Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 61 of 208 (721755)
03-12-2014 12:13 AM


On belief, sin, etc.
You folks keep debating the fine points of theology in this thread without looking at the big picture--it's all made up!
Shamanism down through the ages has been a method for controlling people, and making a living without engaging in honest labor.
In the spectrum of makers, takers, and fakers, shamans have always had a firm grasp on the latter two. What easier con job than to make most everything sinful and then offer to intercede with the (invisible) offended deities--for a price.
I think Heinlein had it right:
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2014 10:22 AM Coyote has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 62 of 208 (721756)
03-12-2014 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by herebedragons
03-11-2014 12:10 PM


Re: three kinds of trees
herebedragons writes:
I believe you are a bit of a Hebrew scholar
armchair, at best.
In fact, my concordance says this phrase is actually "mut" + "mut".
well, מוֹת תָּמוּת, mot tamut. the double verb is two different tenses: the first, mot, is an infinitive. it's functioning as a noun. the second, tamut (or tamot? it might be mispointed) is an imperfect (masculine, singular) verb, which we generally translate as future tense. so it's actually a complete phrase: "you will die a death" or something that effect. hebrew infinitives and infinitive constructs don't work very well in english. it seems to be kind of poetic emphasis.
However, I see no indication by how the word is used elsewhere that this means anything but a literal, physical death - not a process of dying.
indeed. this concept would be utterly foreign to the torah, which does not treat the spiritual concerns as fundamentally different from the physical ones. the concept of a separate "soul" other than the thing that causes you breathe is simply not found at all in torah; only later texts in the bible. it is yahwehs own soul, his breath, that animates the dust (adamah) to create the man (ha'adam), and without each other either is meaningless. the "blessing" that the patriarchs are constantly fighting over is the tree of life -- more, physical, earthly life. and when yahweh takes the blessing away, he goes to kill his prophets and patriarchs. physical life was deeply spiritual to authors of the torah, particularly J, and you simply cannot divorce the two concepts.
In fact, there are several places where mut + mut is used throughout the OT and each time it gives the impression of a certainty that one would be killed, almost like a vow. What is your take on this and what is your understanding of how the word is used?
sounds about right, yes. i think it's meant to emphasize the certainty; that death is the pronouncement and the person making this claim is not screwing around. to make it mean something other than real, actual, physical death is to have missed the entire point of emphasizing it so strongly.
Also, I understand that the Hebrews viewed death as a separation - so physical death would be a separation of soul and body; spiritual death would be separation of God and man.
that's more of a christian thing, though it could have roots in the late second temple fringe elements of judaism. i'm not terribly familiar with that, but they believed some things more in like with early christianity's gnostic tendencies. suffice to say, the hebrew concept of death evolved dramatically over the course of the biblical period. particularly after contact with the greeks, when the hebrew sheol (a literal family grave) took on concepts more suited to hades, an underworld for the shades of the dead. the christian gospels are certainly working from an entirely different concept of "the grave" than, say, genesis.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2014 12:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 63 of 208 (721758)
03-12-2014 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by DevilsAdvocate
03-11-2014 8:42 PM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
I find this really laughable that I'm the one on this thread putting people down. Have you read your own posts or HBD's lately? I'm the stupid fundamentalist, remember? Your eruption about how "vacuous" I am and all the rest of it simply makes a bit more explicit your demeaning attitude all along. I'm the one who trusts in those who agree with me since I'm too stupid to have the ability to make rational judgments of my own; I'm the one who doesn't have the sense to grow with knowledge.
I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings but I have to suspect you must be rather thin-skinned if so, and certainly out of touch with the context of this debate and with the things you've said about me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-11-2014 8:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2014 12:50 AM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 64 of 208 (721759)
03-12-2014 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by DevilsAdvocate
03-11-2014 12:56 AM


