Board index ‹ Sin

[The Strange One]

How is original sin not just God creating broken people and then punishing them for being broken?

You can try to tell me that god didn't create evil, despite the fact that he created Satan, Hell, and other such things.

But what you can't deny is that god set up all the rules. In fact you often brag about it. That's where all the rules come from, right? God is omnipotent, therefore every single thing is something God made happen. But you don't just get to give him credit for the good stuff and then ignore the other stuff that he would then be logically responsible for.

Case in point: original sin. I would postulate that it is possible to create man without original sin. There is no logical reason that the sins of the father must be passed down through each generation. Basically original sin is God telling us all to run a race, immediately shooting us in the kneecaps before the race starts and then punishing us severely for not finishing the race.

God essentially created broken people, and then punished them for being broken. If you disagree, I would ask you very simply. Do you think it is possible to create man without original sin? If not, why not? And if so, then wouldn't it make way more sense to do that?

You have to admit original sin is a handicap. In the same way being shot in the kneecap is a handicap. Now, I've heard it argued that it is not impossible to live a sinless life, it's just that no one ever has and no one ever will. In the same way, it's not impossible to finish that race with a bullet in your kneecap, it's just a thousand times harder. In fact, I would argue that it's actually easier to finish a race with a bullet in your kneecap than it would be for a human to live a sinless life (and living a sinless life is the only way to avoid hell, apart from all that jesus nonsense, but that's a different story).

I cannot see any scenario in which original sin is not simply god creating broken people in the first place and then punishing them for being broken. Or at the very least god creating everyone with a singular handicap, and then punishing them for failing to live up to his standards, despite intentionally making his standards virtually impossible thanks to this particular handicap.
If God really hated sin, then why did he create people with the not only the ability to sin, but the drive, desire, and perference to sin?

[jimwalton]

You have a world of misunderstandings here.

> despite the fact that he created Satan, Hell

Spiritual beings have free will. Genesis 1.31 says that everything God made was good. That means that Satan was at one time good and used his free will to change that. That doesn't make God either complicit or guilty of creating evil.

Hell is a place. As such, it is morally neutral and not morally culpable.

> But what you can't deny is that god set up all the rules

This reflects a misunderstanding. 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. But I think you're talking about the "don't eat from that tree!" *rule*. Yes, he set that rule up, but it was designed for the humans to succeed, not fail.

> God is omnipotent, therefore every single thing is something God made happen

This is just wrong thinking. You'll notice in the Bible that God's power is discretionary. He has power to do everything he wills to do, but he can withhold his power or mitigate its measurable property. For instance, when God said to Adam, "You are free to eat from any tree here in the garden except this one," it doesn't mean he grabbed fruit and shoved it down Adam's gullet. Adam fed himself, thank you. Just because God is omnipotent doesn't mean every single thing that happened God made it happen.

> it is possible to create man without original sin

He did created man without original sin. He created man good (Gn. 1.31). But he also created man with a free will (Gn. 2.17). By necessity everything God created was not God (since God is uncreated by definition), and therefore man had the potential to sin that God did not have. But God didn't create humans with sin.

> Basically original sin is God telling us all to run a race, immediately shooting us in the kneecaps before the race starts and then punishing us severely for not finishing the race.

This isn't the case at all. God created man good, blessed him with many blessings, gave him wide and gracious freedoms, and one prohibition, with a warning, "Don't do this, it'll do you in. Stay away from this and you'll be fine." That's a far cry from shooting a runner in the kneecaps.

He didn't create Adam broken. It's as if you create a fine piece of crystal glass. For the sake of analogy, let's say it's perfect. But that doesn't mean it isn't capable of being broken. 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.

[The Strange One]

> 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.

[jimwalton]

> 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.

[Circus 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.

[jimwalton]

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.

[Circus Master]

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.

[jimwalton]

> 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.

[Paradoxical]

>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.

[jimwalton]

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.