Sure, I could switch to using the terms of ‘free love’ or Divine love’. Anything to keep this conversation more clear next time.

I will take time to consider the definitions provided, based on what I think is important:
“1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another.
” 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.” I am arguing that one must choose to be affectionate. If I programmed my computer so that it would speak “I LOVE YOU!” to me every morning, would it truly love me?
” 3. sexual passion or desire.” I personally consider this one misguided, the body is now the object that one is attracted to. It’s in the dictionary, so what do I know?
On the related note, I argue that love should be unconditional, because otherwise, are we not just loving what our other is _doing_ for us? “If you stop painting the house every year, I won’t love you anymore!” Although childish, that is the basis behind it. If two people do things for each other, it should be _because_ they love the other person, not to keep recieving that love.
Yes, I stated that instictual love is not love, because it isn’t free. I merely argue that the attraction must be the choice of the one attracted. The computer analogy provided elaborates on this.

You define love as only existing based on free will but the correct dictionary definition is;
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. [other meanings]
There is no reference whatsoever to love having to be unconditional. Why do you require it to be thus? You say specifically that human nurturing instincts is not love but #2 definition seems to include this as love.
Now if you want to use a limited meaning, you should use another word, like ‘divine love’ or ‘free love’ otherwise we all get confused by your inaccuracy.

In summary;
Love correctly defined, is not limited to free will affections.

Satan was put before God’s guidance then and this is the situation in this world today. Truth is missing. The whole world lies in the power of the wicked one. If Adam and Eve had obeyed God they would still be on earth today instructing their children in the ways God was instructing them. But they chose to oppose and plunged us into the mess our wonderful, intelligent scientists, biologists and world leaders under Satanic direction are leading us today.

In summary:
1- Love is unconditional (and therefore free).
2- Instinctual ‘love’ is conditional, and therefore not free. It is not love in any sense.
3- Human instincts don’t pose a problem, so long as we understand what makes ‘love’, ‘love’.
4- Soulish creatures being capable of love doesn’t cause any trouble, since the love is still free, which is what is important.

You assert that the Bible was man’s doing, I assert the opposite. We come to our conclusions based on what we think makes the most sense. I won’t worry about that, and I won’t try to convince you, I’ve already seen that you don’t want that, and I consider it best to respect your wishes.

Yes, the Genesis `Original Sin` Story does seem like a stetch… …Using the modern hermeneutic (AiG, I’m lookin’ at you!). The original model can be roughly summarized, by Leibniz’s idea that this world is the best of all possible worlds, with a `twist`. This world is the best of all possible worlds for God’s purpose (rather than for ours). Remember, `Forced Love` is a contradiction of terms. Hence, the Tree of Knowledge. What form Lucifer/Satan/Serpent takes on, is unimportant, and arbitrary.

Next idea, Adam and Eve actually had more than two sons, they had three sons that are recorded, but they had many children in total. If you’re worried about Cain and marrying one of his siblings, the problem would only arise after the next several (dozen?) generations, which is why incest laws are introduced later on. It is more a question of `how far did we read?`, because when you look at the (proven to be telescoped) geneaology from Adam to Noah, you see that Adam is recorded to have “Other sons and daughters, and then he died.”

Actually, God can be all good and all loving, while allowing a being that He created to attempt to rival Him in power. The pitfall only arises when we’re forced to accept the modern ideas of what Eden was like, and then make a logical extrapolation of these ideas, which have been shown to be wrong.

Man does actually have power of his own, in a sense. God doesn’t interfere with what we choose to do, that would be to violate the purpose of this world. In fact, sin is not a creation, but a manifestation. It is the logical conclusion of freewill in a world intended to let people choose how they will spend eternity (Heaven, or Annihilation?).

Sending His Son to die for us, because He gave us sin, “Why?” We follow this from the point of planning. Since forced love is a contradiction of terms, He allowed sin in this world. Because He knew that men would eventually fall, He needed to provide a means of salvation, because He wanted us to freely choose to be His friends. See, it is understood that God’s Nature has two aspects: one of mercy, one of justice. In order to satisfy both, He needed someone who could cover all the sins of those who accept the gift.

You pose one of the most interesting questions I’ve ever read, when you ask of God’s `Only Begotten Son`. First, I think that it’s already been established that Jesus is God the Son, the second person in the Trinity (let me know if we haven’t established that). Jesus was begotten when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, producing the body He would inhabit. Following logically from this, we are sons/daughters (either term seems acceptabe) of God, and we are the ones who were not begotten by His power (that is a different topic).

