge. The second is a non sequitur. In no universe does foreknowledge necessity causality except one of pure determinism, which is not the biblical teaching. Your loaded gun illustration is a loaded analogy, and I don't think commensurate with the event. More accurate, in my mind, would be that of the danger of the road for a toddler. It's there. My job is to warn and instruct, but I can't remove that reality from the equation. Humanity had free will; God cannot remove that from the equation. The first thing he did was give humans their freedom and their roles (Gn. 2.15), and he immediately followed that up with the warnings and instructions: Don't use your free will to choose death. A good parent does everything possible to preclude the death of their child by warning them never to walk into the road. Humanity was not damned before birth, but only by their own rebellious choice against the warning and instructions given. Nor does it come close to implying that God WANTED man to sin so he could save him, force man to love him or damn him to the lake of fire. This is fallacious reasoning on your part. There are hundreds (thousands?) of indications in the Bible that God desires life for us, that he desires salvation, that he wants fellowship and love. There are zero that give the idea that God WANTED many to sin. Your reasoning shows signs of a priori reasoning: you are reading your interpretation into an event where it doesn't appear, and you hold to it lacking any evidence. That's not logic, it's bias and prejudice.

2. Let us PRETEND?? Pretend the Bible doesn't say what it does? Pretend that Jesus is a created being? Wow, we just can't even go here. You are denying what Scripture actually says so you can create a reality and then make a "logical" point based on a fabricated assumption? This is actually quite humorous. You can't do that. There's nothing reasonable, logical, or even discussable in that scenario. That Jesus is uncreated is a solid teaching of Scripture (Jn. 1.1; Heb. 1.3; 1 Cor. 2.7; Col. 1.26ff.; Eph. 1.9ff.; 3.9-11; Rom. 16.25; 1 Tim. 1.9). Therefore your whole syllogism and your concluding "3 choices" are nonsensical.

Then you change subjects and dive into analyses of the formation of the canon that are at best the opinion of some, but not necessarily even the conclusion of most Biblical scholars. We can discuss those separately as you wish, but I've already written too long a post.

Your last paragraph shows, in my opinion, a lack of understanding about the validity of counsel, the role of the Holy Spirit in guidance, and comprehension of free will. If my father has been to Chicago and I haven't, and I'm about to take a trip there, and I beg him to give me as much information as he can about it, that is neither an abrogation of my free will nor the coercion of my father to my detriment. It is a, might I say, symbiotic relationship of request and response that fulfills the desires of both parties. I want information and guidance, and my father is glad to give it. Your accusations of determinism, pushing us around, peer pressure and manipulation are quite misguided in terms of what the picture more accurately is. Some rethinking on your part could be beneficial.

>Yes he did. There is nothing in the prohibition (Gn. 2.17), however, that even suggests that God planned for the humans to failed, or designed it so that they would.

Forgive my brash language: Your logic seems fragmented and riddled with incomplete thought.
The purpose of Jesus's existence from before time, John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.), was to die for mans sins,(first that comes to mind is Matthew 16:21-23). The plan was in place before the sin was committed.
Which then sets up for 1 of 2 failures in your logic.
1. God knew man would sin and placed the tree so man would sin. Damning man before birth. A good parent does not leave a loaded weapon in reach of a child just because they told the child not to touch it. This also implies God wanted man to sin so he could save man and make man love him more or damn him to a lake of fire. This screams abusive relationship along with sadist and some other choice words.
2. Let us pretend John 1:1 referencing Jesus, is not about Jesus. God would then have created Jesus at some point. Key here is: God created Jesus. Which goes against what you said :
>God cannot create God, because God is uncreated and uncreate-able.
Thus Jesus is not by definition God. Which would make the perfect sacrifice imperfect by definition of being man and not God.This would throw the entire NT into dissatisfy. Creating 3 sub issues:
2.A. Since Jesus is not God, and therefore imperfect and is subject to original sin, his sacrifice did not mean anything more than another humans.
2.B. Since Jesus is not God, and therefore imperfect and is subject to original sin, his sacrifice mattered because God said so. Which destroys your "God did not create the rules" theory (which is not biblically based anyway).
2.C. If God created Jesus perfect despite being made, why did God also not do so with man?

We are left with at least one of 3 choices.
1. God is a sadist and unjust.
2. Jesus was not the messiah.
3. The scripture is wrong and/or incomplete.

