No death before sin, sin after Adam

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Raggedyman
it's speaking of the death and sins of human beings.

Animals can't sin.

you do know we're animals, right?

a reply to: cooperton

What exactly is this agenda. The big conspiracy to prove the God is a lie? They covered up all the evidence of giants? That's a massive coverup. Not too mention any archaeologist who had proof would have no reason to cover it up because it would sky rocket their career. So the cover up argument has no basis in logic or reason.

Darwin had a degree in theology. He was a believer. But he made observations and presented them without bias. So saying Darwin is part of the "secular agenda" also has no basis in logic or reason.

originally posted by: whereislogic


Animals can't sin.

That's good to know since humans are animals.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well either the fossils have been planted by the devil.

Or

There has always been death since life began. Since the beginning of life there has been death. All living things consume other living things. Life and death.

Yeah, the devil planted the fossils joe, thanks that's helpful, didn't know that

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Genesis 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

Who's "he"? You assume it's your God. How do you know it's not a computer terminal operated by an alien developing computer games?

It's a serious question. How do you know who "he" is?

Firstly I was asking Christians what they think of the bible and its interpretation of what was said
If a person is not a Christian they would obviously not consider any of it true, not one part.
I am amused you asked who he is, instead of saying stupid book, stupid beliefs

So if it was a computer sim, then the question would be the same, instead of he, substitute it instead.

a reply to: Raggedyman

If a person is not a Christian they would obviously not consider any of it true, not one part.

I am not a Christian.

There are some aspects of the Bible which can be considered historical fiction. It also contains some beautiful allegories which give insight into what it means to be human and about how to exist well with other humans. Truisms.

There is also a lot of crap in there.

The same can be said about many novels.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would I or anyone else need to reconcile bible verses with my beliefs or knowledge of science? Can you prove the bible is anything more than man made bedtime stories for children? I have no reason to logically believe the bible, so it becomes irrelevant what the scriptures say. I'm agnostic myself, but I'd imagine somebody that believes in both creation and evolution would understand that faith in god is more important than faith in an ancient storybook written by humans.

So Barcs, let me try and understand your position.
I asked a question to those with a theistic belief, if they did or did not accept sin entering the world and death following it
You don't agree with any of it so
You decided to answer the question and get involved with the conversation even though it wasn't addressed or even relative to you

It makes me wonder why, but I don't really care, continue on

a reply to: Raggedyman

I am left wondering how gap theory proponents and theistic evolutionists reconcile this with their beliefs.

I guess I thought you were referring to something else by gap theory, which is why I mentioned knowledge of science. I was trying to explain how a theistic evolution believer or gap theory creationist would reconcile it. They would dismiss the OT of the bible as anything more than a metaphor, as most people should. Focus on god, rather than a book.

“Sin” had to have produced a real metaphysical transformation in Adam (mankind) to be a real event.

God didn’t arbitrarily curse Adam the effects of the act produced the curse.

For example.

If a father tells his son why he shouldn’t use hard drugs and they go and do it anyway the harm that will come to them is not in disobeying the father but in the bad effects of the drug use.


So we can surmise that through Adams act of disobedience he exposed himself to something that’s can be analogized to drug addiction. So he evolved to a state of inner imbalance through the corruption over time of some subtle inner faculty of his soul or mind.

That was the curse

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

I am left wondering how gap theory proponents and theistic evolutionists reconcile this with their beliefs.

I guess I thought you were referring to something else by gap theory, which is why I mentioned knowledge of science. I was trying to explain how a theistic evolution believer or gap theory creationist would reconcile it. They would dismiss the OT of the bible as anything more than a metaphor, as most people should. Focus on god, rather than a book.

Sorry, I was just guessing with your theological background

Doesn't matter

And no, it's not about knowledge of science, evolution is a faith belief, but you know that already, I told you
Wrong thread

originally posted by: Willtell
“Sin” had to have produced a real metaphysical transformation in Adam (mankind) to be a real event.

God didn’t arbitrarily curse Adam the effects of the act produced the curse.

For example.

If a father tells his son why he shouldn’t use hard drugs and they go and do it anyway the harm that will come to them is not in disobeying the father but in the bad effects of the drug use.


So we can surmise that through Adams act of disobedience he exposed himself to something that’s can be analogized to drug addiction. So he evolved to a state of inner imbalance through the corruption over time of some subtle inner faculty of his soul or mind.

That was the curse

Awesom answer, I really appreciate that, I guess that's why I made this thread.
It sounds logical and explains the ramifications of poor choices very clearly

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

If a person is not a Christian they would obviously not consider any of it true, not one part.

I am not a Christian.

There are some aspects of the Bible which can be considered historical fiction. It also contains some beautiful allegories which give insight into what it means to be human and about how to exist well with other humans. Truisms.

There is also a lot of crap in there.

The same can be said about many novels.

Really, care to address what the crap is, just saying its crap probably reveals more about you than the bible

And as you said, you are not a Christian so kinda mute, don'tcha think

Let me paraphrase your comment

I don't believe in your God, I don't believe in your bible, your Adam and Eve or your creation account, I think everything you believe is stupid, but
I am going to tell you, a Christian what I think you should believe about your beliefs

Kinda stupid, don'tcha think?

a reply to: Willtell

So he evolved to a state of inner imbalance through the corruption over time of some subtle inner faculty of his soul or mind.

