The Pre-Fall Plan

[JDave]

I've been following the extended detour in the Predestination thread.  The question of what exactly God intended is intriguing and I wanted to pursue it in a dedicated thread.

 

First off I am interested in what non-Mormon Christians believe was God's 'original' plan.  danielwoods referred to the "pre-Fall plan".  Perhaps he covered that in more detail before I started following the conversation but I am interested in knowing what God originally intended and how that goal could be equally met with or without the Fall.

 

Secondly, I am interested in knowing whether any think that Mormon doctrine is capable of conceiving some sort of 'Plan A'.  Not in the sense of "Was the Fall necessary?", but rather "Was following Satan necessary to the Fall?"  Was there some other way that God intended?  He certainly didn't sound pleased that Adam and Eve followed Satan's temptations.  Adam and Eve realized the benefits that came with their choice, but did those benefits stem from submitting to temptation or simply from eating the fruit?

[bu11fr0g]

Best to view it allegorically.

[Questing Beast]

Speculation asserts that if Adam and Eve had been obedient in the garden that through process of time they would have become ready to partake of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and not have been required to go through death and the rest of the the "fall". So this planet is possibly the lowest of the low because of the course taken. No end of difficulties arise when we examine this story, beginning in the preexistence, too closely. I agree that allegory has its limits.

 

In the temple we were instructed (until 1990) that it is all figurative "so far as the man and woman are concerned", a thoroughly unclear statement....

[CV75]

Adam and Eve realized the benefits that came with their choice, but did those benefits stem from submitting to temptation or simply from eating the fruit?

I’m not sure about intent, but it could have been one of two or three options so that agency could bear sway. Perhaps the way we see it happened is only in opposition to an alternative way where the fruit was given to Adam and Eve by divine enticement or even by commandment. And perhaps there may have been another alternative that simply allowed not eating of the fruit of the tree of life, with divine and devilish enticements.

 

I think both the benefits and the need for salvation result minimally from eating the fruit, and any alternative would have resulted in the same Fall and required the Savior's intervention. There are also many other ways to submit to temptations of various kinds (even if by transgression of omission) in thought and desire, some bein gof the devil and some being of the individual.

[CV75]

it is all figurative "so far as the man and woman are concerned"

I think it means they were actors and that the theatrical form of presentation is not to be confunded with actual history-in-the-making.

 

I also think means that this world is as real to eternal life as a play is as real to the real world, and that we are actors practicing for the real thing.

[iamse7en]

There is no other way. Don't take the Adam & Eve story literally. 

 

Look for instance at Adam. ... You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. ... I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child. (BY, JD 2:6)

 

PPP says Moses hid the truth of the creation in his account because of the Israelites wickedness:

 

In after years, when Paradise was lost by sin; when man was driven from the face of his heavenly Father, to toil, and droop, and die; when heaven was veiled from view; and, with few exceptions, man was no longer counted worthy to retain the knowledge of his heavenly origin; then, darkness veiled the past and future from the heathen mind; man neither knew himself, from whence he came, nor whither he was bound. At length a Moses came, who knew his God, and would fain have led mankind to know him too, and see him face to face. But they could not receive his heavenly laws, or bide his presence.

Thus the holy man was forced again to veil the past in mystery, and in the beginning of his history, assign to man an earthly origin.

Man, moulded from the earth, as a brick!

Woman, manufactured from a rib!

Thus, parents still would fain conceal from budding manhood the mysteries of procreation, or the sources of life's ever-flowing river, by relating some childish tale of new born life, engendered in the hollow trunk of some old tree, or springing with spontaneous growth like mushrooms from out the heaps of rubbish. O man! When wilt thou cease to be a child in knowledge?

