The Universal Moral Law & Devolution since the Fall

Where do you come up with this stuff? Paul was "well known for playing fast and loose with the facts"? Totally empty assertion.Let's assume that you're right about God kicking Adam and Eve out to bar them from the tree of life. What about the rest of the punishment? The serpent is cursed above all livestock and cursed to crawl on its bellyThe woman is given increased pain in childbirth and given to the rule of her husbandThe man is cursed to sweat for his food amid thorns, thistles, and painful toil.And man is guaranteed to return to dust (to die)If they were incapable of sin, Why was God punishing them? Since it's God punishing them, the clear inference is that they sinned. Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.

Not at all. I am looking at the plain reading of the text.There is nothing in the text that suggests there was no death at any time in the history of the world. There is nothing in the text that suggests a "fall".Rather, eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil made Adam and Eve more like God. That's what the text says.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

On the contrary, that there was no death pre-fall is indicated by the fact that death was a result OF the fall.It is the assertion that there was death pre-fall that is scripturally un-supported

Interesting that you don't provide any scripture to back up that assertion. But we're getting off topic here, aren't we?I can never get any "fallist" to actually substantiate "the fall" from a scriptural viewpoint. How about opening a topic dedicated to that proposition?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Pain would be the result of me banging my head against the wall, does this mean there was no pain in the world prior to this? Where is is explicitly mentioned that there was NO death before the fall?

All right, I'll be gone for a while but late tonight or tomorrow I'll start that thread..

I get it from reading a book. It is called the Bible, maybe you've heard of it.A classic example of Paul the spinmeister was the tale of the "Unknown God" where Paul appropriated a convenient local temple and custom as part of his sales pitch. Well first, it is not an issue of my being right or not, it is what the Bible actually says. The rest of the curse is a "Just So Story". It explains "How things came to be". It explains why snakes crawl and don't have legs (something most unusual since all other critters did have legs), why childbirth seems more difficult for women than it does for the beasts of the field, why humans farm instead of simply being foragers and why people fear snakes.Pretty straight forward. Plot device. If God was really punishing them it would make God cruel and unreasoning.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, the Bible states that pain was INCREASED in childbirth as a result of Eve's disobedience. The implication is that there was pain before but much less..Similarly for Adam, Adam' toil became painful as a result of the Fall
Working the ground became hard, painful. It is not explicitly mentioned that there was no death before the fall. It is explicitly mentioned that death entered the world through one man (the implication being Adam)If death entered the world through Adam, then there logically was no death before Adam.Otherwise how could death have entered the world through Adam? It would've already been there...

I don't know what text you are talking about, but if there was no death prior to the so called 'fall', then the warning would have no meaning.For the warning 'that day you will die' to have any impact or meaning, death had to exist, and had to be known.

sorry, hit wrong button.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

see this is why i think genesis is just a just-so story and just answers why we have the things we do and its a mythical story to answer questions
why would the pain be increased in childbirth for eve? she hasn't had children yet! what would be the point of this? if someone told me they would increase the pain when i stab myself with a pointed stick why would i think thats terrible when i never stabbed myself with a stick yet? why would adam care? he never had to do this before right? its just an answer to people with the ability to know how tough working can be, its worthless to adam yes by paul, taken out of context, i'm thinking 'death' is murder and he means cain killing abel rather than 'death' as in people dying only if you want the whole, "i'll kill you if you eat this fruit" thing meaningless, since how would adam and eve know what death was before the fall? the logic should be, eather paul was using the word death to mean something to do with the spirit or meaning murder or man is just by nature violent and from day one man was violenti think saying man was imortal or something is doing some fine logic bending but why should that be the answer?

It's not out of context, Adam's sin IS the context:

quote:

---

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses {not from Cain to Moses}, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

---

The whole passage is about how death, condemnation, judgment, and all humanity's being made sinners came through one man's offense or transgression, "the transgression of Adam." It's perfectly consistent with scripture which clearly says that death ENTERED the world with Adam. You are putting your own logic against what scripture actually says. It SAYS sin and death came through Adam, and you weren't there so you don't know what Adam knew or didn't know -- he had an inside track to the mind of God before he fell, and you don't, so you should believe what the scripture says and give up forcing it to mean what you want it to mean -- you, and Ramoss and jar and Ringo and whoever else is making such obviously false claims.Here's another verse saying it was through Adam that death came:

quote:

---

1Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

---

Does it matter to any of you that this is standard traditional Christian theology through the ages? It's even one of the scripture lines Handel put in his
"Messiah" in the 18th century. Scroll down to 46. Chorus. But I guess you all don't mind putting yourselves above the sages of Christian history.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No.Do we have to remind you of slavery and geocentrism in every thread? The one thing that's consistent about traditional Christian theology is that it's consistently fallible.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

yes and paul means what to me? i could care less about what paul says, and even so, this is his opinion on where sin came from, like i said he's making the point that from day one humans had death, ie: immortality was not part of it, i was thinking about death equaling murder but paul is just stating that he believes death is just part of what makes us human
i find it amusing that you use paul to argue your stance, its in the bible, so that must mean everything ever put in the bible is right then, being that this is just paul talking i don't have to agree with him at all do i? faith this is wrong by far, you believe this so it must be true, this doesn't make it true. the authors of genesis and generations of jews don't believe this. only after christ do you start seeing this nonsense oh yes because a person who has never felt the toil of the earth would know how much worse he would have it after god curses him to make toiling the earth worse. faith, does that make sense to you? does making something harder that someone never did before mean anything at all? the hypocracy is getting deep here faith, PAUL says this, genesis does not PAUL is giving his opinon and beliefs about how we have sin and half the stuff you believe isn't even from paul its from luther and calvin
nor were you there, so what difference does it make, neather was the author, or paul or the transcribers
faith, why would god make a tree of good and evil if adam had insight into those things already? why would go punish him if the tree was meaningless in the first place?
i'm reading it as it should be read, by itself! i'm not reading paul to answer the things in genesis anymore than i would read genesis to read paul!
gensis reads like a story to explain things about life, why man has to toil why woman die or have pain, just like greek myths and egyptian ones
i'm reading whats there, you on the other hand have to use another text it seems to suport your beliefs and one thats someones opotion at that, i mean if you don't read paul or anything after the gospels does the fall work? the fall only shows up after the gospels yes and so what? i don't really find anything paul says important beyond what people believed, but without paul theres not much to christianity is there? well just the parts about loving each other and god and jesus trying to show us the right way to live and save us from sin i'm not really moved by the argument of some 18th century music. i would rather go with the authors of genesis than some christian father who wants to premote this idea of original sin. i think its ironic that you don't consider what scientists say is fact, relevent, but you consider the 'sages of christian history' right even though both groups are humans. this is a bit mind-boggling really considering.i don't trust the so-called 'sages' for the very much the same reasons you don't trust science, you don't feel they are telling the truth, no matter the evidence , but i don't trust the priests because they aren't telling the truth via the evidence,being that propaganda is a good tool, like telling people that historians agreed with the fathers about things, when found later to be untrue.being exulted by people doesn't make you a better person, being a better person makes you a better person faith

No, not at all. What you have shown is that Paul, who can be shown to be a spinmeister and to take things out of context used that interpretation in his sales pitch.But...if you go back and actually read Genesis it simply is not there.Paul may well be pulling his interpretation from Enoch, or First Adam & Eve or even some other scripture that never made it into the Western Canon, but the Garden of Eden tale that made it into Genesis simply does not say that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion