Codeofconduct:
Contrast of complexity, at the bolded

Codeofconduct:
Please educate my Ignorance:
Why do bad things happen to good people

Codeofconduct:
and why do the seemingly extreme "lefts" seem to bend the laws and walk freely?

Codeofconduct:
A little sailing full of hope crashes...

Codeofconduct:
Yet the boy falling from the sky seems to have a sweet sailing

MuttleyLaff:
On the contrary.
Can I live life for you?

The, strangely compelling "got to have that knowledge of good and evil" is still here, literally ever present
so much so, that many dont necessarily draw knowledge from others' experiences to gain wisdom...
Many just have to do things, their way
So, reiterating, life, quintessentially, is an experience

Keeping it short and simple, because all currently live in an imperfect world

"bend the laws" is not exclusive to extreme "lefts"

The nature of the "walk freely" illusion is that, when you see through it, it disappears.
Need I say more?

We are sailing, we are sailing
Cross the sea, we are sailing, stormy waters to be near Him

We are flying, we are flying
Like a bird, cross the sky, we are flying, passing high clouds
To be with Him, to be free
Oh Lord, to be near You, to be free

Aye,
the boy falling from the sky actually is having a sweet sailing, with a parachute as his Savior

MuttleyLaff:
...

LoJ: But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety - 1 Timothy 2:15

LoJ:
Hello all.

I wish to share with you this controversial passage of the Bible, and how I got to experience its depth.

But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety - 1 Timothy 2:15

LoJ:
Hello friend,

First off, I wish to apologize for a mistake I made in my answer

LoJ:
What I meant to write was, the story is either esoteric/allegory or fantasia.
English is unfortunately not my first language

LoJ:
Second, I do not claim to have all truths.
It is perfectly okay if you believe I don't know, or I am ignorant

LoJ:
The best I can utter here, is my perspective, which may hold water or not

LoJ:
I greet you warmly. I hope you are fine.

LoJ:
Hello all.

I wish to share with you this controversial passage of the Bible, and how I got to experience its depth.

But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety - 1 Timothy 2:15

MuttleyLaff:

Ah ha, but everything else, individually, was called good, except for Man.
Each stage of creation, God looked at it, and said, it was good
God must have known something, for staying short of saying the creation, Man, was good.
Man, only, as part of the whole creation, was seen to be good

Disorder, soon replaced the goodness, after Man's fall from grace

Sarassin:


I missed your later edit.

I think this is a very weak “get-out” clause. According to the Genesis monologue of creation God made man in the likeness of God, that statement in itself tells us everything we need to know. In Gen 1:31 you have validation that God looked at all his creation and declared it Good. There is no room for manoeuvre here, we have Man in the likeness of God, declared as Good.

You wrote about Man’s Fall from Grace and the disorder that followed. I do not quite see it that way, If we understand the “Tree of Life” as the original writers intended then this soon becomes clear. The “Tree of Life” is the transposition of the properties of celestial planetary attributes to humankind. If we say that Eve metaphorically speaking ate of the Apple, and that she imbibed knowledge and that her actions precipitated God to cast both his prime creations out of his Grace, we are then positing that God intended that his creation exist in a state of perpetual ignorance, akin to that of animals, in my view that is an intolerable position given that we are told that God man made in his own image and gave man dominion over all other forms of his creation.

Clearly, it was always intended that man by his primacy above all else bar God, would have knowledge and awareness of his own spirituality.

LoJ:

Indeed, before Paul, the gospel of grace did not exist. Jesus never claimed that anyone is saved without works (he actually stated the contrary in Matthew 25:40) and even Peter acknowledges it in Acts 10:34 - 35. It is Paul that was the greatest theorizer and defender of universal salvation through grace. How come then, would the very same Paul limit the salvation of women, through childbearing

LoJ:

When I was still a young pastor (I have since resigned ), I wondered about this for a very long time. Until I got a quite revealing experience.

Codeofconduct:
does this mean child birth, in every sense of the word?

Codeofconduct:
intresting

MizMyColi:


Hello dear,

Please pardon my barging in.
Your discussions with Muttleylaff are a pleasure to read.

Considering all you wrote up there, could you please address the question of why God put that tree and made them aware of it. If he knew they would eat it, and become "lesser" why put it there in the first place.

I'm not sure I've seen you address this before, but I'll really love for you to because I wish to gain fresh perspective.

Mindfulness:


May I chip in?

I read somewhere that the tree of knowledge represents a (wo)man's coming of age, that losing of one's childish innocence that is the result of the loss of one's naive ignorance. Would you want to be like a child again? Live in blissful unawareness? Sure, it may be easier but it would also deprive you of independence and a great variety of experience and personal development. Taken to the extreme, the whole of the human species could not evolve collectively if individuals would not and therefore the universe would stop expanding like it does.

I am not an expert but I love alternative readings of the Bible. The ones that go beyond the literal and/or church translations that never add up at the end of the day. I find this 'God created man in His image' particularly interesting. Since God is the Creator, we all are. So much room for creativity and joyous productivity.

MizMyColi:


Hello dear,

Please pardon my barging in.
Your discussions with Muttleylaff are a pleasure to read.

Considering all you wrote up there, could you please address the question of why God put that tree and made them aware of it. If he knew they would eat it, and become "lesser" why put it there in the first place.

I'm not sure I've seen you address this before, but I'll really love for you to because I wish to gain fresh perspective.

Sarassin:


Hello MizMyColi, I am sure MuttleyLaff will not mind…

The question you asked is a conundrum wrapped within an enigma and an age-old one at that. But it is in itself diversionary, in other words it is the wrong question. We say God said “let there be light…” and God said “let the waters be separated..” and that these things happened as God intoned but the exilic priests who compiled the Genesis accounts at the time of Ezra also realised that the allegorical models of the “Tree of Life” were in fact a blueprint of creation.

