|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Universal Moral Law & Devolution since the Fall | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Henry's wording in the quote you provide is interesting. He says Adam in the Garden could look forward to 'the continuance of life and happiness, even to immortality and everlasting bliss, through the grace and favour of his Maker, upon condition of his perseverance in this state of innocency and obedience.' His wording does not commit him to the idea of physical immortality on this earth. I don't read it that way. As long as they remained obedient they could count on immortality.
He seems to be suggesting that Adam and Eve could look forward to living forever with God in heaven (after physical death or a translation as with Enoch and Elijah) because of their innocence. I don't read it that way. Death entered the world with their sin; without the sin, no death. The wages of sin is death says the scripture. No sin, no death. Scripture is quite clear on the subject.
This idea finds support in what Henry says next: 'This Christ is now to us the tree of life.' Christians, as we know, do not expect physical immortality from their 'tree of life.' No, we don't expect to be delivered from death in this life, but we do expect to have a new body plus eternal life afterward.
They are mortal like anyone else. The life they anticipate is an eternal afterlife that takes the sting of their mortality away. Takes away the sting because of the anticipation of eternal life, but not the need to die before that comes about. And we will not be disembodied spirits but have new bodies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
we do expect to have a new body plus eternal life afterward.
That's why it's so hard for most people to let go of religeous belief. It's hard to give up (Phylosofiacally speaking) eternal life. No matter how unreasonable (and narcisistic) this expectation might be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I found it harder to let go of atheism myself; atheism is the easiest way to think. Took a while to understand the truth.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
fallacycop: That's why it's so hard for most people to let go of religeous belief. It's hard to give up (Phylosofiacally speaking) eternal life. Sorry to have to blow the whistle on the fallacy cop. You usually catch things like this. You are generalizing about all religions from the doctrines of one. The promise of an afterlife is not a necessary feature of religion. Many religions say little or nothing on the subject, including Judaism. What all religions share is not the promise of an afterlife, but the premise that our existence has meaning--and thus, a way our lives are most wisely lived. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
You are generalizing about all religions from the doctrines of one.
I think my statement came out sounding more general then I had intended it to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
atheism is the easiest way to think.
How so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Sorry, fallacycop. Discussion of atheism, atheist philosophy, or anything related to atheism is likely to be ruled so far off-topic in this thread as to be in the next country. If you want to avoid one of those really tacky, bright red "Off-Topic: Do Not Respond" signs, take this budding discussion to another thread.
BTW: No reflection on you personally - you just happened to be the most recent on the list. Any commentary, please take it to the appropriate thread linked in the signature. Da Judge Hath Spoken "Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oops, off topic.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Quetzal: Trees are a pretty common theme, AFAIK. The Germanic/Norse tribes had Yggdrasil, the World Tree that linked the nine planes. It also guarded three wells (Wisdom, Fate and Water - the latter being the source of all rivers). Would this be the World Ash associated with Odin? A tree makes an excellent symbol for life. In one image you invoke the branching and spreading of generations, the tracing back to common roots, the need for ongoing nutrition and sustenance, the strength of the whole. The discovery of evolution has added new layers of meaning to the picture. Then you have that idea of a pillar--a column connecting earth to heaven. You catch this same meaning with a tree in the same way you do with a tower, a mountain, staircase, a column of smoke, a ladder, a totem pole, or--for that matter--a cross.
Finally, it even had resident snakes (sometimes described as dragons) which gnawed at its roots. The most important of these serpents was Nihggr - who is variously held to be the harbinger of Ragnarok, an eater of the dead, or a poisoner of the world. Some interesting parallels, no? Very interesting indeed. Putting a serpent around a pillar makes for a formidably complex picture, too. It's a disquieting image but not necessarily an ill omen. In medicine we associate the picture with healing. Christians often associate it with Satan, but it's interesting that Christ used the same image to refer to himself (John 3.13). . Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
phat: Death brings out the humility in people. And it concentrates the mind wonderfully. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
He wasn't worried about their being immortal before they disobeyed, immortality was freely given to them as obedient creatures; after they disobeyed God wanted to protect them from being forever disobedient and alienated from Himself, which would have made salvation through Christ impossible.
it doesn't say that though it says, they knew good and evil, if they know good and evil the next step is immortality, it says it right there in 3:23it seems pretty darn clear to me that god didn't want them to be immortal i just thought of this, if the earth is only a few days old, when were adam and eve immortal? god gives them long life, but doesn't make them immortal, maybe he set the angels to keep them out so they cant' get to the tree to eat the fruit nessasary to become immortal it may not be new but i've never really seen anyone talk about this, but maybe i just missed it this still sounds just like any other myth i've ever read it works just like greek myths as just-so stories greek myths don't resemble the A&E story but the structure is just the same
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
If every single story is a myth, that would suggest that humans are the only source of wisdom and guidance unto themselves.