Number 3 is the most believable: Many of the stories were 'whispered down the lane' decades to hundreds of years before being written down. Much of the new testament was not even written down until many decades after Jesus died. Source(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible). Even if we ignore the grapevine effect, which construes a story in a week let alone months and decades...Do not discount the damage the First Council of Nicaea did when they chose what would be omitted and included in the bible and proceeded to burn or lock away omitted scripture. (Albeit needed intervention to insure Christianity moved on as a whole). Please do not try to defend the council as making "obvious" inclusions and omissions. This was run by the same type of people who created purgatory and sold tickets to lessen time in hell.

Further more if you believe God guided the Council of which works to include in the bible and which to omit: Then you tossed free will out the window. If God can and does step in or push us one way, then we truly have no free will. Who are we to stand up against God's peer pressure? If we can be manipulated to do his will then why can't we be manipulated from sinning. Paradoxical thinking only leads in circles.

> We didn't 'decide' to run away from God

Genesis 3.6: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." At what level was this not her choice? It was a clear and willful decision to take the fruit that had been prohibited. God was not holding her by the hand and forcing her to grab it. He didn't pick the fruit himself and shove it down her throat. She decided; she took it; she ate it; she shared it; he decided; he took it; he ate it. There is no reasonable basis on which to say, "We didn't 'decide' to run away from God."

In drug rehabilitation therapy, new participants quickly learn that "Don't tell us about your mama, your poverty, your pressures. YOU'RE the one who put the drugs in your system. YOU chose."

> He set up a test (the rules of which he made)

Yes he did. There is nothing in the prohibition (Gn. 2.17), however, that even suggests that God planned for the humans to failed, or designed it so that they would. It's not in the text, and the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that accusation, which you can't do. God's prohibition was a fair and simple requirement. God made obedience easy. The humans were made without a sin nature, placed in a nurturing (not hostile) environment, provided for all of their needs, endowed them with mental powers (the powers of reason and intelligence), gave them physical health and strength, provided for human relationships, warned them of the consequences, and entered into a personal relationship with them. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate what you're saying, because it's not in the Bible. It's made up.

> it's like the master leaving a steak in the dogs doggie bowl, then sending the dog away when he eats it and ignores the dogs offspring as continued punishment for the original dog eating the steak.

This is totally contrary to what the Bible says happened. The Bible says God provided steak and toys and water and treats, but over in the corner was a bag of dog food that he was forbidden to eat from, because it would make the dog sick.

And as soon as the dog chose to eat the food that would make him sick, the master enacted a plan to restore his dog to a relationship of obedience (Gn. 3.15 et al.).

> ignores the dogs offspring as continued punishment for the original dog eating the steak

Ignores? Again, you're making this up.

Gn. 3.21: The Lord made garments of skin for them and clothed them
Gn. 4.1, 25: The Lord blessed them with children
Gn. 4.6-7: The Lord warned Cain not to sin
Gn. 4.15: The Lord was merciful to Cain despite his sin
Gn. 4.26: The Lord still sought relationship with his people
Gn. 5.22; 6.9: The Lord was still active in people's lives who were responsive to him

What you are saying, and I'll try to be gentle, is just wrong. You're making up your own version of the Bible, and that's illegitimate. You are free to believe whatever you want, but don't claim it's what the Bible says or teaches.

But that's not an adequate analogy either. We didn't 'decide' to run away from God. He set up a test (the rules of which he made) which he knew they would possibly/probably/definitely fail (depending on your interpretation of all knowing). Then he banished them and continues to punish the human race for it 6000 years later.

By your second analogy, it's like the master leaving a steak in the dogs doggie bowl, then sending the dog away when he eats it and ignores the dogs offspring as continued punishment for the original dog eating the steak.

Of course it would. But that's not what God did. Let's change analogies, because the first one doesn't adequately deal with your question. Let's say you're a dog, and your master takes very good care of you. But one day you decide to run away, of your own choice. You have separated yourself from your master, and it was your decision. You love the freedom and the exhilaration of running through the woods and over the hills. But soon you find out it's a dangerous world out there, and it gets cold in the winter. Your freedom isn't exactly what you bargained for. But you can't find your way back. You've run too far away.

Let's say also that you give birth to a litter of puppies. Those puppies don't know the master, through no fault of the master's. They too are separated from him, just like their mama, and they too are lost. They don't try to find their way back; the woods is all they know. They become truly wild. And their puppies, and their puppies...

Don't blame God for making more "broken glasses" as a punishment for the first glass breaking. Back to the other analogy, the dog chose to leave, and giving birth to wild dogs was the only and natural consequences of her choice. Don't blame the master.

> The nature of glass is that it's possible to break it. But if you drop it, don't blame the glass-blower. He didn't make you drop it, and there's nothing wrong with the way he made it.