Therefore, it is not difficult to work out the rest.

MizMyColi:


Awwww
Sweetheart,
You should see me shining my 44 teeth
Such a pleasure reading you!

Okay, I totally agree with the creator bit.
Unfortunately, most of humanity spends her creative days worrying and struggling to fix things...
Even I, am sometimes caught in that cycle.

I understand the explanation you proffered. It makes sense.[But again, why rain curses on them for following their curiosity...is man inherently disobedient?

There's just some stuff in the OT bible I simply can't wrap my head around.

Mindfulness:


Obviously, there are many contradictions in the Bible and many of us do not resonate with the image of God that paints the Creator in a hostile, punitive, vengeful, brutal and sadistic way. I even refuse to think of God in this way. It is blasphemy in my eyes. In Jesus Name. Amen.
By painting God as the offense-taking, petty, easily irritated Being, we make God in our image forgetting who we really are.

The Bible has been written and re-written, translated over and over again, delivered from generation to generation to generation and across cultures. It was written by, through and for (wo-)men. It is bound to be flawed. This is why God gave you an inner voice. Listen to it. A thought is right when it feels right. If God wanted us to be obedient, he would have created us so.

LoJ:
Hello to all. I am sorry, as I was willing to type my intended message, I got an emergency. So I am back to ponder on this message. Let me appreciate the quality of posters and their many interventions. I must acknowledge that I learn a lot from you all.

There is little doubt that Paul had at least a negative disposition towards women. Theories about that abound in the literature, there is no need for us to examine it here. Suffice to say that, it is quite strange that the author of the doctrine of grace as the only basis for salvation, would claim that women can be saved (only?) by bearing children, plus works of righteousness.

Indeed, before Paul, the gospel of grace did not exist. Jesus never claimed that anyone is saved without works (he actually stated the contrary in Matthew 25:40) and even Peter acknowledges it in Acts 10:34 - 35. It is Paul that was the greatest theorizer and defender of universal salvation through grace. How come then, would the very same Paul limit the salvation of women, through childbearing

When I was still a young pastor (I have since resigned ), I wondered about this for a very long time. Until I got a quite revealing experience.

MizMyColi:

Is like my head is spinning; D
May I request that you go deeper? Perhaps on another thread...
Please...

Ladyhippolyta88:
Some scholars believe apostle Paul was a misogynist.While other scholars believe that apostle Paul didn't write that and someone else did using his name and there is a word called pseudoepigrapha in cases like this.

Ladyhippolyta88:
Some scholars believe apostle Paul was a misogynist.While other scholars believe that apostle Paul didn't write that and someone else did using his name and there is a word called pseudoepigrapha in cases like this.

AlfaSeltzer:
wtf is this?

Sarassin:
I missed your later edit

Sarassin:
I think this is a very weak “get-out” clause.

Sarassin:
According to the Genesis monologue of creation God made man in the likeness of God,
that statement in itself tells us everything we need to know.

Sarassin:
In Gen 1:31, you have validation that God looked at all his creation and declared it Good.
There is no room for manoeuvre here, we have Man in the likeness of God, declared as Good

Sarassin:
You wrote about Man’s Fall from Grace and the disorder that followed.
I do not quite see it that way,

Sarassin:
If we understand the “Tree of Life” as the original writers intended, then this soon becomes clear.
The “Tree of Life” is the transposition of the properties of celestial planetary attributes to humankind

Sarassin:
If we say that Eve metaphorically speaking ate of the Apple

Sarassin:
and that she imbibed knowledge and that her actions precipitated God to cast both his prime creations out of his Grace,
we are then positing that God intended that his creation exist in a state of perpetual ignorance, akin to that of animals,
in my view that is an intolerable position given that we are told that God man made in his own image
and gave man dominion over all other forms of his creation.

Sarassin:
Clearly, it was always intended that man by his primacy above all else bar God,
would have knowledge and awareness of his own spirituality.

MizMyColi:
Hello dear,

Please pardon my barging in.
Your discussions with muttleylaff are a pleasure to read.

Considering all you wrote up there,
could you please address the question of why God put that tree and made them aware of it.
If He knew they would eat it, and become "lesser" why put it there in the first place.

I'm not sure I've seen you address this before,
but I'll really love for you to because I wish to gain fresh perspective

Sarassin:
Hello MizMyColi, I am sure muttleylaff will not mind…

The question you asked is a conundrum wrapped within an enigma and an age-old one at that.
But it is in itself diversionary, in other words it is the wrong question.
We say God said “let there be light…” and God said “let the waters be separated..”
and that these things happened as God intoned
but the exilic priests who compiled the Genesis accounts at the time of Ezra
also realised that the allegorical models of the “Tree of Life” were in fact a blueprint of creation.

Therefore, it is not difficult to work out the rest

MizMyColi:
Is like my head is spinning; D

MizMyColi:
May I request that you go deeper?
Perhaps on another thread...

Please...

kkins25:
what part of Paul's statement are you referring to?
Salvation through grace alone is absolutely the handy work of Paul.

MizMyColi:
Hi Muttleylaff,

I think I'll just let these rest.

It would seem you are privy to some knowledge I am unable to thoroughly decipher from your posts.

Of course, I understand your post at face value
You say there were two trees in the garden...
But the bible does not give that impression
So, if I pondered more on it, then I am setting myself up for inevitable confusion.

Perhaps, speaking in clearer terms and maybe referring to an account of creation you get this knowledge from might help

MuttleyLaff:
The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground
--trees that were pleasing to the eye
and good for food.
In the middle of the garden were,
the tree of life
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
- Genesis 2:9

Dont be too hard on yourself,
we all, including myself, have knowledge gaps