hi DA,
i don't really know enough greek to be able to make an argument here, but:
If you look at the literal Greek translation it says:
"because of this as by one man sin into the world entered and by sin death also thus to all men death passed"
interlineal translations are often clunky and awkward, and not necessarily good ways to make arguments. i know the hebrew ones are especially bad, partly because the language reads RTL, and partly because, well, even literal translations have to fudge the grammar a little bit because english grammar is not hebrew grammar. and it's not greek grammar, either. but i'm mainly commenting because of this:
The word for death here means physical or spiritual death. From Strong's concordance: "separation from the life (salvation) of God forever by dying without first experiencing death to self to receive His gift of salvation".
i would strongly advise you against using a source like blueletterbible in this way.
what you're looking at is not strong's concordance. a concordance is merely a listing of all places a root word appears in a text. even that's a little flawed, because it tends to list many things that should be one root as separate, and then sometimes combines homonyms.
but what you're looking at is a bible dictionary. and those are notoriously suspect. BLB uses gesenius (not the updated brown driver briggs, which is generally considered the better source), and then layers on top of that their own "easy to understand" dictionary with a fundamentalist evangelical bent. there's no particular reason you should take their definitions (or anyone elses!) for particularly controversial, dogmatic concepts for granted. they are probably operating from some kind of bias.
a better way would be actually use the concordance, and look at how a word is used in context in other places in the bible. does any other use support a purported definition? granted, the best way to do this is with knowledge of the grammar (words can mean very different things used differently) but if most other examples plainly mean one thing, and only one special case means the hotly debated dogmatic thing, it's a pretty solid indication of what the meaning actually is.
Edited by arachnophilia, : words words words

