0
   

death prior to original sin

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 12:21 am
neologist wrote:
Before Adam and Eve sinned they had the prospect of living forever. That should be real easy to understand.
Well then if as you say "before Adam and Eve sinned they had the prospect of living forever" then prior to sin by default they were de facto immortals. Therefore the tree of life was not needed for immorality. Further (and again) how could man have been threatened by death as punishment if he had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge and thus could not know of death as he was innocent? (and no I do not see how you have addressed this on point logically and/or congruently - see below**).
neologist wrote:
Adam and Eve both knew what death was because Adam had been around long enough to name the animals and observe that animals did, in fact, die.
Where is your scriptural "proof" that "Adam knew what death was" in any sense of the word let alone the moral sense? It's insignificant that he observed "that animals did, in fact, die." Why? Because I might observe that a gasoline engine does in fact run; but does that in any way infer I understand a gasoline engine and it's implications? Nope not even a little!
neologist wrote:
As for whether they would overfill the earth, I refer you to my response to CI, above.
And I refer you to your assertion that "they had the prospect of living forever" and my counter that "prior to sin by default they were de facto immortals."

Also when you say
neologist wrote:
BTW, it was not the tree of knowledge like the 'tree of education', it was the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
**You are then saying that death does not fall under the category of knowledge of good and bad, I dispute this wholeheartedly. It would be absurd to consider that the implications of death do not have moral value.

Neo, where is the logic and/or congruency?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 04:49 am
hephzibah wrote:
I guess I shouldn't JUST joke around. On a more serious note Chai I do understand how utterly ridiculous all of this would sound to someone who views the bible as nothing more than a story or myth of some sort. But... what if it's not? Have you ever wondered that yourself? I do. A lot. Not because I'm afraid of going to hell, but maybe... just maybe... because I would like to believe there is more to life than just living and dying. That there is a greater love out there than we see when we just look at the cold world that surrounds us. That suffering isn't always in vain. That even in my darkest hour when I feel the most alone I've ever felt there's still a hope of something better to carry me through it. Maybe believing that makes me a fool in some peoples eyes. I can understand why it would. But it makes me happy. So if I have to be called a fool by a few people in this life to believe something that makes me happy... then so be it. *shrugs*



Understanding the bible or many other religious texts it not to be taken literally does not take away from the message.

There was no A&E specifically, or tree of life, etc.....it is meant to show that at some point in time mankind was endowed with a soul and understood the difference between right and wrong.

Some may disagree with the soul part, I'm fine with that.

I do not believe in original sin, I think it's a concept that was thought up so people who held the "right" belief towed the line.

I believe in being good for goodness sake. witch to me is a form of my worship to my creator.

The more I read and learn about the cosmos, the more I am in awe of my creator. It certainly leaves a tree and a snake in the dust.

you don't have to believe in the litereral interpretation to not live in some meaningless void.

but hey, whatever floats your boat.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 04:57 am
big of ye
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 06:54 am
Chai Tea wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
I guess I shouldn't JUST joke around. On a more serious note Chai I do understand how utterly ridiculous all of this would sound to someone who views the bible as nothing more than a story or myth of some sort. But... what if it's not? Have you ever wondered that yourself? I do. A lot. Not because I'm afraid of going to hell, but maybe... just maybe... because I would like to believe there is more to life than just living and dying. That there is a greater love out there than we see when we just look at the cold world that surrounds us. That suffering isn't always in vain. That even in my darkest hour when I feel the most alone I've ever felt there's still a hope of something better to carry me through it. Maybe believing that makes me a fool in some peoples eyes. I can understand why it would. But it makes me happy. So if I have to be called a fool by a few people in this life to believe something that makes me happy... then so be it. *shrugs*



Understanding the bible or many other religious texts it not to be taken literally does not take away from the message.

There was no A&E specifically, or tree of life, etc.....it is meant to show that at some point in time mankind was endowed with a soul and understood the difference between right and wrong.

Some may disagree with the soul part, I'm fine with that.

I do not believe in original sin, I think it's a concept that was thought up so people who held the "right" belief towed the line.

I believe in being good for goodness sake. witch to me is a form of my worship to my creator.

The more I read and learn about the cosmos, the more I am in awe of my creator. It certainly leaves a tree and a snake in the dust.

you don't have to believe in the litereral interpretation to not live in some meaningless void.

but hey, whatever floats your boat.


And that's all fine Chai. What you believe is what you believe and I'm not out to pound you or anyone else over the head with my bible. I think that does more damage than good. I didn't mean that people who don't believe in the literal interpretation do live in some sort of void. That's not my business, nor is there anything I can do about how others feel. I just know how I feel and I have my reasons for believing what I believe. They go way deeper than any words written, translated 100 times over and over, and twisted by the majority of preachers out there. Just as I am sure you have your reasons for believing what you believe.

I see no harm in what I believe if I don't use it to hurt, manipulate, or try to control others. So what if people think it's nuts? I've heard quite a few things here that I think are rather bizarre and totally unsolidified. However, I respect those peoples right to an opinion enough to not get my panties all in a knot and call them ignorant just because they don't agree with me or what I believe. I figure (as I've said before) in the end when it's all said we will see what it true and what isn't. If I was right... great, awesome, wonderful! If I wasn't... Well... I have really lost nothing. I didn't waste my life brow beating others for not believing what I do. I spent it following what I believed whole heartedly and doing my best to be a good person. That is really what counts.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 07:19 am
I don't have any problem with what you believe either hep....that wasn't a call to an arguement.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 08:47 am
I know it wasn't Chai. I wasn't trying to argue. Smile
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 09:51 am
I have to be away for a while, but I did bookmark this spot.

