Responsible For?

You are the one saying death did not exist before Adam and Eve sinned. I don't know where you got that idea.

Actually chumly death WAS a factor because they had not eaten from the tree of life, therefore they were not going to "live eternally" until they did, which is why God kicked them out of the garden, so they wouldn't live eternally in a state of sin. Just saying... ya know?

OK, where do it specifically say that if they stayed in the garden of Eden and did not eat of the tree of knowledge that they would with certainty die?

Most importantly however I am going on what Neo has said here and that clearly infers there was no death prior to original sin.

neologist wrote:

We suffer the consequence of Adam and Eve's sin. The punishment for their sin was/is death.

21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

Actually, Mega, if you examine Genesis more clearly you'll see that the serpent does lie about becoming as wise as a God. Neither Adam nor Eve become as wise as God, but they do gain the knowledge of good and evil, though why being naked is evil is beyond me.

Except, you are not considering that the death was a spiritual death. In other words, a separation from God.

Sorry, I assumed you would have enough grounding in the scriptures to realize I was referring to human death.

Mindonfire wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Quote:

You are held accountable for knowingly aiding an individual in the comittment of an offense. If you know that an individual is susceptible to a certain thing and you aid him in obtaining that thing then yes you are partly responsible. You are your brothers keeper.

And exactly how does this scripture even RELATE to what you are talking about here mindonfire? God was talking to Cain after he had murdered his brother. It's a totally different scenario. Totally different reasoning for God even asking. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are refereing to it as meaning. Abel didn't kill himself. Cain didn't enable Abel to kill himself. Cain actually committed the crime, and Cains response was out of a guilty conscience. God knew Cain killed Abel. Cain knew God knew and yet he still tried to cover it up.

Well the scripture is relevant in this case because Cain feigned ignorance of his brother's whereabouts and condition. You are supposed to know your brother, you are supposed to be your brother's keeper. To feign ignorance is not an excuse. He is your brother or neighbor and his condition is partly your responsibility. That is why that question is posed.

Shame on you for twisting this to mean what you want it to mean! That is not at all what this is implying. Read the whole thing:

Genesis 4:8-11
8 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" 10 And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground. 11 So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

God gave Cain a chance to come clean about what he had done. Again, let me remind you that Abel was NOT the one to commit a crime here. He was an innocent man killed because his brother was jealous of him. Cain feigned ignorance of his brother's whereabouts and condition because he knew he had done wrong and was trying to cover his own butt because he was not willing to take responsibility for what HE, HIMSELF, HAD DONE. God already KNEW what Cain had done, but chose to give him a chance to be honest about it and he wasn't. This scripture is in no way relevant to the point you are attempting to make here.

Neo, if you are saying there was death prior to original sin, then how could it be that "The punishment for their sin was/is death" if death was already a given. Again it lacks logic, how can you punish man with death if death is already a function of life? You can't have your cake and eat it too!

neologist wrote:

You are the one saying death did not exist before Adam and Eve sinned. I don't know where you got that idea.

hephzibah wrote:

Actually chumly death WAS a factor because they had not eaten from the tree of life, therefore they were not going to "live eternally" until they did, which is why God kicked them out of the garden, so they wouldn't live eternally in a state of sin. Just saying... ya know?

Intrepid wrote:

Except, you are not considering that the death was a spiritual death. In other words, a separation from God.

For a woman who was just created--essentially just born--it is doubtful she would've known she had an invisible thing inside of her called a "spirit" or that "die" was supposed to mean a "spiritual disconnection from God." Remember, before they ate the fruit and became like divine beings they were ordinary animals. It seems absurd to think God would talk to ordinary humans, who were basically like dogs or cats at the time, as if they knew anything about spirits and that "die" was a metaphor for spiritual disconnection. Furthermore, it is doubtful they would've ever disobeyed if they had a "spiritual connection" with God in the first place, so if God actually was talking about a spiritual disconnection his punishment would be nothing more than "surely things will stay the same." That makes no sense whatsoever. From the context, God most certainly meant "die" literally and not metaphorically.

hephzibah wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Quote:

You are held accountable for knowingly aiding an individual in the comittment of an offense. If you know that an individual is susceptible to a certain thing and you aid him in obtaining that thing then yes you are partly responsible. You are your brothers keeper.

And exactly how does this scripture even RELATE to what you are talking about here mindonfire? God was talking to Cain after he had murdered his brother. It's a totally different scenario. Totally different reasoning for God even asking. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are refereing to it as meaning. Abel didn't kill himself. Cain didn't enable Abel to kill himself. Cain actually committed the crime, and Cains response was out of a guilty conscience. God knew Cain killed Abel. Cain knew God knew and yet he still tried to cover it up.