But if the glass blower from that moment on only made broken glasses as a punishment to the first glass for breaking, that would be weird.

> But god is also omniscient right? So he created Satan knowing full well exactly what Satan was going to do, and he let it all happen anyway.

Yes, God is omniscient. But Satan has free will. God cannot created people with free will and then forbid them to use it. You claim that God should have stopped it. In other words, "You have free will, but you always HAVE to choose the good with it." That's not free will.

> What you are saying is that these qualities exist independent of god, and so he can't do anything about them. Which is nonsense.

That's exactly what I am NOT saying. These qualities don't exist independent of God. They are part of his being, his nature. He didn't "create" them. They were always there, as attributes of his. It's not as if he sat around with a pen and paper, "Hm. What rules should I make for my new toy?"

> If he is incapable of doing something he is not omnipotent.

You have a grave misunderstanding of omnipotence then. Omnipotence does mean that there are no limits to what God can do. It means God is able to do all things that are *proper* objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God can realize whatever is possible, but that no number of actualized possibilities exhausts his power. God can realize whatever is possible. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature. He has power over the course of history. He has the power to change human personality as individuals allow. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.

What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of.
- He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory
- He can’t act contrary to his nature
- He cannot fail to do what he has promised
- The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
- He cannot interfere with the freedom of man
- He cannot change the past
- It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God
- It does not imply the use of all the power of God

> these qualities don't emanate from god, you just claimed they did. We can't even know for sure there is a god

Well then we're discussion things in the wrong order. It doesn't do me a whole lot of good to give evidence of the qualities of God if we haven't had the discussion about the reasonableness of theism. But that's a different discussion that there's no room to have here.

> Explain to me how setting a tree right in the middle of the garden and saying don't eat that tree and then sending a serpent to tell them to eat from that tree is designing it for humans to suceed not fail.

Two things come to mind. Supposing I'm sending you on an errand to the grocery store with a list of good things to buy. But I tell you, "Main Street is under construction. You'd be better to go by way of Pine Lane, and you'll get there just fine." Am I setting you up for failure or doing my best to guide you around an obstacle?

God said, "I have a lot of good things here for you. But there's one tree you need to avoid. Don't eat from that one and you'll be just fine." Is God setting them up for failure or guiding them around an obstacle?

And secondly, for clarification, God didn't send the serpent. Nothing in the text hints that the serpent was sent or commissioned or constrained to do what he did.

> if god actually wanted man to suceed, what was the point of the tree in the first place?

Love must be chosen to be love. For free will to be legitimate there have to be legitimate choices. Suppose I send you into an orchard to pick as much fruit as you want. Have a blast! "But there's one tree in the orchard with green apples on it. They'll make you sick. Don't pick those, but enjoy all the rest." Is that not an attempt to help you be successful? Is that not a motive to bless you, not trip you up? You say God is sh*tty, but you have no grounds for that slander. God did what he could to help them succeed, but he can't interfere with their free will.

> Except he never said that, he just said that the day Adam ate from the tree that he surely would die. Which he didn't.

First, the Hebrew phrase "on the day" is an idiom meaning "as surely as you eat of it," as in, "When you eat of it." The Hebrew phrase "you will surely die" in Gn. 2.17 is "dying you shall die." It refers to physical death, but does not suggest that death will be immediate; rather, the wording indicates that they will be doomed to die. This destiny is sealed when they are put out of the garden. "When you eat of it you will fall under a death sentence." That's what happened; God's no liar.

> I'm not talking about the initial man

You were specifically asking about original sin, which is the initial man.

> It is possible for us to not have original sin, for us to be born without it. God could have said that.

If I have a dog that I love, and I care for it and feed it, but one day that dog chooses to run away from me, far far away, now that dog is separated from me. He's lost. If that dog has puppies, through no particular fault of their own, they are also separated from me. They also are lost. That's the choice the mother dog made, and it affects her pups. It doesn't make me the jerk.

> Once again, he only said that he was going to curse all of mankind, after Adam ate the fruit.

He didn't say that. He said that when they ate of the fruit they would be doomed to die. But their willful choice had consequences. Again, that's the nature of choice. If you accept job A, that means you turn down job B.

> So he never had to do any of this.

You wrongly blame God for causing all of this. People have free will and they make their choices.

> he never had to give us all original sin because he never said he would do that if adam ate from the tree.

He doesn't have to give you original sin. Given the same choices, you'd rebel too. I know that because even now you're in rebellion against God, with some of the same thoughts Eve had. God's rules seem unfair, and you're not convinced that God has your best interests in mind. Other things look like better choices, and you choose to follow them. Don't blame Adam; you're making the same choices.

