Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does immunity disprove the fall?
ringo
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 46 of 66 (354059)
10-04-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taz
10-03-2006 11:37 PM


gasby writes:
... from a logical point of view it is you who has to prove that it existed. Don't you remember the you-can't-prove-a-negative part of logic?
The logic goes like this:
We have disease-causing pathogens today. They inhabit other living organisms, feed off them, etc. That is the default condition.
If you claim that benign organisms magically changed into disease-causing pathogens, then you have to produce positive evidence of that change. My position is the negative-that-can't-be-proven position: that things are the same now as they were before the supposed "fall".
There is absolutely no implication whatsoever of disease... unless of course we are going to start assuming that invisible pink unicorns exist until someone can prove their nonexistence...
Just the opposite: I'm going to assume that pink unicorns don't exist until somebody can prove their existence. Similarly, I'm going to assume no fundamental change in the nature of pathogens until somebody can prove that there was a change.
Sounds like somebody just lost at least partial control of the world around him.
We're not talking about "control of the world around them". We're talking about dominion over the animals:
quote:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
When they "fell", God told Adam and Eve that they would have to grow their own food. There is no implication of loss of dominion over the animals - including pathogens.
I am simply starting from a negative....
No you are not. You are starting from the positive position of a change in pathogen behaviour/"lifestyles". I am saying that there was no change unless you can demonstrate that there was.
... unless of course we can start assuming the existence of invisible pink unicorns, ghosts, psychics, and every crackpot supernatural creatures out there....
But you are the one who is suggesting that crackpot supernatural creatures - non-pathenogenic pathenogens - existed before the "fall".
That's the equivalent of pink unicorns turning into zebras. We know that zebras exist now, but you are demanding that I produce evidence that they were not pink unicorns before the "fall". All I'm saying is that zebras were zebras before the "fall".
... don't try to pull my leg again.
I don't see where you have a leg to stand on pull.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 11:37 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 2:38 AM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 47 of 66 (354074)
10-04-2006 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ringo
10-04-2006 12:30 AM


Ringo writes:
We have disease-causing pathogens today. They inhabit other living organisms, feed off them, etc. That is the default condition.
For one thing, you can't assume sameness for before and after the fall. You don't see angels flying around or god appearing and disappearing today! Before the fall, the world was a completely different place/reality than after the fall.
If you claim that benign organisms magically changed into disease-causing pathogens, then you have to produce positive evidence of that change.
The world was a different place before the fall. You can't assume sameness for before and after the fall. Because of this, we can only portray the world before the fall BASED ON THE ACCOUNTS IN GENESIS. No mention of disease there.
My position is the negative-that-can't-be-proven position: that things are the same now as they were before the supposed "fall".
That's just it, things aren't the same now as they were before the fall.
Just the opposite: I'm going to assume that pink unicorns don't exist until somebody can prove their existence. Similarly, I'm going to assume no fundamental change in the nature of pathogens until somebody can prove that there was a change.
No mention of disease before the fall. Mention of disease after the fall. Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.
When they "fell", God told Adam and Eve that they would have to grow their own food. There is no implication of loss of dominion over the animals - including pathogens.
The very fact that they had to work for food after the fall and they didn't before the fall tells us there has been a fundamental change in how the relationships between man and beasts have changed.
No you are not. You are starting from the positive position of a change in pathogen behaviour/"lifestyles". I am saying that there was no change unless you can demonstrate that there was.
Again, no mention of disease before the fall. Mention of disease after the fall.
But you are the one who is suggesting that crackpot supernatural creatures - non-pathenogenic pathenogens - existed before the "fall".
God created everything. No mention of disease before the fall. Yes mention of disease after the fall. These "creatures" must have existed before and after the fall. No mention of disease in genesis 1 and 2 tells me that these creatures didn't cause harm. Yes mention of disease after the fall tells me that these creatures now cause harm.
That's the equivalent of pink unicorns turning into zebras. We know that zebras exist now, but you are demanding that I produce evidence that they were not pink unicorns before the "fall".
No such thing. I am simply demanding that you produce some kind of evidence that these little creatures actually caused disease BEFORE the fall.
All I'm saying is that zebras were zebras before the "fall".
No mention of zebras before or after the fall. We can say either way.
Anyway, I've already said all I wanted to say and you've already said all you wanted to say. We seem to be repeating ourselves. Let's just agree to disagree for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:30 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:48 PM Taz has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 48 of 66 (354079)
10-04-2006 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
10-03-2006 3:17 PM


