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

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

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?

A severed spiritual connection between God and man.

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You originally said:

Quote:

If God exists, the worst thing that could happen to me would be my eventual death and return to nothingness.

But others have made guesses that "if a god exists" the god could make things much, much worse for people after death than simply returning to nothingness.

Therefore...your statement is presumptuous...and incorrect.

Excellent logic here, Frank. I am incorrect because I do not agree with others who are incorrect. Isn't that called straw man, Frank?

Grow a brain...and then let's start over.

You offer your blind guesses like they are certainties.

I guess there is some fun to be had watching such nonsense...but it does get boring after a while.

Good grief...you guessers sure are a gas.

Are you asserting then Frank that there must be a hell?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's sure what it sounds like to me.

I find that quite interesting though that you would say such a thing. It seems to me if what neo is saying were true it would take the wind out of a lot of peoples sails.

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.

But others have made guesses that "if a god exists" the god could make things much, much worse for people after death than simply returning to nothingness.

Therefore...your statement is presumptuous...and incorrect.

One...I didn't say what you seem to think I said.

Two...who knows what happens after death. I certainly don't.

Do you?

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?????

hephzibah wrote:

Neo's statement was absolutely correct in saying this:

Quote:

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.

That's a fact. No two ways about it. You really can't argue that.

Quote:

But others have made guesses that "if a god exists" the god could make things much, much worse for people after death than simply returning to nothingness.

Therefore...your statement is presumptuous...and incorrect.

Which could mean one of two things. Either you think everyone who makes assumptions about this are presumptuous and incorrect in their assumptions, or you are taking a side. Now that I think about it though the former makes more sense. Oops. Did it ever occur to you that what you believe could be considered presumptuous and incorrect as well? LOL

. I think neo has presented a valid point here though. If it's presumptuous and incorrect, why don't you show us how?

LOL wolf you are cracking me up today. I don't know why really. But I just find what you say to be amusing. Not in a bad way. Actually, thank you. I find your way of thinking to be... hmmm... refreshing I guess.

Now, to your comment: Just because they believe it does not make it true.

Heph...

...I wrote:

Quote:

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. . .

To which, Neo responded:

Quote:

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

To which I responded:

Quote:

Okay...I'll bite.


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

I have still not gotten a satisfactory answer to that question.

Simply because the Bible does not say there is a hell or punishment after death...or more exactly, because Neo's cult says that the Bible does not...

...does not make it so.

His assertion that they cannot be right has to be documented.

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 am NOT saying they are right...I AM SAYING they MAY be right.

Who knows?

In any case, Neo cannot substantiate that they cannot be right...which is the reason he is trying to weasel out of dealing with it

hephzibah, Thu Mar 09 2006, 8:58 am wrote:

LOL wolf you are cracking me up today. I don't know why really. But I just find what you say to be amusing. Not in a bad way. Actually, thank you. I find your way of thinking to be... hmmm... refreshing I guess.

Well, I'm glad to know that you aren't devoid of humour unlike some people I can name. Of course, I shouldn't really have made the remark seeing as the person it was referring to rarely ever visits the board.

Quote:

Now, to your comment: Just because they believe it does not make it true.

At last! I've been waiting for you to say that for a very long time. Granted, I took an insanely long roundabout approach to get here, almost a sado masochistic approach if you think about it, but we got here in the end.

Yes, just because you believe that God wasn't being literal, doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is you are merely applying your view to the Bible. What you say is not necessarily the Biblical truth or, even the Truth.

You admitted it in the end and in the past after the one I am replying to. Kudos.

The problem is, that MA and I think you, insisted that God meant a spiritual death. Yet you automatically assume that means a spiritual disconnection.

Why is it that you insist that God did not mean a literal death, whereas in everything else, you believe him to have been very literal?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Heph...

...I wrote:

Quote:

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. . .

To which, Neo responded:

Quote:

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

To which I responded:

Quote:

Okay...I'll bite.


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

I have still not gotten a satisfactory answer to that question.

Simply because the Bible does not say there is a hell or punishment after death...or more exactly, because Neo's cult says that the Bible does not...

...does not make it so.

His assertion that they cannot be right has to be documented.

To which you got the response:

Quote:

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.

The only response thus far. Which we both agree was a correct statement.

Quote:

I am NOT saying they are right...I AM SAYING they MAY be right.

Who knows?

In any case, Neo cannot substantiate that they cannot be right...which is the reason he is trying to weasel out of dealing with it

LOL I know Frank. I know. Neither am I really. However, he has only made one comment so far regarding this. Which we both agree is a correct statement.

I am extremely interested in what else he has to say about this. Because truthfully speaking I never would have thought of any of this had I not read this thread. All I was asking for is evidence of both sides, since we both seem to be standing back a little bit from it and looking at it from different angles. However, I just realized that to ask that could be perceived as a trap to get you to appear as if you are supporting one side or the other. That was not my intention at all though. I merely was curious as to whether or not the supposed evidence of there being life after death would be presented in any manner within the context of your argument here.

Frank, I suppose if the time comes I will present what I feel could be the other side to this issue. I just want to see where neo is going with this first. I do apologize though if I have misunderstood anything here, or the direction in which you and neo are going. I would like to participate in this conversation, but I'll withhold my comments for now until the direction is a little more clear. LOL Sorry for jumpin in on ya like that. G'day

Frank,

Ok, I just have to clarify my points here.

#1 I asked for clarification, which you gave me. Thank you.

#2 I presented the idea that neo's argument THUS FAR could very easily take the wind out of a lot of peoples sails.

#3 That is the only argument neo has presented this far.

#4 You weren't discussing anything at this point because neo made a statement and has not commented further since that statement.

So to sum it all up I was presenting an opportunity to you to present the other side of the argument if you feel neo is quite possibly so wrong.

Since he's not here to ask you apparently. I thought I would because I was curious. So. With that said. I bid you fair well for now. And I will be watching this to see if maybe at a later time I might have something to inject that could actually be useful, since this apparently wasn't. LOL Sorry to have disrupted your day. Have a good one.

Chumly wrote:

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".

Looks like I've been the victim of a senior moment.

You'll get to know what I mean when you get to be my age.

Then, when you get to be Frank's age, you'll forget all about it; so don't worry. :wink:

'Course you can have them at any age; as your response indicates.

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.

neologist wrote:

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.

Try to get your brain in gear, Neo.

Just because your silly Bible does not allow your idiot god to inflict more dire consequences than "just going away"...or at least, in the opinion of the sect you belong to your silly Bible does not allow your idiot god to inflict more dire consequences...

...does not mean there cannot be more dire consequences.

You said they (the people who posit more dire consequences) CANNOT BE RIGHT.

Some of them don't think your idiot god...is GOD. They posit a GOD...or a god...who can and will inflict greater, more dire consequencs...than you suggest.

So now...back to my question: Why can't they be right???

Why MUST YOU be right...and they cannot be???

Why can only your silly, baseless guesses be right...and not their silly, baseless guesses?

Quote:

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

I am thoroughly enjoying your silliness, Neo...and I appreciate you taking the time to provide the laughs.

Are you personally guessing there is any consciousness after death?

If you reject such an idea, what is the sense of this argument?

This won't make any sense unless you are willing to champion one of their silly baseless guesses. Just so long as you admit it is a silly baseless guess from the outset.

For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5)