Is the story of Adam and Even real...or allegory?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If aliens came here from another planet, what would be the first question they'd ask humanity?

Can I get copies of I Love Lucy?
.
.
.
.
I would imagine they would monitor us from space for quite some time so may not have any burning first question. But if they did it would probably be related to how to understand our languages.

Chumly wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If aliens came here from another planet, what would be the first question they'd ask humanity?

Can I get copies of I Love Lucy?
.
.
.
.
I would imagine they would monitor us from space for quite some time so may not have any burning first question. But if they did it would probably be related to how to understand our languages.

"Do YOU still believe in God?"

How 'bout "What's a god?"

neologist wrote:

Death is the consequence of sin. Animals can't sin because they don't have, (You guessed it!) free will.

What you say does not add up:

The Bible doesn't say that dogs go to heaven, neither does it say they don't.

If as you say "death is the consequence of sin" and if as you say "animals can't sin" then again how can dogs die if they can't sin?

If you are going to say that "death is the consequence of sin" and "animals can't sin" then you are going to need to explain how "death reigned"……"over them that had not sinned" as per Romans 5:14.

You would also need to show where in the bible it says that animals died before Adam sinned.

You would also need to show where in the bible it says that animals are not affected by the consequence of sin as I have shown that animals are affected by the consequence of sin as per Romans 5:14.

Further I contest your claim that animals don't have free will vis-a-vis the chimpanzee

Free will:
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

How can we assess chimp intelligence?
- They make tools and use them to acquire foods, for social displays, etc.
- They have sophisticated hunting strategies that require cooperation, and allow animals to achieve influence and rank by sharing meat.
- They are highly status conscious and manipulative, capable of deception.
- They are analytical and problem-solvers, clearly capable of insight and complex "cognitive performance" in both the wild and in captivity, and particularly adept at analyzing relative relationships.
- Language experiments have shown that chimps are creative, can learn to use symbols (and teach them to others) and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence.

neologist wrote:

They don't. They just die.

Err Neo......what's goring on here? We 'know' there are horses in heaven (Rev 19.11, 2 Kings 2.11). That rather puts a kibosh on your ill conceived notion that animals "just die".

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . It is not necessary for them to be right to show your original asssertion to be nonsense, Neo....and I am not "assserting they are right." All they have to do is to POSSIBLY be right. All they have to do is assert a POSSIBLE worse case scenario. . .
. . . .

That's another point, Frank. It is NOT possible for them to be right.

Okay...I'll bite.


Why is it not possible for them to be right?????

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . It is not necessary for them to be right to show your original asssertion to be nonsense, Neo....and I am not "assserting they are right." All they have to do is to POSSIBLY be right. All they have to do is assert a POSSIBLE worse case scenario. . .
. . . .

That's another point, Frank. It is NOT possible for them to be right.

Okay...I'll bite.


Why is it not possible for them to be right?????

Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm being disttracted by life.

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . It is not necessary for them to be right to show your original asssertion to be nonsense, Neo....and I am not "assserting they are right." All they have to do is to POSSIBLY be right. All they have to do is assert a POSSIBLE worse case scenario. . .
. . . .

That's another point, Frank. It is NOT possible for them to be right.

Okay...I'll bite.


Why is it not possible for them to be right?????

Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm being disttracted by life.

Right!!!

And the fact that your comment makes absolutely no sense is not a player, right?

I see no one decided to reply to my question, because if they did, they will see that even the definition of dying spiritualy does not match what happened when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I see no one decided to reply to my question, because if they did, they will see that even the definition of dying spiritualy does not match what happened when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Adam and Eve did die spiritually in the sense that they lost their moral perfection. Is that what you meant?

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . It is not necessary for them to be right to show your original asssertion to be nonsense, Neo....and I am not "assserting they are right." All they have to do is to POSSIBLY be right. All they have to do is assert a POSSIBLE worse case scenario. . .
. . . .

That's another point, Frank. It is NOT possible for them to be right.

Okay...I'll bite.


Why is it not possible for them to be right?????

Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm being disttracted by life.

Right!!!

And the fact that your comment makes absolutely no sense is not a player, right?

Well; hi there.

First of all, let me point out that the consequence God warned of for disobedience was death. Nothing more, nothing less. If hell was part of the deal, that would have been a good time to let folks know, IMHO.

I know you will wiggle out of this, but I enjoy watching you do it. Then I'll throw you a few more bones.

neologist wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I see no one decided to reply to my question, because if they did, they will see that even the definition of dying spiritualy does not match what happened when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Adam and Eve did die spiritually in the sense that they lost their moral perfection. Is that what you meant?

If Adam and Eve ate from the fruit (which you call it "sin"), they didn't have this "moral perfection" in the first place.

Are we still debating what God meant when he said, "you will die"? Goodness... Well, let's get one thing straight.

What does it mean to die spiritually?