Iano writes:
Well, obviously god created every living creature before the fall and obviously there was no disease back then. Obviously, after the fall those creatures would have still been present but there was disease.
None of this is "obvious" to me.
Care to expand on how these things are "obvious"?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 3:17 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 12:59 PM RickJB has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 66 (354158)
10-04-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taz
10-04-2006 2:38 AM


gasby writes:
you can't assume sameness for before and after the fall.
"Sameness" is the default. Show us evidence of a change.
Before the fall, the world was a completely different place/reality than after the fall.
You can't assume that.
The very fact that they had to work for food after the fall and they didn't before the fall tells us there has been a fundamental change in how the relationships between man and beasts have changed.
Working for food has nothing to do with the relationship between man and beasts.
No mention of disease in genesis 1 and 2 tells me that these creatures didn't cause harm.
There were only two people in the world and they might only have been in the garden for five minutes. They might very well have had diseases that weren't mentioned. Lack of "mention" is irrelevant.
I am simply demanding that you produce some kind of evidence that these little creatures actually caused disease BEFORE the fall.
And that's exactly the same logic as demanding that I produce evidence that zebras were zebras BEFORE the fall. Without evidence to the contrary, default wins.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 2:38 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 1:11 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 66 (354161)
10-04-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RickJB
10-04-2006 3:52 AM


RickJB writes:
None of this is "obvious" to me.
Care to expand on how these things are "obvious"?
First of all, I do know
I explained this further in the next post I made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RickJB, posted 10-04-2006 3:52 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 51 of 66 (354166)
10-04-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
10-04-2006 12:48 PM


Ringo writes:
"Sameness" is the default. Show us evidence of a change.
No, it is not in this particular case. Before and after the fall are two different realities. For a change, A and E now have to toil. Childbearing or E is very painful. In later generations, it could be fatal. Serpents are now cursed. Women are now subjugated beings. The ground is supposedly cursed. People are no longer running around naked.
These are just the things that the bible says directly. I have never been a big fan of literal literal literal literal reading. As I explained before, there are implications throughout that indicate drastic changes from before to after the fall.
Working for food has nothing to do with the relationship between man and beasts.
Beasts are food. Before the fall the beasts didn't attack A and E and A and E didn't attack them for food. But after the fall, A and E became omnivores (or at least their children did). Hence the change in relationship between man and beast.
Lack of "mention" is irrelevant.
I don't agree. Disease is obviously a very significant part of people's lives. From how genesis was written, god was testing A and E. What if A and E passed the test? Would god have made a paradise rampant with disease?
In this particular case, lack of mention is important.
And that's exactly the same logic as demanding that I produce evidence that zebras were zebras BEFORE the fall. Without evidence to the contrary, default wins.
Zebras weren't mentioned at all before or after the fall. During the process of quoting, you are skipping through some rather important points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 12:48 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 1:50 PM Taz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 66 (354185)
10-04-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taz
10-04-2006 1:11 PM


gasby writes:
there are implications throughout that indicate drastic changes from before to after the fall.
There is nothing in your examples (or in Genesis) about a fundamental change in biology.
Adam and Eve became farmers instead of gatherers. There hadn't been any childbirth before the "fall", so no possibility of change there. There is no indication of a biological change in serpents. The subjection of women is cultural, not biological. Clothing is cultural, not biological.
On the other hand, you are suggesting that bacteria underwent a major "lifestyle" change - from "grazers" to pathogens. You have presented no evidence whatsoever for such a radical biological change.
Before the fall the beasts didn't attack A and E and A and E didn't attack them for food.
Another unfounded assumption.
No obvious beasts have attacked me for food, so it won't be mentioned in my biography. But microbes are constantly attacking me, just as they would have attacked Adam and Eve. Unless they are the obvious cause of my death, they won't be mentioned in my biography either.
From how genesis was written, god was testing A and E.
Nothing obvious about that either.
Would god have made a paradise rampant with disease?
Paradise was rampant with disease. Remember how Adam named smallpox and bubonic plague?
Your claim that pathogens are separate from the diseasses they cause is worthless until you can show some evidence that there was a change in them.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 1:11 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 2:07 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 53 of 66 (354193)
10-04-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ringo
10-04-2006 1:50 PM