Man as we have said, is the offspring of Deity. The entire mystery of the past and future, with regard to his existence, is not yet solved by mortals. (PPP, Key to the Science of Thelogy)

 

Even BRM says important elements of the Fall story are figurative:

 

As to the Fall itself we are told that the Lord planted "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the midst of the garden. (Moses 3:9.) To Adam and Eve the command came: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Moses 3:16-17.) Again the account is speaking figuratively. What is meant by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that our first parents complied with whatever laws were involved so that their bodies would change from their state of paradisiacal immortality to a state of natural mortality. (Bruce McConkie, "Christ and the Creation," Ensign, June 1982, p. 15) 

 

And as mentioned above, the pre-1990 endowment specifies the biblical account of the creation of Adam & Eve was figurative. Meaning, Adam & Eve were not literally created as depicted. BY's Lecture at the Veil really articulates the mystery of creation and reveals the great secret (or lets the cat out of the bag), where Adam & Eve came from, and how the gods propagate their species. Condescensions of God.

 

[1 Cor 15:45,47]. Adam's fall was from heavenly to earthly, and Christ's sacrifice was restoring from earthly to heavenly. (Ogden Kraut, Mysteries of Creation, 175)

 

The fall is simple. Our immortal parents came down to fall; came down to transgress the laws of immortality; came down to give birth to mortal tabernacles for a world of spirits ... Eve, then, came down to be the mother of a world. Glorious Mother, capable of dying at the very beginning to give life to her offspring, that through mortality the eternal life of the Gods might be given her sons and daughters. (Edward Tullidge [& Eliza Snow], Women of Mormondom, pp. 197-198)

 

If an immortal being eats mortal food, it would be a transgression of a law similar to breaking the Word of Wisdom. There would be a penalty affixed and it would require an atonement or a compensation to rectify it. This is the work of God's Beloved Son to atone for this "fall" or transgression of that immortal Being. God steps down to mortality, and the Son provides the redemption from that fall. God's sacrifice was to temporarily "fall" to a lower sphere and condition in order to provide mortality for His children. Jesus Christ's sacrifice was to be crucified in order to provide redemption, resurrection and immortality for his brothers and sisters. (Ogden Kraut, Mysteries of Creation, 167)

 

There was no pre-Fall plan. The plan was always to fall. That is why Adam and Eve came to Earth. Adam fell that men might be. The real mystery of creation is that we are direct descendants of God himself. Not adobes or ribs or monkeys. Though the world and many of the LDS just don't want to believe the implications of this doctrine. 

Edited August 25, 2013 by iamse7en

[theplains]

I read something from a book called "Where Mormonism Meets Biblical Christianity". Satan

could have thwarted God's plan and prevented any humans beings from being born if he

did everything in his power to keep Adam and Eve away from the forbidden tree. Even Adam

and Eve themselves could have thwarted the plan without Satan's involvement if either of

them also stayed away from that tree.

 

Unless of course one or more of these participants was ignorant of what their actions would

do.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

 

[danielwoods]

If the Adam and Eve are only an allegory, then so is the fall. 

 

Jesus believed Adam and Eve were real people created by God. 

[Questing Beast]

The Jews believed Adam and Eve were real people, and Jesus was teaching people who believed that.

 

I think that the entire paradigm of "fall and redemption" is a powerful allegory of a bigger, infinite truth, of which we, as immortals, are perfectly aware. There is no reason behind a literal "fall", but there is a clear lesson in it: don't screw up or you will lose. What do you lose? Joy. The more you screw up the less joyful you become, even if you gain possession of the entire world (universe). What profit would that be? The most cosmic frustration and disappointment cannot be any sort of profit to the human soul. If teaching the allegory of the "fall and redemption" reaches billions of souls and effects a change in their outlook, such that they are motivated to eschew injustice in all of its manifestations, thus leading in the opposite direction, toward seeking "God" and finding Joy, then that is what the religion is for anyway, so why complain if it isn't literally, singularly true?

 

I cannot see any religious paradigm being singularly true. They all share too much in common, ethically and pertaining to sources, for ONE to be true and the others misleading to some degree, i.e. frustrated "in the end of all things" of being efficacious in "salvation". But if all of them, and non religious people, are on the same "quest" to find Joy, by seeking "God", whether or not the individual is conscious of this at a given point in spacetime, then I can accept that although manmade, all religions are also useful and used by "God" to communicate where and when it will be received. And the point of it all is to learn what Joy Is and is not. Joy is "salvation", misery is damnation, or failure to proceed/progress as our destiny intends....

