The Universal Moral Law & Devolution since the Fall

no "The Fall" has nothing to do with original sin, nor is the claim that the world was perfect even biblical. do i have to keep repeating that god said the unverse was "good" in his eyes?
we say "good job" when someone does a pleasing job, we don't say perfect jobevidence in genesis or anywhere before paul that man was born into sin? that adam's sin condemms him? i am using the kjv and niv, you must be using the fundie bible then? no, the reason god kicked them out if you read it, is because he was afraid of them eating from the tree of life and becoming immortal and as gods they got kicked out from gods fear of them living forever!
read the text!
they transgressed if anything from gods fear of them moving beyond his control too fast, he didn't want them to have free will until he said soI think I've made my point.
the only point you made was you don't read the bible you read some guys book or absorb someones sermon but don't really read the bible

no i was saying that when people use the term "the fall" they are saying original sin instead of saying "the fall" caused original sin, the fall is an event its not a condition, but people use the term to mean original sin when they say the fall
you use it both ways, when according to how the authors were using this story, it was explaining why god is not with us anymore on the earth.namely adam disobeyed god, so it left a disjunction that people try to fix by following the laws written down by moses
fundies on the other hand say somehow adams sin causes everyone to be born in a doom nature by default even though the only evidence is paul and some church fathers adding on to his workwhere in genesis does god say "Adam your decendents will forever be cursed with being born in sin"?
its not part of the fall at least from genesis this sums it nicely i thinkEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

What is the relationship between the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Really there is little difference. The original sin was also an event. The Fall is another way of describing it. Fallenness is also a condition, the condition of the sin nature, built-in original sin. Paul is canonical same as Genesis, so that should be no surprise, and the church fathers interpreted Paul, not always rightly but mostly in the ballpark. That is, for instance, original sin has nothing to do with sex as Augustine apparently construed it at one point. The New Testament is the interpreter of the Old, that's how we read it, argue as you will with it.But when God says "I am a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers unto the third and fourth generations of those who hate me" that's another clue to the inherited nature of sin. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Deuteronomy 5:9 I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me,Deut. 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sinThis disagreement between Faith and RevDG, both quoting the Bible (even the same book-Dt), makes it clear to me that the Bible at best unclear and at worst outright contradictory. Either way it appears to be a poor choice of someting to base one's life on.

What's the problem? God said HE visits the sins to the children, not that WE should.

However reading the Biblical story that supposedly documents the event there is no sign of either a Fall or Original Sin. Paul is included in SOME Canon but not All Canon. In addition, Paul is stating an opinion which is NOT supported by the Genesis story. It could be supported if he was refering to either the Book of Enoch or First Adam & Eve which were also very popular at the time, or to one of the other scriptures floating around during the period, perhaps even some unknown work. Unfortunately neither book made it into the Canon that you claim to be authoritative and we do not know what he was referencing other than the Genesis Garden of Eden story and as shown, that does not support his assertion. That shows only that there is NOT such a thing as Original Sin where today's generation is held accountable for the sins of Adam.The problem Faith is that a literal reading of the Bible does NOT support either the concept of a Fall or Original Sin. To make that claim you must throw out Genesis.Are you ready to throw out what is said in Genesis?If not, will you show us where the support for Paul's assertion comes from?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, so I provide evidence that allows us to empirically test the idea that there has been a genetic degradation since the fall, and it is disregarded with a wave of poor objections at best, and no objection for most of it? Let’s review the evidence:1. Neanderthal DNA - objection was that Neanderthals were recent, denying evidence from biology, anthropology, physics, geology, and other fields. Another was that only 0.03% of the genome has been sequenced, apparently confusing “sequenced” with “studied”. Even if only 0.03% had been studied, we’d be able to see a lot from that due to sampling (that’s still a million base pairs). Neither of the two objections stands up to examination.2. DNA from ancient animals, such as insects in amber - Met with a demand for detailed evidence - to see the DNA, which is a red herring. If there had been the degradation Faith says is there, it would be like lunar scientists missing the fact that there are craters on the moon.3. The very common fact of disease in the fossil record. Faith said that she thought the fossil skeletons didn’t have disease, which like thinking that the Romans didn’t have writing (tons of examples in either case). When I corrected this point and even provided an article describing a whole class based on the many diseases found this way, it was ignored.4. Spina Bifida in skeletons from tombs that everyone agrees date to at most a few centuries after the flood - this was explained by shifting the goal posts from the idea that “Genomes have degraded after the flood” to “genomes degraded, but some lineages degraded very rapidly, nearly instantaneously”. With that, can’t any evidence, from any source, of ancient degradation be chalked up as a “fast degenerating lineage”? If that’s what all of my evidence will be met with, then why bother? And more importantly, then is Faith’s request for evidence an honest one?5. Human age at death from fossils - This was responded to, like #3, with a simple falsehood - that we only have a few human fossils, when in fact, we have hundreds. After that was corrected, this point was ignored like most of the list.6. DNA from wooly mammoths - responded to with a vague “they haven’t made much progress”. They haven’t tried to breed a mammoth yet, it’s not like they tried and failed. More to the point, I believe they are making quite a bit of progress in examining the DNA, and would know by now it were radically different. As usual, it was ignored after that.7. Dendrochronology - no answer other than it “has been discussed here at EvC”. I did search here, no hits, so it probably has been the usual creationist responses to DC, which are a. the post flood world was radically different, with multiple seasons, making more rings, b. multiple rings happen (ignores the fact that they are rare and easy to detect and remove, plus this doesn’t come close to compressing a 10,000 ring record into 4,500 years), or c. trees grew differently then, making many normal rings under the same conditions they make one ring now (ignores that rings are caused by the seasons). So this one doesn’t have a good response either.
So out of those, they give clear evidence that there hasn’t been some kind of degradation.The mention of the records of ancient cultures were dismissed as exaggerated, and followed up with a claim that the Hebrew records are perfect because they are in the Bible. Wonders never cease.I mentioned the iceman, and on more thought, he’s another good source of evidence.The iceman is an interesting data point in this discussion. He’s from around 5350 years ago (date established by a variety of dating methods and confirmed by dendrochronology), putting him only about 650 years after Adam’s creation. Adam lived to 930. Thus, he could have known Adam - hell, he could BE Adam! If not, then he could easily be a son or grandson of Adam with the long lifespans reported in Genesis.We’ve obtained DNA from the iceman, and studied it. If it had the proposed hypergenome, then that would have been obvious. It didn’t - it was like our genome. In fact, genetic problems such as the ones around today were identified in it. Note that for all of the human diversity to come from the (genetically) 5 people on the ark, then there must still have been hyper genomes at least in some significant way at the flood. The iceman died nearly 1000 years BEFORE the flood. If anyone should show a hypergenome, it should be the iceman. Yet his body (and his DNA) is in most respects much like ours.So I guess I’ll call that #8.Faith, our discussion of Gandhi and a UML shows that all cultures share a UML that is not the main point of Christianity - not the important factor that will determine if you burn or are saved, and not the main point of either the OT or the NT. If God was going to imprint a UML on every human, wouldn’t it be a little closer to what God actually sees as important in morality?In fact, the fact that every human from every culture shares some aspects of a UML is something that fits well with evolution. These books, “moral minds” and “the moral animal” explain this well, though of course like any human work there are some parts that fit better than others. The presence of a UML across cultures that makes no mention of specific religions is good evidence for a common evolutionary ancestry, and evidence against some kind of divine creator.
Here are the books:
Please use peek to learn how to shorten urls. Shortened
Take care (as usual, I’ll be out this weekend)-EquinoxEdited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