Ringo writes:
There is nothing in your examples (or in Genesis) about a fundamental change in biology.
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
In other words, the lions didn't maw A and the grizzlies didn't chase him. Sounds like a pretty drastic change of biology to me.
There hadn't been any childbirth before the "fall", so no possibility of change there.
Again, here is the quote directly from the book of Genesis.
quote:
16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
"Will" refers to future action. In other words, even if E gave birth before the fall it wouldn't have been painful. Sounds like a pretty drastic change in biology to me.
Remember how Adam named smallpox and bubonic plague?
Adam didn't name smallpox and bubonic plague. There is no such creature as smallpox and bubonic plague. These are diseases caused by creatures that Adam did name. Again, directly from the bible.
quote:
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
It didn't say "and so the man also names all the diseases..."
You are confusing diseases and the agents that cause them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 1:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 2:42 PM Taz has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 54 of 66 (354201)
10-04-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taz
10-04-2006 2:07 PM


gasby writes:
the lions didn't maw A and the grizzlies didn't chase him.
God was there to prevent any unruly behaviour. No "mention" of a change in biology at all.
even if E gave birth before the fall it wouldn't have been painful. Sounds like a pretty drastic change in biology to me.
Once again, there can not be a "change" from no childbirth at all to painful childbirth. There can not be an increase in pain without something to compare it to. Thus, your "even if" is meaningless.
You are confusing diseases and the agents that cause them.
You keep repeating that, but you haven't shown any practical way that they can be separated. Certainly the diseases were known before their causes were understood. But we have nothing but your assertion that the pathogens magically "changed" as a result of the "fall".
Unless there is some evidence that the sun rose in the south before the "fall", we can assume that it rose in the east. Similarly, unless there is some evidence that bacteria, etc. were fundamentally different before the "fall", we can assume that they were very similar to modern bacteria, etc.
-------------
You have been trying to argue that Adam and Eve didn't need an immune system before the "fall". The more important question is whether or not they had one.
According to my line of reasoning, unless there is some evidence that they acquired an immune system as a result of the "fall", we can assume that they already had one.
Now, the OP asks:
quote:
Adam and Eve most probably didn't have immune systems, at least not initially, since they would have had no use for them. So why would god curse mankind with with disease and then give us a very complex and effective immune system to fight those very diseases?
If there was no disease before the "fall", then our immune system is more of a reward than a punishment. But if there was disease before the "fall", and if Adam and Eve did already have immune systems, the "fall" makes more sense as a punishment.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 2:07 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 3:01 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 55 of 66 (354210)
10-04-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
10-04-2006 2:42 PM