[JDave]

daniel[woods],

 

Could you answer the first question?  What did God originally intend (from a non-Mormon Christian perspective)  and how that goal could be equally met with or without the Fall?  If you already answered in another thread, could you provide a link?

 

Thanks

[TAO]

Actually, they talked about this in my Institute Class.  The phrase which is translated as 'Eat not' (or something along those lines) can sometimes mean 'Eat not yet'.  Now, this isn't doctrine, but it is quite a possibility that God would have had them partake of the tree of knowledge later, had they not partaken of it at that time.  I guess we'll have to wait and ask him to know for sure.

[danielwoods]

The Jews believed Adam and Eve were real people, and Jesus was teaching people who believed that.

 

I think that the entire paradigm of "fall and redemption" is a powerful allegory of a bigger, infinite truth, of which we, as immortals, are perfectly aware. There is no reason behind a literal "fall", but there is a clear lesson in it: don't screw up or you will lose. What do you lose? Joy. The more you screw up the less joyful you become, even if you gain possession of the entire world (universe). What profit would that be? The most cosmic frustration and disappointment cannot be any sort of profit to the human soul. If teaching the allegory of the "fall and redemption" reaches billions of souls and effects a change in their outlook, such that they are motivated to eschew injustice in all of its manifestations, thus leading in the opposite direction, toward seeking "God" and finding Joy, then that is what the religion is for anyway, so why complain if it isn't literally, singularly true?

 

I cannot see any religious paradigm being singularly true. They all share too much in common, ethically and pertaining to sources, for ONE to be true and the others misleading to some degree, i.e. frustrated "in the end of all things" of being efficacious in "salvation". But if all of them, and non religious people, are on the same "quest" to find Joy, by seeking "God", whether or not the individual is conscious of this at a given point in spacetime, then I can accept that although manmade, all religions are also useful and used by "God" to communicate where and when it will be received. And the point of it all is to learn what Joy Is and is not. Joy is "salvation", misery is damnation, or failure to proceed/progress as our destiny intends....

 

Jesus taught what he believed. 

 

If there wasn't a real fall, there's not a real salvation. 

[danielwoods]

daniel[woods],

 

Could you answer the first question?  What did God originally intend (from a non-Mormon Christian perspective)  and how that goal could be equally met with or without the Fall?  If you already answered in another thread, could you provide a link?

 

Thanks

 

What did God originally intend?   To create (for the purpose of sharing his love), a free willed based being that would both enjoy and reciprocate his love.

 

Without the fall this was met (up until the fall) as Adam and Eve walked with God.

 

And after the fall redemption was necessary for this to be met. And since Christ was slain before the foundations of the Earth, the redemption was there.  

[JDave]

What did God originally intend?   To create (for the purpose of sharing his love), a free willed based being that would both enjoy and reciprocate his love.

 

Without the fall this was met (up until the fall) as Adam and Eve walked with God.

 

And after the fall redemption was necessary for this to be met. And since Christ was slain before the foundations of the Earth, the redemption was there.  

 Was the trial of temptation necessary to that original intent?  Did we need to be tested by Satan in order to enjoy and reciprocate God's love?  Or is that just necessary to have free will, that is we need to have both God and Satan urging us to opposing actions?

 

Do you feel that the goal of "a free willed based being that would both enjoy and reciprocate his love" is met equally both with and without the Fall?

[JDave]

I’m not sure about intent, but it could have been one of two or three options so that agency could bear sway. Perhaps the way we see it happened is only in opposition to an alternative way where the fruit was given to Adam and Eve by divine enticement or even by commandment. And perhaps there may have been another alternative that simply allowed not eating of the fruit of the tree of life, with divine and devilish enticements.

 

I think both the benefits and the need for salvation result minimally from eating the fruit, and any alternative would have resulted in the same Fall and required the Savior's intervention. There are also many other ways to submit to temptations of various kinds (even if by transgression of omission) in thought and desire, some bein gof the devil and some being of the individual.