> He never had to give women pain in childbirth because he never said he would do that if Adam ate from the tree.

It was more the inevitable consequence rather than God's curse. God doesn't use "curse" terminology. The serpent and the ground were cursed, but not Adam and Eve.

Notice that the words say, "I will increase..." It implies that childbirth would always be accompanied by physical pain, even before their rebellion. The work of childbirth would be more difficult now, just as Adam's work would be more difficult now. The blessing of "being fruitful and multiply" wasn't taken away, but now the environment was changed, because they have separated themselves (by disobedience) from a protective relationship with God.

> make a new first man first woman and try again. Especially if as you say the intention was never for them to fail. If he honestly didn't want them to fail, then this would be the most logical conclusion.

Anyone God created would not be God, by definition (God is uncreated). Anyone God created would, therefore, also by definition, have a free will with every right to choose the bad as well as the good. I think you're being naive to think the second would have fared perfectly. God can create all the absolutely perfect crystal goblets imaginable, but they're all going to be breakable by nature.

> Exactly and god created our nature. Therefore he created us with a defect.

God cannot create God, because God is uncreated and uncreate-able. When God made humans, he made them fantastically wonderful, but they were not God, and therefore susceptible to vulnerability. This is not God's error. the error was on our time card. Humans chose defection. Suppose you throw a pot, glaze it, fire it—it's a real work of art. A friend picks it up to look at it and accidentally—oops!—drops it. That friend turns and says to you, "This is YOUR fault." You'd of course protest. You didn't choose to pick it up; it didn't slip out of your hands, and clay breaks. Why's it YOUR fault? But that's what you're accusing God.

> everything God made was good. That means that Satan was at one time good and used his free will to change that

But god is also omniscient right? So he created Satan knowing full well exactly what Satan was going to do, and he let it all happen anyway.

> The "rules", as you say, emanate from God's character. He didn't "set up the rules" any more than he decided he would be a God of love

This is where you lost me. What you are saying is that these qualities exist independent of god, and so he can't do anything about them. Which is nonsense. If he is incapable of doing something he is not omnipotent. Also, these qualities don't emanate from god, you just claimed they did. We can't even know for sure there is a god, yet you claim not only can we know that, but we can know for a fact what his nature is and his inherent qualities. That is nonsense. You are making unsubstantiated claims to go with your unsubstantiated assertions. On the one hand none of this can be proven, on the other hand you always pretend like these are facts.

> it was designed for the humans to succeed, not fail

Explain to me how setting a tree right in the middle of the garden and saying don't eat that tree and then sending a serpent to tell them to eat from that tree is designing it for humans to suceed not fail. Also if god's attempt was for humans to suceed, then he's a pretty shitty god. Also, if god actually wanted man to suceed, what was the point of the tree in the first place? I have to prove that you are not going disobey by giving you a chance to disobey me and if you do disobey me then all of humanity will be cursed forever. Except he never said that, he just said that the day Adam ate from the tree that he surely would die. Which he didn't. So now god's a liar as well as being a shitty planner.

> He created man good (Gn. 1.31)

I'm not talking about the initial man, I am talking about everyone after him. It is possible for us to not have original sin, for us to be born without it. God could have said that. Once again, he only said that he was going to curse all of mankind, after Adam ate the fruit. So he never had to do any of this. He didn't have to curse the ground, because he never said he was going to do that if Adam ate from the tree, he never had to give us all original sin because he never said he would do that if adam ate from the tree. He never had to give women pain in childbirth because he never said he would do that if Adam ate from the tree. Really the only thing he had to do was kill Adam immediately, because that's what he said he would do. But instead he didn't do that and he ended up doing a great deal of much more unncessary things instead.

Here's what would make more sense. Kill Adam right away (like he said he would), make a new first man first woman and try again. Especially if as you say the intention was never for them to fail. If he honestly didn't want them to fail, then this would be the most logical conclusion. It's not a violation of free will because god already promised that if Adam ate of the tree he would die. So Adam eating from the tree is Adam willingly consenting to dying. So God would have been 100% perfectly and morally justified to just kill Adam and Eve and then start again. And if you want to start in on that metaphorical bullshit on how Adam's immoratality died that day or whatever, that is also nonsensical as Adam is the very first man ever created. There's no need to go for fancy metaphors here. Just tell Adam the truth. Tell him that if he eats from the tree he will die eventually.

> The nature of glass is that it's possible to break it.

Exactly and god created our nature. Therefore he created us with a defect.