Ringo writes:
God was there to prevent any unruly behaviour. No "mention" of a change in biology at all.
You know what, I don't even know why I've persisted this long on something I obviously don't believe in or even bother to think about.
Once again, there can not be a "change" from no childbirth at all to painful childbirth. There can not be an increase in pain without something to compare it to. Thus, your "even if" is meaningless.
God did say he will make it painful, implying that it would not have been painful before. But that's as far as I can go.
But we have nothing but your assertion that the pathogens magically "changed" as a result of the "fall".
Ok, you win. I personally think I have provided adequate quotes from Genesis, but I guess not.
You have been trying to argue that Adam and Eve didn't need an immune system before the "fall". The more important question is whether or not they had one.
Not at all. I've been saying all along that there's no way to know if they had immune system before the fall or not. Eden was a place void of suffering. There's no mention of Adam catching a cold or getting an allergic reaction from mosquito bite. In other words, he lived in a matrix like environment surrounded by bliss.
According to my line of reasoning, unless there is some evidence that they acquired an immune system as a result of the "fall", we can assume that they already had one.
My reasoning doesn't entail existence of immune system before the fall. I only know that they did have immune system after the fall.
If there was no disease before the "fall", then our immune system is more of a reward than a punishment.
Nope, let's follow this through. If we don't have an immune system at all, a simple common cold would kill any of us before we can reproduce. There might be some suffering, but it's not long before our ultimate demise.
With an immune system, we are allowed ample time to reproduce and at the same time catch some diseases that make our lives just a little harder. Because of immune system, our suffering is greatly prolonged. I say that's a punishment rather than reward.
It's sort of like the difference between killing your mortal enemy instantly and tie him up and start peeling his skin off. I know this is a grim view of god, but if you think about it it makes a lot more sense. God's suppose to know who's damned and who's not before the person even existed, yet it would allow a damned person to exist at all so to be thrown into the lake of fire. Sounds like a pretty bad parent to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 2:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 10-04-2006 3:18 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 58 by ReverendDG, posted 10-04-2006 8:14 PM Taz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 661 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 56 of 66 (354214)
10-04-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taz
10-04-2006 3:01 PM


gasby writes:
There's no mention of Adam catching a cold or getting an allergic reaction from mosquito bite.
Ever read a biography of Picasso or Einstein? Some of them are considerably larger than the first few chapters of Genesis and yet they don't "mention" every mosquito bite. I don't understand why you think a lack of "mention" is so monumentally significant.
Because of immune system, our suffering is greatly prolonged. I say that's a punishment rather than reward.
You must be very young.
I'd say every day of life is a reward, even if it involves a little suffering now and then.
I said early on that I wasn't sure if immunity "disproves" the "fall". At least it seems pretty clear that the "fall" doctrine is self-contradictory.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 3:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
Sonne
Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 57 of 66 (354260)
10-04-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Taz
10-03-2006 8:13 PM


Hi Gasby, thanks for your response.
They reproduce by infesting our cells. Again, not all of them cause harm to their hosts.
That's how viruses reproduce, yes. If there are viruses in your body and not causing you any harm, my understanding is that will be because your immune system is keeping it supressed. I can't find any evidence regarding a symbiotic relationship between humans and viruses. Between bacteria and human, yes, for example the bacteria that lives in our stomachs are very helpful with digestion. But the majority of encounters between humans and pathogens stimulate an immune response. A&E must have had immune systems.
The overwhelming majority of bacteria are completely harmless to us.
And there are quite a number that are harmful. If you agree that there were pathogens in the garden, then those types that have an adverse effect would have been there too.
Imagine that you are an evil king who enjoys watching people suffer. You've caught 200 enemy combatants and you want to see them suffer as much as possible. Are you going to just kill them with a single sword blow or are you going to slowly torture them to death?
Sometimes, the ultimate punishment isn't immediate death. I can think off the top of my head a hundred things worse than immediate death, and one of them is suffering for years with a disease because the immune system is fighting the disease just enough to keep you alive but it can't get rid of the disease overall.
Are you equating your God with "an evil king who enjoys watching people suffer"?? I really can't enter into this "punishment" theory, i find it perverse.
Life does involve some suffering and this gives us perspective, we wouldn't know what happiness was without it. Sunday roasts every night would get a bit tedious.
Our immune system ain't any better or stronger than our ancestors'. The only difference is we live in a much cleaner environment than before and we are made more aware of the sanitation techniques that keep us from regularly contracting debilitating diseases.
Sanitation certainly helps to prevent contact with pathogens, but it doesn't help our immune systems. Exposure to them does, and my point being that if disease results from the fall, then our immune systems are keeping up just fine. If it weren't then we wouldn't have survived through all the epidemics and pandemics since then.
Kakariki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 10-03-2006 8:13 PM Taz has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 58 of 66 (354276)
10-04-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taz
10-04-2006 3:01 PM