We still remain in sin, because we are still in this world, where sin is allowed to manifest. We are liberated from it in a promise; Next world over. Keep this in mind as well, as long as sin is allowed to manifest, as intended (God’s purposes, not ours’), theodicy will still be there to complain about.

Here’s an explaination for the Holy Trinity concept:
Imagine we live on a two-sheet, as two-dimensional beings. God is a three-cube. God the Father exposes Himself to Moses, and he sees a square. God the Son exposes Himself to the world, and we see a line. God the Holy Spirit exposes Himself, but we cannot see Him, because points are non-dimensional. They are all different aspects of the same object, but still part of the same object. We are observing different `appendiges`–to put it crudely–of God.

Why have a virgin mother? Why not? Being born had a purpose: “I can’t follow Him! He just popped out of the sky one day! He doesn’t know what it’s like!” Nobody can object like that now!
Being born of a virgin has at least two differing hypotheses behind itself: 1- The sin nature is inhereted through the male. Don’t ask me how this one works, I don’t believe in this model in any case! 2- It proves Him to be miraculous.

Why intervene sooner, or later? If ~2000 years ago is the most opprotune time, that makes hash of this rhetoric! Consider, His plan is not workable without humans, who understand the consequences of sin. That restricts His operation of `Plan Aleph-Vav` to within ~60000 years time. He also set several prophecies in motion, so what should we make of these? It depends on how willing you are to believe that these were written after the fact, and on how much faith you have in chance.

I consider what he claims could be possible if not probable. This man’s teachings are interesting if a person is open to considering other beliefs. The reason I bring this teaching to light is for the reason the apostles were told not to go to the nations but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The nation of Judea were descendants of the two tribe Kings of Judea and thereby known as Jews but Israelites as Mr Armstrong explains are the lost 10 tribes of Israel whom Jesus sent his disciples to preach.

Although the good news of the Kingdom was to be preached to all nations, preaching was more intense within the European nations. Jesus came to the people chosen by God to be the light of the world and there was great success whilst the apostles were preaching but as prophecy by Jesus reveals Acts 20:29 “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you…. and will speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves”, etc. The fact that there are so many diverse teachings and beliefs within Christianity stands out as proof to this prophecy. If many who believe we are followers of Jesus are being misled how then can we teach others ie. Muslims and Buddhists etc who have a belief that does not fit in with our fragmented dictates. If we have truth it comes from the Spirit of God and is written in scripture. If we who had the intensity of teachings based on the writings but corrupted in essence by the wolves in Jesus prophetic teaching how can we shine the light because the world today does not shine forth light it is in darkness and disunity.

The Jewish religious leaders because of their jealousy did not accept the Son of God and had him crucified Luke 23:35 “But the rulers were sneering, saying: “Others he saved. let him save himself if this one is the Christ of God the Chosen One”. Obviously there were many Jewish nationals who became beleivers and accepted the Son of God as their saviour but the truth became corrupted in addition to the opposition of those Jews who rejected the salvation provided by God by means of the Great Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

It is for God to say whether he approves or disapproves of persons or their way of worship. God has put in everyones heart the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. Is it good or evil to murder, steal bear false witness, covet another persons marriage mate, be insolent to parents, abuse children?, etc. We need to look to God to keep us on the right path. Malachi 1:3 corresponds with Romans 9:13-15 just as it is written “I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated”. God will have mercy and compassion on whom he choses.

Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. How easy is it for us to love our enemies? That is the mark of the true Christian. To the extent people of all beliefs love others and are prepared to search for God and follow the footsteps of Our Lord I believe must be to the extent a person will be shown mercy.

As far as athiests and agnostics are concerned are these people more like Esau or Jacob? Would that be a defining mark as to how God would view people? Is it therefore a person’s own responsibility to search for God? Does disunity and defragmentation of Christian religions and standards dissolve people of the obligation to serve God and teach children love and moral standards? Does ignorance reliquish us from knowing how to love? In answer to questions what does the example of Jesus and the word of God teach?

God placed the tree there. Why? Contrary to AiG’s position (”There was no reason!”), this was part of a plan. As stated prior, forced love is a contradiction of terms. Thus, God had to give them the choice to rebel against Him, the tree itself appearently being the best test: trees live darned-near forever, so all people would be able to have the test, if not Adam and Eve. In fact, it is a good thing in this model that Adam and Eve ate from the tree first, because otherwise, God would have needed to send a saviour for every single person! Lesser of two evils, or what? If you want to complain more, go ahead, this is the best I have, and a reason for human theodicy won’t convince those who don’t want to accept it (no matter how good, and mine likely isn’t!).