But the result of the eating the fruit was simply mortality, whereas it seems that the cursing was due to succumbing to Satan's temptation.  If they had simply chosen to follow God's command AND simultaneously chosen mortality by eating the fruit as God indicated, would they have been subject to a separation from God's presence?  It seems that whether it was a 'sin' or not, it was the choice to follow Satan that led to a need for a Savior.

[danielwoods]

Was the trial of temptation necessary to that original intent?  Did we need to be tested by Satan in order to enjoy and reciprocate God's love?  Or is that just necessary to have free will, that is we need to have both God and Satan urging us to opposing actions?

Just as Jesus was tempted, and didn't give in, the temptation indicates one is a free moral agent (one couldn't be tempted if one wasn't a free moral agent), the choice, exposes our heart for ourselves to see (God already knows our heart).

Satan isn't needed. We are fully capable of choosing evil without his help.

 

Do you feel that the goal of "a free willed based being that would both enjoy and reciprocate his love" is met equally both with and without the Fall?

Yes. The difference being the curse we have to endure after the fall.

Edited August 26, 2013 by danielwoods

[SamIam]

I've been following the extended detour in the Predestination thread.  The question of what exactly God intended is intriguing and I wanted to pursue it in a dedicated thread.

 

First off I am interested in what non-Mormon Christians believe was God's 'original' plan.  danielwoods referred to the "pre-Fall plan".  Perhaps he covered that in more detail before I started following the conversation but I am interested in knowing what God originally intended and how that goal could be equally met with or without the Fall.

 

Secondly, I am interested in knowing whether any think that Mormon doctrine is capable of conceiving some sort of 'Plan A'.  Not in the sense of "Was the Fall necessary?", but rather "Was following Satan necessary to the Fall?"  Was there some other way that God intended?  He certainly didn't sound pleased that Adam and Eve followed Satan's temptations.  Adam and Eve realized the benefits that came with their choice, but did those benefits stem from submitting to temptation or simply from eating the fruit?

 

Following Satan was necessary on multiple levels.  One key level is mentioned here in Alma:

 

 

 

Alma 42:7-9

 

7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were ^acut off both temporally and spiritually from the ^bpresence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own ^cwill.

 

 

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this ^atemporal death, for that would destroy the great ^bplan of happiness.

 

 

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the ^afall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual ^bdeath as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

 

 

The essance is that as long as mankind was living in the presence of God according the laws of the Celestial kingdom the conditions that allow mankind to experience the ability to actually make a choice were not attainable.  There was no evil to allow him the option of selecting and experiencing temptation.  So as verse 7 states a very critical condition was established "they became subjects to follow after their own ^cwill." Verse 9 reiterates that it required a spiritual death AND the temporal death in order for these conditions to manifest suitable to allow mankind the ability to exercise agency.

Edited August 26, 2013 by SamIam

[CV75]

But the result of the eating the fruit was simply mortality, whereas it seems that the cursing was due to succumbing to Satan's temptation.  If they had simply chosen to follow God's command AND simultaneously chosen mortality by eating the fruit as God indicated, would they have been subject to a separation from God's presence?  It seems that whether it was a 'sin' or not, it was the choice to follow Satan that led to a need for a Savior.

Mortality is characterized by all those curses, no matter how innocent or guilty, or how old or young a person may be.

 

Because of our spiritual inferiority to God, I’m thinking that even a mere physical separation would result in a spiritual separation and the need to walk by faith, a requirement we cannot meet without a Savior. It is another way of saying, “It is time to face your limitations so you can be healed.”

 

Definitely, a choice to follow Satan requires a Savior to reverse those consequences. But so does a choice to face one’s limitations.

[SamIam]

But the result of the eating the fruit was simply mortality, whereas it seems that the cursing was due to succumbing to Satan's temptation.  If they had simply chosen to follow God's command AND simultaneously chosen mortality by eating the fruit as God indicated, would they have been subject to a separation from God's presence?  It seems that whether it was a 'sin' or not, it was the choice to follow Satan that led to a need for a Savior.

 

The cursing is much more than simply following Satan's temptation.  Because of the action of transgression they instigated a requirement that had to occur in order for them to be redeemed.