You know what, I don't even know why I've persisted this long on something I obviously don't believe in or even bother to think about
well, its a good try, really i've found the only way creationists win things like this is to ignore what the other debater says and keep going in the same vein as before
God did say he will make it painful, implying that it would not have been painful before. But that's as far as I can go.
well it is a "just so" story, the hebrews like all peoples wanted a painless world, or thought there was at some point, or maybe they had easy child birth that got worse, motivation is hard to pin down
Ok, you win. I personally think I have provided adequate quotes from Genesis, but I guess not.
god did say he would curse the ground, but i think that has to do with farming as it said adam would be condemned to farm instead of gather from the trees
Not at all. I've been saying all along that there's no way to know if they had immune system before the fall or not. Eden was a place void of suffering. There's no mention of Adam catching a cold or getting an allergic reaction from mosquito bite. In other words, he lived in a matrix like environment surrounded by bliss.
whats the evidence that it was void of suffering? or bliss? people say this but the story really doesn't have it. why would god do such a thing as not give them an immune system?
My reasoning doesn't entail existence of immune system before the fall. I only know that they did have immune system after the fall.
evidence of this? i mean they eat stuff and drink water, why wouldn't they need an immune system?
Nope, let's follow this through. If we don't have an immune system at all, a simple common cold would kill any of us before we can reproduce. There might be some suffering, but it's not long before our ultimate demise.
yes and i would think god would have a bit more forthought than that
With an immune system, we are allowed ample time to reproduce and at the same time catch some diseases that make our lives just a little harder. Because of immune system, our suffering is greatly prolonged. I say that's a punishment rather than reward.
umm, i think not having a chance to live is a lot worse than suffering a bit, well unless you are like some insane christians who view life as awful.
well the thing is most diseases eather kill you or after a while you beat them, except for things like HIV, because they attack it, but smart people don't get it anymore

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 10-04-2006 3:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 66 (354302)
10-05-2006 12:09 AM


The other side of the coin.
Well, I sure have been enjoying reading the posts in this thread I started, particularly the debate between gasby and ringo, which reminds of a discussion I once heard between two youngsters. They were trying to decide whether the buttons on Micky Mouses pants were decorative or functional. The fact that both these children fully realized that Micky Mouse is a mythical character did not in the least deter them from the vehemence of their positions.
Perhaps it is time for me to interject another thought. Our immune system is our greatest afflicter and killer. We are all aware of the many chronic diseases caused by our immune system: arthritis, lupus, MS, etc. But our immune system has also been responsible (the proximate cause, as the lawyers would say) for the majority of human deaths over our history. Take tuberculosis for example. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection does harm the lungs it infects and could in time impede breathing, but it is the immune systems reaction to the infection in trying to flush the tenacious bacteria out of the lungs that slowly drowns the sufferer. One of the greatest killers of children in sub-Sahara Africa is dysentery, a collection of microbial diseases that infect the gut. It is again the reaction of the immune system in drawing fluids from all the other parts of the body to flush out the infection that causes the diarrhea, desiccates the brain causing shock, and eventually killing the victim. A great many of the drugs we are given when we contract a disease don't actually fight the disease itself but attenuate the potentially deadly fever and inflammation caused by our immune systems.
Given this, perhaps the immune system was the agent of god's punishment that brings suffering and death. The times when the immune system actually ameliorates disease is just a statistical fluke, because if you don't die this time, something else is sure to come along. It is interesting, but outside the scope of this thread, that this over-reactivity of the immune system, even with its propensity to often kill the individual, is completely compatible with the theory of evolution and the 'survival of the fittest'.

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 10-05-2006 12:16 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 61 by Taz, posted 10-05-2006 2:34 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 66 (354303)
10-05-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by AnswersInGenitals
10-05-2006 12:09 AM


Still just making things up
Given this, perhaps the immune system was the agent of god's punishment that brings suffering and death.
Once again, unless you can show where suffering and death are part of the curse in Genesis 3 other than the issue of childbirth, there is simply no connection to be found. In case you have forgotten, here once again are the verses, this time from the KJV.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-05-2006 12:09 AM AnswersInGenitals 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