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-11-2014 12:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 208 (721760)
03-12-2014 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate
03-11-2014 9:39 PM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
Your snarky attitude, which apparently you are wholly unaware of, is absolutely out of line here. I had gone in search of some teachers I thought might share my point of view and found they didn't and posted that information quite honestly. You seem to have little understanding of the meaning of Christian charity, speaking of a failure of Christian behavior. Of course you only see your opponent's failures, never your own, that log in your own eye. Go back in this discussion to eh earlier thread too, you've been calling me names all along as if it's right when you do it.
If I lose credibility for calling you a liberal but you don't when you call me a Pharisee and everything else you've called me, that has nothing to do with me but with your status at EvC as pro evolution. Period.
\
In any case, the fact that I didn't find support for what I thought doesn't mean I can't find others of equal importance who do agree with me if I look more.
And your own chart has eight out of twelve agreeing with me among the early church fathers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-11-2014 9:39 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-12-2014 6:07 AM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 66 of 208 (721761)
03-12-2014 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
03-12-2014 12:40 AM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
Faith writes:
I'm the one who trusts in those who agree with me since I'm too stupid to have the ability to make rational judgments of my own; I'm the one who doesn't have the sense to grow with knowledge.
don't worry faith, i have faith in you.
but i asked you to make a rational judgment earlier in this thread, and you never replied.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 12:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 1:49 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 208 (721764)
03-12-2014 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by DevilsAdvocate
03-11-2014 10:03 PM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
The wages of sin is death" seems conclusive all by itself. Death has no other reason for existing than human sin.
One other factor you haven't thought of faith. God is outside of time is he not? Therefore he could put in place something even such as death even before the first sin by man occurred (of course this is not the very first sin, sense Satan committed the first sin by rebelling against God) and yet still be true to the fact that through sin, death entered into the world. Not saying this interpretation is correct, per se. Just giving food for thought.
God speaks to us in our weakness and finiteness and does not lie. I find the scriptures I've quoted completely convincing, as I keep saying, that death entered the world with the Fall.
All creatures that experience death are therefore the victims of human sin.
Why? Life and death are natural processes. In fact, life on this planet cannot exist without death. Without death, the equilibrium of life is thrown off balance. Bacteria would quickly outnumber and push out any other organism on the planet. If you restrict it to animals, some animals reproduce faster than others resulting an overpopulation of a few organisms which would prevent other animals from reproducing. Just saying there are a lot of factors here to think about.
I drew my conclusion that "All creatures that experience death are therefore the victims of human sin" from "the wages of sin is death." While one could make this seem to mean that sin is just ONE cause of death I read it as definitive of death. There is no other reason why there should be death in this world.
All the "other factors" you are talking about come from present experience of this present world. You have NO idea what the situation was like before the Fall, but there is every reason to believe that things were VERY different for all creatures. You make the mistake of taking this fallen world for the one God originally created.
To say that all this only applies to human beings is to imply that the death of animals could be part of a good Creation.
Why not? Animals do not have souls do they? So why would death be an issue? Just asking.
I thought I was pretty clear. They suffer, that's enough for me.
The idea of death before the Fall to any creature capable of suffering utterly contradicts a good Creation.
I think this is a warped view of Christianity. Christians must suffer for Christ to be with God but that is not considered evil or bad.
Suffering HURTS. The fact that an ultimate good can be produced through it under some circumstances does not make it GOOD. Christ sweat blood in the Garden anticipating the suffering He was going to be put through (yes, the loss of communion with God, or spiritual suffering, was no doubt what He feared). His suffering is not to be dismissed as trivial just because it led to a supreme good. And what is the good brought about by the suffering of animals? It's a necessity in the fallen world so it must serve some good, but in itself it's just a horrible misery for the poor creatures. And we know that, don't we? Don't we shoot horses we can't heal? And we put others out of their misery as fast as possible because we DO know that suffering hurts.
Through suffering, God brings joy. Joy really makes no sense without suffering or pain. The same thing with the rest of creation. There is no happiness without sadness, no joy without pain, no life without death. Its a duality.
Then you are going to be really disappointed with the new heavens and new earth where there will no longer be any kind of suffering.
Oh I don't deny that God does bring joy out of suffering in this present fallen world, but that does not make the suffering in itself good.
Have you ever seen a pet die?
No Faith, I have never seen an animal die?!? Yes, I have seen pets and loved ones die. Not all die in pain and suffering and even if they do, is that evil?
I've made the standard clear. Yes.
Yet, you talk about plants and other animals dying before the Fall but say nothing about them. Do fish feel pain? Other animals? I think to a certain degree they do.
The only creatures I've agreed with YOU ALL that might have died before the Fall were microbes and insects and that sort of thing. Otherwise I have NOT said any such thing. I am not even sure ANY creatures died before the Fall at all, but if any did it would no doubt have been the microbes and insects.
And no, I do not believe that plants experience pain. Insects and worms etc. I don't know but I also don't care. Microbes, no.
All I ever said about sea creatures was that they couldn't have been saved on the ark, I certainly never said they died before the Fall. And obviously some of them survived the Flood in the water.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : substitute "and" for "but."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-11-2014 10:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 208 (721767)
03-12-2014 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by DevilsAdvocate
03-11-2014 10:16 PM


It is how you talk to people.
Perhaps you are right and I should try to tone it down if I can catch myself at it. But I DO despise the liberal Christian point of view and you may be taking personally what is aimed against that point of view. By the liberal point of view I mean the attempt to make the Bible conform to modern science, often by subtly changing the meaning of the text while keeping the literal words intact (not that I remember you doing this). That's basically what J Gresham Machen was saying in his "Christianity and Liberalism" which I linked on the other thread.
By the way, here is the post on the other thread where I linked and quoted Machen.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : remove wrong punctuation
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : add Machen post link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-11-2014 10:16 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 208 (721769)
03-12-2014 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by arachnophilia
03-12-2014 12:50 AM