Well the scripture is relevant in this case because Cain feigned ignorance of his brother's whereabouts and condition. You are supposed to know your brother, you are supposed to be your brother's keeper. To feign ignorance is not an excuse. He is your brother or neighbor and his condition is partly your responsibility. That is why that question is posed.

Shame on you for twisting this to mean what you want it to mean! That is not at all what this is implying. Read the whole thing:

Genesis 4:8-11
8 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" 10 And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground. 11 So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

God gave Cain a chance to come clean about what he had done. Again, let me remind you that Abel was NOT the one to commit a crime here. He was an innocent man killed because his brother was jealous of him. Cain feigned ignorance of his brother's whereabouts and condition because he knew he had done wrong and was trying to cover his own butt because he was not willing to take responsibility for what HE, HIMSELF, HAD DONE. God already KNEW what Cain had done, but chose to give him a chance to be honest about it and he wasn't. This scripture is in no way relevant to the point you are attempting to make here.

Who is twisting what? Cain feigned ignorance to his brothers condition. You even state it yourself that he didn't want to take responsibility for what he had done. So if you give your brother the means to kill himself then you are partly responsible for his death. And you should take responsibility for your brother's life. Plain and simple, you are your brothers keeper. Everyone is to look out for his brother or neighbor. By your actions or inactions you can kill your brother or give him life. Where is the twist in that.

neologist wrote:

Sorry, I assumed you would have enough grounding in the scriptures to realize I was referring to human death.

Pretty hard for me to do consistently and accurately especially given the inconsistency of the bible and the huge number of different interpretations I often enough simply take what someone says within the context of the thread to be their stated position on the matter and go from there.

Cain feigned ignorance to KILLING his brother. There is a difference between killing your brother and handing him the tool to KILL HIMSELF. Abel did not kill himself. Abel had no say in the matter what so ever. BIG difference. If you hand someone the tool to kill themself it is still THEIR decision whether or not they end their life. Which was NOT the case in this scripture. Therefore you are twisting it to fit your own agenda.

hephzibah wrote:

Cain feigned ignorance to KILLING his brother. There is a difference between killing your brother and handing him the tool to KILL HIMSELF. Abel did not kill himself. Abel had no say in the matter what so ever. BIG difference. If you hand someone the tool to kill themself it is still THEIR decision whether or not they end their life. Which was NOT the case in this scripture. Therefore you are twisting it to fit your own agenda.

There is no difference if you see your brother in need of help and you give him the means to kill himself. If your brother is an addict and you help him to support his habit and eventually kill himself then you are partly responsible. You caused him to kill himself.[/u][/i]

material girl wrote:

so in theory,I could have read that, realised you are against me, harmed myself and youd be responsible for it?!

That theory doesnt work. It's not the same thing.

Mindonfire wrote:

material girl wrote:

so in theory,I could have read that, realised you are against me, harmed myself and youd be responsible for it?!

That theory doesnt work. It's not the same thing.

How come?

material girl wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

material girl wrote:

so in theory,I could have read that, realised you are against me, harmed myself and youd be responsible for it?!

That theory doesnt work. It's not the same thing.

How come?

You are not addicted to us or under our control.

real life wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Cain feigned ignorance to KILLING his brother. There is a difference between killing your brother and handing him the tool to KILL HIMSELF. Abel did not kill himself. Abel had no say in the matter what so ever. BIG difference. If you hand someone the tool to kill themself it is still THEIR decision whether or not they end their life. Which was NOT the case in this scripture. Therefore you are twisting it to fit your own agenda.

There is no difference if you see your brother in need of help and you give him the means to kill himself. If your brother is an addict and you help him to support his habit and eventually kill himself then you are partly responsible. You caused him to kill himself.[/u][/i]

emphasis mine

An absurd statement.

Since he was in need, you also gave him the means to HELP himself. It was his decision and action that made the difference.

No, you gave him the means to continue his addiction and kill himself. If you know that an individual is in the control of a powerful substance then you don't give him the means to obtain that substance. That is irresponsible and you are partly to blame for their death. That is like allowing a known pedophile to baby-sit your children. You can't place all the blame on the pedophile. They are sick and you knew it, but yet ignored it. So you caused them to fall and will be held accountable.

What you say could only be true if the individual lost ALL free will.

Since there are many individuals who, even when under the power of a strong addiction, do choose to break that addiction and go free; then we see that they have NOT lost free will.

You cannot CAUSE another person to sin. Each of us chooses to do what we do.

If what you are saying were true, then the person who actually does the deed would NOT be accountable because he was CAUSED to do it by someone else.