An Inhuman God

[CST]

CST Quote:
Very true, though I'm pretty sure we live - or at least subsist if that's better (it might be worse) - on actually food too; we were made to do so and gave us all the plants for food (well that can't be literal more than one species is genuinely poisonous).

But I agree on what you say in the main phrase, though I suspect we're not likely to avoid pleasure of the flesh entirely (Yes because we die daily). Eating foods we enjoy is pleasurable, feeding our actual hunger is legitimate and I don't think God opposes or is offended by this in any way of its self (agreed). I do expect He is offended when He looks and sees us eating to ridiculous extremes and then looks elsewhere and sees other people who can't find to basic food they need. Would that be part of revealing those spiritual implications you're driving at? (Yes)

Deciding that 'bread' means the written word is a very specific interpretation. I took the written word simply to be the record of the spoken word. After all the term 'bread' in the original context refers to manna and learning to be obedient to the delivery of manna which was real food so far as can be understood. But spiritual meaning are always better than the 'on the page' readings (Yes, this is the context in which I understand bread, when the bread comes alive it becomes a living fountain). Well, maybe better is too singular, I think I'm developing my understanding of what you say as I type (He constantly does that with me, it is what keeps me writing). :smile: I hope I am.
End CST quote

Blessings brother

Sorry, I've muffed that a bit and so misled you a little. I was supposed to write: though I suspect we're not likely expected to avoid pleasure of the flesh entirely which, of course means something entirely different. Fortunately I think the rest of the context preserves the intent.

Wow, I wasn't thinking of of bread turning into water which would be a spectacularly mixed metaphor. The bread is utterly dry, not a good source of water. But I imagine the principle remains the same. The bread would be the literal meaning the rest the multiple deeper meanings. I not sure anything's changed but I feel metaphors need to connect to each other and I can't process bread turning into water, the wine/blood could do that. I suppose I would thus accept the bread/flesh as the living part, except the life is in the blood/wine.  :sigh: Very confusing. I fear I'm undeveloping my thought now.

Bless you back.

hi! I think of "missing the mark" the greek translated "sin" - and why in a sense all sin is 'equal' (but not equal in badness - logic is related to the word / logos).. missing the mark in that God (surely?) is life itslef and is also perfection.. so imperfection is the opposite of life.. and any turning from Him.. or disagreeeing with what He chooses in any teeny, tiny way, still results in imperfection (missing the mark of perfection) which is the opposite of God/life. So large or small sin (flaw) has the same result. "The result of sin (missing the mark of perfection) is death" also opposite of life. (Logic)

'Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect".. though we will not be, until Jesus' return and we put on incorruption and immortality-(negative particle "freedom from death- G110")

...before the curse (results, consequences) of the disobedience in Eden, there were, I would think, no poisonous plants.. so perhaps "all" were for food... What a joy it would be to garden w/o weeds and thorns!! :gsmile:

Hmm, I remain conflicted on this because the concept of sin is complicated while the picture of 'missing the mark' is easy. I imagine a target and shoot for the bulls-eye. Now I can hit the bulls-eye (the mark) or the inner ring, or the outer or the outer ring or not hit the target at all. All missing the mark but to increasingly greater degrees. But sin isn't like that. Lots of people can commit the same sins as each other but in practice the attitude they have to the fact they have sinned, of course, also makes a difference to their character and thus how God has to respond to them. Gauging this is very hard.

I don't believe for a second their were no poisonous plants before the fall because that implies a form of magic not recorded in the Bible. I do believe it possible human's either had a better instinct about them or they weren't anywhere the man and woman would have been expected to go prior to the fall, ie there were none in Eden and they were only in the world outside.

When is a weed not a weed? When it's appreciated.