 

I am only going to provide a quote from the Targum Pseudo Jonathon, which is kind of a Jewish commentary on the Old Testament.  But think carefully upon the words of the quote and reply with what you think you see.  If it seems managable then we can go through certain Old Testament and other BOM verses to sustain the implications of the Targum quote to follow:

 

 

And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, Of every tree of the garden eating thou mayest eat. But of the tree of whose fruit they who eat (become) wise to know between good and evil, thou shalt not eat: for in the day that thou eatest thou wilt be guilty of death.(*Targum pseudo Jonathon, http://uwacadweb.uwy...et/ts/PJgen.htm)

 

 

Now I will provide one other quote from the Midrash:

 

 

Midrash Rabbah - Numbers XXIII:13 THEN YE SHALL APPOINT YOU CITIES OF REFUGE... THAT THE MANSLAYER... MAY FLEE THITHER (XXXV, 11). This bears on the Scriptural texts, Good and upright is the Lord, therefore doth He instruct sinners in the way (Ps. XXV, . Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy mercies (ib. 6). David says: Sovereign of the Universe! Were it not for Thy mercies which came to the timely assistance of Adam, he could not have survived. For it says, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. II, 17), but Thou didst not do so unto him. Thou didst merely exclude him from the Garden of Eden and he lived nine hundred and thirty years, and only then did he die. What didst Thou do to him? Thou didst merely drive him from the Garden of Eden; as it says, So He drove out the man (ib. III, 24). Why was he driven out? Because he brought death upon future generations, and deserved to die immediately, but Thou didst have compassion upon him and didst drive him out, as is the fate of one who commits murder in error, such a man having to be an exile from his own home to the cities of refuge. Consequently it says, ‘Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy mercies,’ for they have been from of old (Ps. XXV, 6).

 

These two quotes point in a general direction of what was the actual crime of the Garden.  However, before we can develop further we need to see if these foundational points can be established and then I will toss out more information.

[Nofear]

Just as Jesus was tempted, and didn't give in, the temptation indicates one is a free moral agent (one couldn't be tempted if one wasn't a free moral agent), the choice, exposes our heart for ourselves to see (God already knows our heart).

We have to be careful because temptation is used at different levels. True, the Adversary asked Jesus to do bad things but Jesus never desired to do them. Our most serious temptations come from the evil that we (or at least a part of ourselves) wish to fulfill. Some misunderstanding of our statements can arise because people conflate the two types of temptation (and the scriptures lack a word to distinguish them -- but that's ok because the consequences submitting to either temptation is still damnation).

 

Satan isn't needed. We are fully capable of choosing evil without his help.

Quite agreed. Indeed, I quite expect that there are many planets which possess no Satan. Any "plan of salvation" that is contingent upon one of God's children being in open rebellion is, well... a pretty stupid one.

 

And without Satan, would we still need an Atonement? Of course. The Atonement is necessary for us to purge the non-Celestial desires from our being (i.e. the latter type of temptations mentioned above) and purify/perfect us at our core.

[BCSpace]

What did God originally intend (from a non-Mormon Christian perspective)  and how that goal could be equally met with or without the Fall?

 

I think a non LDS christian would have to contend with 1 Peter 1:20.  The Fall was foreseen and I think that indicates it was part of the plan though my perception is that other Christians don't think the Fall was God's intention.

[SamIam]

Just as Jesus was tempted, and didn't give in, the temptation indicates one is a free moral agent (one couldn't be tempted if one wasn't a free moral agent), the choice, exposes our heart for ourselves to see (God already knows our heart).

Satan isn't needed. We are fully capable of choosing evil without his help.

 

Yes. The difference being the curse we have to endure after the fall.

 

I cannot concur with this statement above as it is in conflict with the scriptures:

 

2 Nephi 2 points out:

 

 

15 And to bring about his eternal ^apurposes in the end of man, after he had ^bcreated our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the ^cfowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the ^dforbidden ^efruit in ^fopposition to the ^gtree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

 

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should ^aact for himself. Wherefore, man could not ^bact for himself save it should be that he was ^centiced by the one or the other.