Chumly, let's take just one thing:

Before Adam and Eve sinned they had the prospect of living forever except for one test. They would not have been immortal because there was the very real possibility of not passing the test.

Were they to have passed the test to God's satisfaction, they would have eliminated the one obstacle to immortality. Exactly how and when the tree of life would have been made available to them is not explained.

I really don't see how your contrived erudition can change this simple fact. (According to the Bible, that is.)
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 10:05 am
Chumly wrote:
Hi heph,

It's irrelative where the concepts came from, the point in fact is whether there is logic and/or congruency, that's the charm of critical thinking. It's something I challenge you to demonstrate thusly:

If there was human death prior to original sin, then how could it be as Neo says the "punishment for their sin was/is death" if death was already a given?


It could be because the "death" that was being talked about was not physical but spiritual. ie... separation from God. They were in the garden, in His presence, they disobeyed and were kicked out of the garden, away from His presence. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand Chumly.

Quote:
Plus how could man have been threatened by death as punishment if he had not yet eaten from the tree of knowledge and thus could not know of death, as he was innocent?


Once again... they were NOT threatened. They were told. Just like me saying... Hey Chum... if you walk out in the road during rush hour you are going to get hit by a car. I'm not threatening to push you in the road. I am merely giving you a piece of advice.

Now... I have a question for you. Do you actually READ what I write or do you just see what is convenient for your own theories and purposes?

Quote:
If there was not human death prior to original sin then man was immortal prior to original sin and thus the tree of life was not needed for immorality.

Therefore it must be that prior to original sin man was immortal!


This isn't even an issue because there WAS death before the original sin according to the bible... which I will remind you again is where this whole concept came from.

Quote:
I then ask, if there was human reproduction pre-"original sin" then the world would very quickly have been wholly overrun run with people. Here's an example of uncontrolled growth
Quote:
The mathematics of uncontrolled growth are frightening. A single cell of the bacterium E. coli would, under ideal circumstances, divide every twenty minutes. That is not particularly disturbing until you think about it, but the fact is that bacteria multiply geometrically: one becomes two, two become four, four become eight, and so on. In this way it can be shown that in a single day, one cell of E. coli could produce a super-colony equal in size and weight to the entire planet Earth.


http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math100/notes/zoo/andromed.html


This is poppycock... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
EpiNirvana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 11:05 am
God already knew that were to fail so he probaly didnt make it to logical, they wouldnt have had enough time to find out if they would die or not.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 11:07 am
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Calling something "poppycock" doesn't explain why.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 11:22 am
Why? Because it is total speculation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 11:54 am
What part of exponential growth is speculation?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 12:15 pm
Is death rate being taken into account?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 12:44 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Calling something "poppycock" doesn't explain why.


No need to explain why since that aspect of his post was unnecessary. So instead I just called it poppycock. Just silly theorizing on Chumly's part. That's all it boils down to.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 12:51 pm
hephzibah wrote:
Now... I have a question for you. Do you actually READ what I write or do you just see what is convenient for your own theories and purposes?
I read! But you're not addressing my points in a logical and/or congruent fashion. If you read the dialogue I am having with Neologist and EpiNirvana you'll see a difference between those dialogues and our dialogues. That's what I'm hoping for with you.
cicerone imposter wrote:
What part of exponential growth is speculation?
Indeed, none that I know of!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 01:16 pm
neologist wrote:
Before Adam and Eve sinned they had the prospect of living forever except for one test. They would not have been immortal because there was the very real possibility of not passing the test.

Were they to have passed the test to God's satisfaction, they would have eliminated the one obstacle to immortality. Exactly how and when the tree of life would have been made available to them is not explained.
Either there was or was not human death prior to original sin. Which is it going to be (at least according to your interpretation)?

Please state your position:
- human death prior to original sin
- no human death prior to original sin

We'll go from there once you choose!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 02:03 pm
Point of interest:

From my perspective in reference to the biblical mythos in question, whether you take a literalist or interpretive stance, it still needs to "hang together" (logically and/or congruently).

OTOH this could well be a common failing of many/all religions.

OTOH the (arguably) religious belief of extraterrestrial seeding does not appear to have anywhere near the lack of logicality and/or congruency I note with the Christian equivalent.

Consider:
The biblical mythos in question presupposes life was brought into existence whole and complete.
0 Replies
 
EpiNirvana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 02:10 pm
I was talking to some one about this an they take it as Adam and Eve were Immortal with no death, They ate from the tree of life as soon as they were given life but even before eating the had no death. They lost there imortality from eating the other fruit.

This would equal out that they didnt instantly die, but still died in the end.
0 Replies
 
EpiNirvana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 02:13 pm
Maybe the tree wasnt form Adam and Eve...Maybe it was for the angels? Couldnt it be possible that only god could be immortal and that he has his own set of boundrys /laws? Maybe he needed the tree for his angels to achieve an eternal life?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 09:43 am
Chumly wrote:
Please state your position:
- human death prior to original sin
- no human death prior to original sin

We'll go from there once you choose!
If Adam and Eve were the first humans. then there certainly could not have been human death prior to their sin.

I am most interested in seeing where you will attempt to go with this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 01:18:45