Tree of life
I thought I said that I don't know why the tree of life was put in the Garden except for the reasons given by various commentators. I don't know why you keep making an issue of this. As far as I can see it doesn't relate to the topic under discussion. But if you have a theory of your own I'd be interested in what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2014 12:50 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 03-14-2014 6:23 PM Faith has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 70 of 208 (721778)
03-12-2014 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
03-12-2014 12:49 AM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
And your own chart has eight out of twelve agreeing with me among the early church fathers.
I was indicating that there was disagreement with early Church fathers on their interpretation of Genesis. 8 out of 12 is still not conclusive with your statement that all orthodox theologians agree with you.
As far as the snarky comments. You are correct, that when mud slinging comes into play, I have a hard time backing away and just letting accusations fly without responding. Every time I have remarked about your behavior, it was in retaliation for the comments you have made to me and others on this board. I will refrain from doing this any longer. The mistake I made is, I should have done it privately instead of publicly and apologize for this.
Have at it. I will make no further comments about your behavior on this board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 12:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 9:46 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 208 (721789)
03-12-2014 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by DevilsAdvocate
03-12-2014 6:07 AM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
This discussion started back on the thread about the Arizona law which I'd conjectured might have been designed to allow Christians freedom of conscience not to do anything to support gay marriage, and I'd been called a bigot already, and then you chimed in with the same theme because of your hatred of my brand of Christianity, which is the attitude of "liberal Christianity" in general.
That basic attitude simply spilled over into this other topic about death as the result of or pre-existing the Fall, where you continue your attitude of self righteous disdain for the traditional position. Some Christian yourself, DA, but you accuse ME of what YOU are doing.
You side against another Christian on the board, with some pretty excoriating accusations, accumulating all kinds of cheers from the antiChristians here, and then you get all upset if I let you know how much I hate YOUR point of view.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : punctuation,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-12-2014 6:07 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-12-2014 9:56 AM Faith has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 72 of 208 (721790)
03-12-2014 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
03-12-2014 9:46 AM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
and then you chimed in with the same theme because of your hatred of my brand of Christianity,
I do not have a hatred for your "brand" of Christianity. Whatever that is. Nor did I call you a bigot. I commented on your behavior, that is it. If you want to read more into this. So be it.
attitude of self righteous disdain for the traditional position
Far from the truth. And I disagree that this is a traditional position as I already showed you that some of the early Church fathers disagree with your position.
You side against another Christian on the board, with some pretty excoriating accusations, accumulating all kinds of cheers from the antiChristians here, and then you get all upset if I let you know how much I hate YOUR point of view.
Who are you talking about? Yes, my views in EvC have changed. I did go through a time where I was less supporting of Christianity than I am now. If you want to bring up the past so be it.
Should I pull up all your previous comments to other members of this board for the past 10+ years? I am sure there can be blaimed laid around. As I said, I am done with this and ready to move on. If not, do what you do best, Faith, divert attention from the evidence.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are. - C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 9:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 10:06 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 73 of 208 (721791)
03-12-2014 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by DevilsAdvocate
03-12-2014 9:56 AM


Re: ALL Creation is subject to death because of the Fall
I was only talking about where this started on the previous thread. I'm supposed to be polite to you after the things you said to and about me there. And nevertheless I don't think I WASN'T polite.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-12-2014 9:56 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 208 (721792)
03-12-2014 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by arachnophilia
03-12-2014 12:13 AM


Re: three kinds of trees
but it makes zero sense to give them a magical tree that is clearly special in its gifts... of absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
Sure. That's how we know Faith is wrong. If man was already living forever without any death, then eating from the powerful and forbidden Tree of Life wouldn't do anything at all. And that's just stupid.
That's why she and her commentators don't have an answer, because there isn't one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 03-12-2014 12:13 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 208 (721793)
03-12-2014 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
03-12-2014 12:13 AM


Re: On belief, sin, etc.
You folks keep debating the fine points of theology in this thread without looking at the big picture--it's all made up!
Hey, don't hate.
If you start a thread on Star Wars then I'd talk to you about that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2014 12:13 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2014 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024