/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>586684

No lust before the fall or the drive to reproduce was enabled when God told them to be fruitful/multiple.

didn't go through puberty yet

>>586684

would've seem like a good plan to backup the pre-fallen human race, but im not God or them.

>>586686

God said it after the fall?

>>586684

They were in the Garden a short time.

>>586686

Wrong.

>>586684

Like >>586703 said, they wound up geyying themselves evicted before they began having children.

>>586722

*getting

>>586686

Lust is not what drives reproduction. Read Tobias. Reproduction is driven by the desire to honour God with children. Lust is ordered away from that.

>>586684

Anyone know if Adam and Eve are considered "immortal" before the fall? In the sense that only God could make them perish, just like he created them.

If they were immortal, there would be no need for children I guess

>>586687

You don't believe in original sin, do you?

>>586846

You know how zoo animals live longer than wild ones because they have unlimited food, follow correct guidelines, less prone to fatal injury, and are exposed to minimal stress? Perhaps the same applies to the Garden of Eden. I wouldn't attribute it to them being immortal, but how they were in an environment that enabled them to live with longer lifespans than we do.

>>586684

The Fall probably happened within a week or two after Creation. Probably not enough time for Adam and Eve to conceive a child. It wouldn't have mattered, federal headship guaranteed that a child born pre-Fall would become a sinner like Adam, see Romans 5:12-21.

>>586686

Lust is not any sexual desire. It's specifically any evil desire (like lusting after worldly honor or gold), not just a sexually immoral one. But don't call sexual desire that God made evil, see Proverbs 5:18-19 and Song of Songs (or Solomon).

>>586692

Good thing that life on the New Earth will be how God intended Adam and Eve to live without sin or death. Can't wait!

>>586687

>>586925

kek

Because it’s not a literal historical account of the beginning. It’s an allegory.

>>587105

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

>>587109

Dude, if you are going to say that the Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and making a theological point that parts of Genesis may be interpreted allegorically is to be completely ignored and some random verse about denying that God created the world proves some point that “modernists” are going to hell…well…

God bless you.

>>587105

MARK 10:6

FROM THE BEGINNING

>>587116

State your grievances.

>>587114

>Them

The Bible uses the word אָדָם ( 'adam ) in all of its senses: collectively ("mankind", 1:27), individually (a "man", 2:7), gender nonspecific ("man and woman", 5:1,2), and male (2:23-34). In Genesis 1:27 "adam" is used in the collective sense, and the interplay between the individual "Adam" and the collective "humankind" is a main literary component to the events that occur in the Garden of Eden, the ambiguous meanings embedded throughout the moral, sexual, and spiritual terms of the narrative reflecting the complexity of the human condition.

You realize there are two creation accounts in Genesis, right? No one is denying that God created humans. In the Genesis 1:26 account he makes men and women. Does the singular Adam account have to be taken literally as historical truth? No. As Paul says, “these thing may be interpreted allegorically.”

>>587138

I am plagued every day by the idea that dd3df6 might be a blatant homosexual, I don't know how you can help me with this.

>>587139

This makes me wan jawed what merit there is to the interpretation I’ve heard floating around that the fall of man is really just the recognition of mortality, not the creation of previously nonexistent death

>>587139

What about where it talks about the genealogy of Adam and how he lived for 930 years?

>>587139

Iranaeus takes it literally. He even goes so far to say in his third book of Against Heresies that denying that Jesus saved Adam and Eve, who were the first victims of death, would be heretical.

>>587177

Iranaeus or Paul?

The Holy Fathers are not Holy Spirits.

>>587159

The ages are symbolic or representative, they do not have to be literally true. Things that are allegorically true, or spiritually true, or symbolically true are still true even if they aren’t literally true.

Jesus’s parables are true stories, but they did not literally happen.

I wasn't driven by list when I impregnated my wife dick face.

So is incest a sin or no?

>>587101

Both literal and allegorical. But still literal.

>>587116

But the vast majority of Patristics believed it to be literal and so did our Saviour Jesus Christ.

>>587889

If we're going off of the Bible, not until it was strictly forbidden in Moses' time.