OK, I'll buy that. I see that these could fit if one makes a separate morality for gods than people, which I know you do. That resolves this apparent contradiction. Take care-
Equinox

quote:

---

Paul is included in SOME Canon but not All Canon.

---

?? Nearly all (like 99.999+ Christians today) have Paul in their canon. However, many early Christians did not (such as the Ebionite Christians, and others).Also, the Canon does not include all of Pauls writings. See 1 cor 5:9, where paul refers to an earlier letter to the corinthians, since this is in 1st cor, there may have been a 0 cor that was lost.

If I remember correctly there was also blood from at least two other individuals found on the Iceman. IIRC the blood was also DNA tested to see if it came from him or some other people and was definitely shown to be not his. That gives us a sample of three minimum from one incident. In addition, IIRC he was from the 'K' population group and specifically the 'K1' haplogroup. If there was some Pre-Flood super genome why would Oetzi who was certainly Pre-Flood not show the super genome.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes. Paul is included in most Canon. But as I pointed out, not all Canon. In fact, at least one Canon excludes ALL of the New Testament. And as you point out, not all of Paul's writings are known, or included.The point is that we simply do not know what Paul is using as support for his assertion. It is NOT supported by Genesis unless he is refering to the Cain & Able story. It is likely that he was refering to either First Adam & Eve or Enoch, but neither of those made it into the Canon that Faith calls authoritative.This is not that surprising as most of the beliefs about Satan and Satans Fall are also extra-biblical in nature.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

yes that clears it right up, it sounds like you make it up as you need to, faith
wiki: it sounds like they are different things, that relate to each other, rather than being interchangible like you are claiming they are paul is not canonical, even if you claim this what makes him right?
oh thats right he's in the bible, as i said if something happens to be in the bible do you believe it? so did samson kill 3 thousand people with an ass jaw then?
its his interpretation of genesis as he thought of it, reading it in light of his writings is not a very good argument. uhuh, it doesn't does it? if you have to interpret genesis with another text to bulster your faith there is something wrong answer me this then? what good is it to post scripture out of context and meaning?
scripture can be used both ways

its a just-so story, both are used to give reasons for events, they are plot devices, just like the snake is a foil
the tree of life is used as an object for why we arn't in eden and have to be out trying to survive
and the other is for why people need to work tward being a good jew, to return to innocience that god wanted

I was just wondering why God didn't worry about Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Life until they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.