|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why did they cover their nakedness? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Mantis,
Mantis writes: I've never actually heard it claimed that Adam and Eve didn't have gonads in the Garden, but I have heard it claimed that their gonads were non-functional, like a pre-pubescent child's. So, Adam and Eve were unable to reproduce until after the Fall. You ever thought about they did not even know they were naked. If they did not know they were naked they did not know they were different. Just a thought. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes: You ever thought about they did not even know they were naked. Yeah. But, I think everyone else has covered that one well enough that it didn't need to be repeated by me. -----
ICANT writes: If they did not know they were naked they did not know they were different. They'd have to be on some pretty spectacular drugs not to notice that there were differences, I think. But, you might be somewhat right: maybe they just associated the "differences" with the other personal traits that they used to distinguish one another. Who knows, really? I'm not married to a particular interpretation (forgive the pun). I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi bailey.
could you possibly put my name on the quote box's that are actually mine so i dont get confused lol speculating doesnt produce theology unless it becomes official teaching...thats not my purpose here i see we hold very different views on the account...but i do agree with you that we should definitely test and examine the scriptures. cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Adam should have held greater affection and loyalty to his Father. but instead he chose eve over God
im sure you'd agree that loyalty to God is the most important thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Mantis writes: basically, God set Eve up, and the serpent informed her of this, and she gave in to his temptation. And, after Eve took of the fruit, Adam knew he had to as well. wow, i've never actually looked at specific beliefs of the Mormons...thats surprising. I know you guys use the book of mormon and its obviously different to the bible account. Looking at the vs in Genesis, the only thing that you could deduct is that 1. they were not allowed to eat from the tree2. if they did, they would die “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.””Genesis 2:16, 17. it stands to reason that had they obeyed, they would not have died. therefore, life was dependent on obedience and loyalty to God...his continued blessing would be the reality, only if they obeyed his 1 command but it is interesting mantis, thanks for sharing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Peg writes(post 58)..
One thing we do know for sure is that if neither of them had fallen from Gods favor, then they would still be alive today as the original parents to all of us... and quite a few billion more people... and the whole earth would be a garden of eden. You do see a logical problem here?No death combined with unlimited reproduction?! Perhaps Rrhain will do a simple back of the envelope calculation for us..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
shalamabobbi writes: You do see a logical problem here?No death combined with unlimited reproduction?! im not sure that would be a problem the direction God gave to Adam was to 'fill' the earth' and subdue it.if i asked you to 'fill' my cup, im sure you wouldnt keep pouring something into it once it was filled. women do naturally go thru menopause... my guess is that this function is in place for a reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2879 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
women do naturally go thru menopause... my guess is that this function is in place for a reason. Well, leaving aside the idea that immortality implies no aging and/or degradation of the body, the problem still remains of the bodies of all progenitors remaining in the environment. At some point the process of having children has to stop. Is that fair for the late comers? They can't have families? They have to wait until menopause sets in to enjoy companionship?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
if i asked you to 'fill' my cup, im sure you wouldnt keep pouring something into it once it was filled. Unless the age menopause sets in is changed to around the same as puberty, it's irrelevant to the question. If nobody is dying and yet those in the fertile age range continue to reproduce, overpopulation will set in. Arguably, humans already are overpopulated, but immortality makes the issue exponentially worse. The only possible solutions would be to magically create more space/food/whatever (admittedly not beyond the powers of an omnipotent deity), leave Earth and support overflow population in space habitats/other worlds/etc, or simply turn off the ability to procreate at all. And of course the second option only postpones the problem. Given unlimited time and continued reproduction, the entire Universe wouldn't be large enough to support the human population. Only repeated magical Creation of new space or removal of the ability to procreate entirely would resolve the issue permanently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
shalamabobbi writes: At some point the process of having children has to stop. Is that fair for the late comers? They can't have families? They have to wait until menopause sets in to enjoy companionship? when and if this planet becomes full, who's to say that God will not create more planets for human habitation? The universe is always growing...its expanding as we speak so why should he stop at one if its within his power? Perhaps he has other plans? But i seriously doubt that it will be a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ravin writes: Arguably, humans already are overpopulated, but immortality makes the issue exponentially worse. The only possible solutions would be to magically create more space/food/whatever (admittedly not beyond the powers of an omnipotent deity), leave Earth and support overflow population in space habitats/other worlds/etc, or simply turn off the ability to procreate at all. And of course the second option only postpones the problem. Given unlimited time the earth is not really overpopulated. The problem is that we all group together in one place. Look at the small area of the Gaza strip...their is over a million palestinians living there, yet their is a vast landscape all around them uninhabited. Its the same all over the world. Its something like 5% of Australia is inhabited...the rest is empty there is more then enough room on this earth for everyone alive now and everyone who has ever lived if they spread out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
there is more then enough room on this earth for everyone alive now and everyone who has ever lived if they spread out. Is this just an assertion or do you have the data that suggests these people could not only have room but also not starve?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
well how big is the earth?
197,000,000 square miles in area. less the 71 percent which is water . thats a land surface of about 57,000,000 square miles or approx 36,000,000,000 acres. divide that by 6 billion odd inhabitants and they get at least 6 acres of land each. That's a hell of a lot of land to live on... land that has the ability to produce food under the right conditions. certainly not impossible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
divide that by 6 billion odd inhabitants and they get at least 6 acres of land each. That's a hell of a lot of land to live on... land that has the ability to produce food under the right conditions. That would work if all the land was capable of sustaining life, without having to alter the land to make it habitable or not having to rely on bringing in needed supplies at an alarming rate. I cannot see areas such as the the Himalayas, the Sahara, The arctic tundra or other mountainous, desert or tundral areas ever able to become fully habitable without drastic measures. The logistics of the matter would be virtually impossible to allow each person his "6 acres." There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi bluescat,
yeah i agree... it would be physically impossible with the way the world is now but we know that there have been times when the sahara desert was lush and green... it would take some drastic changes, but for a bible student, there is nothing impossible for God to do if he could create a life sustaining atmosphere, surely he can make adjustments to the climate of the world.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024