To believe in a story as other than a myth is to believe that human reality is in contact with wisdom that is not human. (or is superhuman, or beyond mere human) What do you think, DG? Do you think that it is possible that moral law transcends human fallibility? Why would humans invent a story about a standard that we never could reach? Why does the solution involve God pulling us out of the fire at the moment of our surrender to helplessness?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
4. Spina bifida in Neolithic England. The barrows around Stonehenge and similar Neolithic religious monuments are dated to around 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thus they should have around half of the degradation we have. Note that creationists generally agree with those dates, since we have roman and other records showing that refer to them as past civilizations. The bodies in the barrows have a hig proportion of Spina Bifida (a birth defect). If there has been degradation since the fall, then ancient birth defects should be much lower, not much higher. Isn't Spina Bifida caused by a nutritional deficiency during gestation? That is why pregnant women hawk down the folic acid. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes: Death entered the world with their sin; without the sin, no death. I'm not following the logic here. If Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life to maintain their immortality, what about the (other) animals? Weren't they immortal too? Wouldn't they all have had to eat from the tree of life? That seems like a lot to expect from one tree. And what about the animals outside the garden? When they were fruitful and multiplied and filled the earth, would there still be only one tree of life to sustain them all? Or would each one have to make a pilgrimage to the garden to eat his one-time immortality-fruit? Edited by Ringo, : Spelling. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5142 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
OK, the atheist discussion was off topic, but even without that we are getting off topic with an extended discussion of trees and how Jesus likened himself to a serpent.
Back on topic. This thread proposed two ideas, specifically that: 1. The God described by and the author of the Bible imprinted a universal moral law (UML) in the brains of everyone. And 2. Disobediance to this code has caused the gradual degradation of genome of humans and other animals and plants in the past 6,000 years. These two ideas are testable. For #1, if the UML was from a god associated with the Bible, then one would predict that the UML accurately reflects the content of the Bible. We’ve seen that this is not the case. The most important points of both the OT and the NT are not that we must be kind to other people, but rather that we must worship only the right God, and need Jesus to be saved from eternal torture. Whether one is nice or not has no bearing on the ultimate punishment or salvation, and is of secondary importance at best. Yes, proverbs and other places does say that if you are nice, people will like you more, and there are other places that say to be nice - but Christian theologian, including first and foremost Paul, have been clear over and over that it is faith, not works, that is important. But the UML says nothing about worshipping only Yahweh or that we need Jesus. Those ideas are absent from most cultures the world over. Saying that a UML was imprinted on all so they would follow what he wanted is like saying that God is sadistic, imprinting on everyone a moral code that doesn’t include the only things that will save them from Hell. Really, would a loving God imprint a UML that results in generous, kind, and loving people like Gandhi and Anne Frank going to Hell because they followed the UML that was imprinted by this God? So I don't understand why a Christian would claim some UML. It sounds like a Christian who does this is blaspheming the holy spirit. (Mk 3:29) OK, now for #2. In post #109, 7 pieces of evidence, all of which suggest that genomes aren’t degrading, were given. Since then the evidence from the iceman’s genes came up as well. Those seven were objected to in post #113, mostly by missing the point. These were answered in post #114. That’s were we stand on that point. The subsequent discussion of the iceman (Adam's son?) added #8. In addition, Faith has claimed that the ancient records of the Africans, Chinese and other races are all filled with exaggerations and are unreliable, but the ancient records of the Israelites are correct to the letter. Forgive me for thinking of racism when I hear that. Jazzin’s wrote:
quote: That’s partly correct - though there does appear to be a genetic basis. Here is what wikipedia says:
quote: Edited by Equinox, : added mention of the iceman discussion Edited by Equinox, : No reason given. -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024