That state of inner imbalance would not exist if God hadn't decided "It is NOT GOOD".

Eve was not a separate creation. She was an aspect of Adam that God pulled out of Adam from within his being, fracturing his "wholiness".

Now, of course I believe the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden is allegory, and not to be taken literally. But many believe that Adam and Eve were actually spiritual beings before the "fall". They did not become beasts until after they ate of the fruit. They were incarnated into animal/human/flesh bodies when when they realized that they were naked and God gave them animal skins to wear.

a reply to: windword


I agree with you post


will add this

The key in interpreting this allegory is this:

Consider ALL the elements in the story: God, Adam and Eve, the serpent and the tree (and there are other elements as well) as being all within man, of course, and woman too.


The allegory is about our internal elements of being

…And the evolutionary development of OUR INNER “Adam” as vice-regent on the earth.

The “devil” is in us that fights with ADAM for attention. That's why the story reflects the "devil" in us not liking God choosing Adam as the boss

Our inner Adam is the element in us that chooses what is most comfortable and balanced to us in any given experience.


The Higher Adam is the Lord in the Garden

a reply to: Raggedyman

Let me paraphrase your comment

I don't believe in your God, I don't believe in your bible, your Adam and Eve or your creation account, I think everything you believe is stupid, but I am going to tell you, a Christian what I think you should believe about your beliefs

Your paraphrase is inaccurate, after "your creation account."
You are putting words in my mouth which I neither said nor think.

a reply to: Willtell

Consider ALL the elements in the story: God, Adam and Eve, the serpent and the tree (and there are other elements as well) as being all within man, of course, and woman too.

Indeed, ALL the elements of the story should be considered.

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

How can mankind be considered "fallen" if mankind became "godlike" in its actions?

I believe the story conveys mankind's natural maturity from a childlike existence, into adolescence where one must learn and hone a skill, combining toil and sweat with science and artistry. Learning animal husbandry, farming, astronomy, architecture, medicine etc, are examples of human nature's need to counter and overcome Mother Nature's control.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Willtell

Consider ALL the elements in the story: God, Adam and Eve, the serpent and the tree (and there are other elements as well) as being all within man, of course, and woman too.

Indeed, ALL the elements of the story should be considered.

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

How can mankind be considered "fallen" if mankind became "godlike" in its actions?

I believe the story conveys mankind's natural maturity from a childlike existence, into adolescence where one must learn and hone a skill, combining toil and sweat with science and artistry. Learning animal husbandry, farming, astronomy, architecture, medicine etc, are examples of human nature's need to counter and overcome Mother Nature's control.

This verse saying God said “"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

You ask this: How can mankind be considered "fallen" if mankind became "godlike" in its actions?

The verse is merely saying that humans had evolved or where at a level of critical thinking that might have led to them discovering something much higher than they were exposed to then but not yet ready for.

Therefore the command not to go into the Tree of Life. Called sometimes the "forbidden Tree." This tree was forbidden ONLY to those not mature enough for it.

So the fall of man was when humans ( before they were ready for it) went into that tree in the GOE that led to their corrupting a level of that Garden inside themselves which today we are all trapped in.

The Tree was actually the tree of creation, which is this world...

Religion, Mysticism, and other means is all about getting out of that trap; restoring the inner GOE in ourselves and returning to a the development to perfection.

I know it’s a contradiction that if man was at the time of the fall perfect then how did he fall. Good question.

This tells us that humans were (at the time of the fall) advanced, NOT necessarily perfect or complete.


By the Time

WillTell

a reply to: peter vlar
Nice false accusation, nice cherry-pick of something I tried to keep short as a sidenote, followed by a nice quote-mine that you falsely accuse me of without pointing out the obvious of what's logically and reasonably wrong with what you chose to quote. There's no point in debating what's so telling about what you quoted regarding the writers personal bias and attempts to influence the reader and distract away from the observations and results of laboratory experiments with human DNA of known biological relation (the faster mutation rates) with mythology and speculation (wishful thinking based on evolutionary philosophy and assumed estimates, bending the data to fit in with their biased beliefs).

When I'm quoting from an article like that as a sidenote, I prefer to...

Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter.

This also counts for when you're seperating fact from fiction and speculation. But I won't try too hard to explain that in more detail to you regarding this article cause as I said, I only mentioned it as a sidenote to a young earth creationist with no intention to have to explain what in the article is factual and what is fictional (especially not someone who is extremely stubborn in their willingness to apply logic, discernment and being selective regarding facts and discarding fiction, not the other way around which is what you're doing now. Your preference is too strong for me to do anything about it at this point in your life. You can try reading 2 Timothy 4:3,4 just in case you do realize what's going on at some point in your life.

Do not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists.

Quotations are from the source in my sig.

a reply to: whereislogic


Awww... That was so cute how instead of addressing the material, you created an entire post of ad hominem attacks.

a reply to: whereislogic

Yeah all scientists are biased and have an agenda but the JW website is all truth and accuracy without a biased agenda. Your "logic" makes zero sense.