 

 

So based on the scriptures we find that the plan required than man be "enticed".  It was not simply enough to recognize that good and evil existed but we needed to be enticed to require us to be in positions that we would chose and that by our choosing we would determine which was most appealing to us - Good or Evil.

Edited August 26, 2013 by SamIam

[danielwoods]

I cannot concur with this statement above as it is in conflict with the scriptures:

 

2 Nephi 2 points out:

 

 

 

 

So based on the scriptures we find that the plan required than man be "enticed".  It was not simply enough to recognize that good and evil existed but we needed to be enticed to require us to be in positions that we would chose and that by our choosing we would determine which was most appealing to us - Good or Evil.

So, you are saying that they were enticed to follow evil by taking the fruit?

[SamIam]

So, you are saying that they were enticed to follow evil by taking the fruit?

 

I'm saying that as your first statement reads "Satan isn't needed" that is an incorrect assumption.  Lets review:

 

 

Just as Jesus was tempted, and didn't give in, the temptation indicates one is a free moral agent (one couldn't be tempted if one wasn't a free moral agent), the choice, exposes our heart for ourselves to see (God already knows our heart).

Satan isn't needed. We are fully capable of choosing evil without his help.

 

Yes. The difference being the curse we have to endure after the fall.

 

You appear to be drawing a conclusion that the state of being a free agent is all that is required as "we are fully capable of choosing evil without his help." As your supporting elements you note that Christ was a free agent which places the context of your observations seemingly outside of the boundaries of the Garden of Eden wherein the fruit was partaken.  "Isn't needed" also seems to imply an ongoing state of a lacking necessity while if one had stated "wasn't needed" might have more singularly referenced the specific act of partaking of the fruit in the Garden of Eden.

 

As far as partaking the fruit, if we review the verses provided earlier:

 

Alma 42:7-9

 

7 And now, ye see by this that our first parents were ^acut off both temporally and spiritually from the ^bpresence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own ^cwill.

 

8 Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this ^atemporal death, for that would destroy the great ^bplan of happiness.

 

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the ^afall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual ^bdeath as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

 

The partaking of the fruit was so that man would by his own choice separate himself from the presence of God the Father - a spiritual death,  as a result of that act of partaking the fruit God was also justified in condemning mankind to a physical death.  There are only a few reasons a death penalty is justified and it follows the patterns of law that we are familiar with in the Old testament and the BOM.  As this discussion progresses if it seems appropriate then we can look at the other scriptural references which provide these answers.   

Edited August 26, 2013 by SamIam

[danielwoods]

I'm saying that as your first statement reads "Satan isn't needed" that is an incorrect assumption.  Lets review:

 

 

 

You appear to be drawing a conclusion that the state of being a free agent is all that is required as "we are fully capable of choosing evil without his help." As your supporting elements you note that Christ was a free agent which places the context of your observations seemingly outside of the boundaries of the Garden of Eden wherein the fruit was partaken.  "Isn't needed" also seems to imply an ongoing state of a lacking necessity while if one had stated "wasn't needed" might have more singularly referenced the specific act of partaking of the fruit in the Garden of Eden.

 

As far as partaking the fruit, if we review the verses provided earlier:

 

 

The partaking of the fruit was so that man would by his own choice separate himself from the presence of God the Father - a spiritual death,  as a result of that act of partaking the fruit God was also justified in condemning mankind to a physical death.  There are only a few reasons a death penalty is justified and it follows the patterns of law that we are familiar with in the Old testament and the BOM.  As this discussion progresses if it seems appropriate then we can look at the other scriptural references which provide these answers.

You stated,

So based on the scriptures we find that the plan required than man be "enticed". It was not simply enough to recognize that good and evil existed but we needed to be enticed to require us to be in positions that we would chose and that by our choosing we would determine which was most appealing to us - Good or Evil.

I then asked, "So, you are saying that they were enticed to follow evil by taking the fruit?"

Instead of answering that question, you said,

"I'm saying that as your first statement reads "Satan isn't needed" that is an incorrect assumption."

Which is simply another way of saying that man has to be enticed by Satan to follow evil. Right?

Edited August 26, 2013 by danielwoods