Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To the creationists - the tough question
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 78 (2464)
01-19-2002 8:55 AM


"When God finished after 6 days, he declared everything was very good (Gen 1:31). The actual Hebrew word used is perfection."
Would then someone explain to me why Adam and Eve ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil,they suddently felt that being naked was evil and covered their private parts with Fig leaves if God had allready identified being naked (the state Adam was in at the end of the 6th day) as "very Good...i.e. perfection"? The fruit gave them God's knowledge of good and evil and since God did not consider nakedness evil,why would they?

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 9:17 PM LudvanB has not replied

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 78 (3347)
02-03-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I've got to say thats quite a good theory you have there. You've put me in a situation where I have to side with you on this one. I can't think of why they would be embaressed in 'perfection'. Its a very good point."
--I applaud your agreement on the subject, its hard to get agreement on these kinds of biblical implications in here, I mostly get a 'move to another listed subject' kind of response (notice LudvanB didn't reply
). Willingness to admit when their statements and comments were not quite right or incorrect is very much appreciated and well regarded as the height of intelligent debates and arguments in the discussion.

Sorry to interrupt this mutual patting on the back gathering with the FACTS but here goes...There is no reason to feel embarassement at ones nakedness if thats all you have even known...alledged biblical perfection nonwistanding,there are scores of people who today feel no shame whatsoever at spending their lives naked in our very imperfect world so your argument is totally invalid. Modesty is NOT a natural instinct...its a learned behaviour born out of the habit of wearing cloths. There was no such habit being portrayed in the early Genesis and so,no more reason for Adam and Eve to feel shame or embarasement at their nakedness than there would have been for having two arms or hair on their head...all these things were were completely natural and normal to human beings and we have to be taught to feel self consious. I can tell you that if you had never worn cloths in your life,being naked would seem perfectly natural to you and you would not understand the concept of shame at being nubile. Now if you want to say the the action of eating the apple INVENTED shame in their minds,meaning creating this feeling out of NOTHING WHATSOEVER,then i would agree with you...but thats not what the story says AT ALL. It is clear that the story says that eating the apple ALERTED them to the "fact" that public nudity was somehow wrong...wrong according to who's criteria,thats an interesting question since as i explained,according to the Bible God never considered nudity in any form as being "wrong". All of this tells me that this part of the story is merely the autors projecting THEIR cultural bias against public nudity onto the characters of their story,which is not at all unusual BTW....writers often portrays their characters in ways which reflects their own culture and set of beliefs even though those cultural bias are not necessarely appropriate to the setting where the characters are made to evolve in their stories. (ex: a contemporary author writing a story about young knights in the middle ages who conducts and attitudes reflects not middle age but rather contemporary values as was the case in the movie A knight's tale).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 9:17 PM TrueCreation has not replied

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 78 (3462)
02-05-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Warren
02-05-2002 12:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Warren:
Moose>>As I see it, the geologic record has clearly shown a progression of "kinds" as having appeared and gone extinct, as time has passed. This is the "fact" of evolution.<<
Sure, organisms have appeared and gone extinct over time just like various models of automobiles and airplanes have. In fact, phrases like "the evolution of the automobile" or "the evolution of the airplane" etc. are commonly used to describe the history of automobile and airplane design and I don't think creationists object to this language, however, the origin of the different models of automobiles and airplanes involved separate creative acts, they didn't morph one into another. So the question is how do we know that the "evolution" of the basic body plans we see in the fossil record isn't more like "automobile evolution" than Darwinian evolution?
[This message has been edited by Warren, 02-05-2002]

Well,since neither cars nor planes are living organism,i dont see how they can be used as a counter point to darwinian evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Warren, posted 02-05-2002 12:07 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Warren, posted 02-06-2002 11:58 AM LudvanB has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024