Just Accidental?

Deeje · Dec 21, 2016

Monk Of Reason said:
I think that the evidence suggests where the bus came from.

I can make "suggestions" till the cows come home....none of them need necessarily be true. So why is the "suggestion" of evolution so widely accepted when ID can be an equally reasonable scenario to explain the origin and profusion of life on this planet?

We follow the evidence and we will come up with the correct answer.

The "evidence" is not the basis for evolution...it is the biased "interpretation" of the evidence that is presented as facts....and preaching it to the converted. People will believe whatever their hearts impel them to. We all have those choices for a reason.

But the point made was that beliefs based on evidence are not equal with beliefs based on faith.

I disagree...you have to have faith that the interpretation you have been given is correct. Who says it is? Science cannot be sure that any of it is correct....they assume that it is. Is assumption and suggestion a replacement for facts? Since when is science fact based on the unprovable?

God is left in the shade because no evidence has pulled him into the light. Science only follows the evidence. Because it took a different direction than what primitive desert dwellers from two thousand years ago would have guessed then it isn't an issue.

Now, you see what you did there?

Condescension is used to presume that the recipients of the Biblical narrative had anything to do with the acts of creation described in Genesis. Just because they were presented in simple language, doesn't mean that the Creator is "simple" or that the creative process was a form of "magic". The Bible allows for an old earth and a very lengthy creative process. Intelligent design is seen everywhere. To my way of thinking, design is 'suggestive' of a designer. Purpose in that design needs a 'purposer'....someone with an intelligent reason for what he designed. Why are my preferred suggestions inferior to yours?

A good example of accidental mutation? My uncle was born with vision slightly better than 20/20. No one else in my family has this trait. He can read and see the tiniest letters/symbols on the eye scale and could go even better. That is an example of a positive accident.

How many of his children inherited his "slightly better than 20/20" vision? If no one did...then what is the point of the example? More suggestion perhaps? They "could have" is somehow more convincing that "no one else in my family has this trait"?

How is vision measured anyway?

How the 20/20 Vision Scale Works

Deeje · Dec 21, 2016

dust1n said:
As opposed to a sentient being that no one can see meticulously taking their time to paint unique and varied ducks to the tune of trillions of individual species? And why does he prefer those ducks some reason to every possible variant of creature he could have created but currently doesn't exist. Why did God make it so a Leopard could mate with a Puma or a Lion, but a Puma or a Lion can't mate with one another?

How come you didn't use the equally aesthetically pleasure California Condor?

Who can deny that the Creator has a sense of humor or an eye for the ridiculous.....like any sculptor or artist, beauty is often in the eye of the beholder....I am sure that other Californian Condors think your specimen is very attractive.

Here are some more....

Hilarious!

Or what about Malaria?

Why one anyone think that Malaria was made by accident, when it so beautifully kills so many children every year?

The Bible explains exactly why we succumb to those biological 'bugs' that enter the body because of a fault in the human immune system. By rights, if it worked as well as it was designed to, no 'bugs' could enter the body without being destroyed. It is designed to be a very efficient system.

I believe that our physical and mental perfection will be restored when humans have proved their complete inadequacy with regard to living successfully on this planet whilst denying their Creator. How much of a mess would you like the world to become before humans "suggest" that maybe they aren't as clever as they think they are......

lewisnotmiller · Dec 21, 2016

Deeje said:
How much of a mess would you like the world to become before humans "suggest" that maybe they aren't as clever as they think they are......

As Confucius suggested, 'Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.'
But then, it's not the 'clever humans' who are suggesting they understand the mind and intent of an all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent super-being.

dust1n · Dec 21, 2016

Deeje said:
The Bible explains exactly why we succumb to those biological 'bugs' that enter the body because of a fault in the human immune system.

Which chapter is that again?

By rights, if it worked as well as it was designed to, no 'bugs' could enter the body without being destroyed.It is designed to be a very efficient system

If it is designed to be a very efficient system, then why does it have, as you say, a fault?

I believe that our physical and mental perfection will be restored when humans have proved their complete inadequacy with regard to living successfully on this planet whilst denying their Creator. How much of a mess would you like the world to become before humans "suggest" that maybe they aren't as clever as they think they are......

I don't know. Humans are getting much closer to eradicating Malaria. They took out Small Pox. But I'm wondering if a child who dies from a disease, or maybe a disease that is genetic and not a virus or bacteria, has enough time to prove their complete inadequacy with regard to living successfully? I mean... certainly in a miscarriage, they person has not had the opportunity.

Deeje · Dec 21, 2016

Big_TJ said:
No Deeje; I am not stating what I believe here. I am just stating what is supposed to be a factual statement - it has nothing to do with your interpretation of Genesis or anyone's belief. What I stated is that, [almost] everytime you see the word "day" with a number before it, it (the word "day") [almost] ALWAYS has a literal meaning.

Scripture interprets scripture. Indeed some of the "days" mentioned were literal, but not always. "Days" could be used figuratively for eons of time, as Genesis 2:4 suggests. Since the creative periods were called "days" it was indicated that these periods had a beginning (a new day began at sunrise) and an end (evening or sunset). The fact that they are numbered denotes sequence, not literal days.

Does not science tell you that we are living on an ancient planet? Genesis 1:1 could have happened well in advance of verse 2. There is no timeframe. Science also knows that ancient, long extinct creatures existed well before man made his appearance.....not a literal "day" or two after the earth was created. This fits the creation account.

I don't need you to tell me about JW belief, I was involved in that movement when I was younger so I am aware of several of your belief. What I would be interested in is whether you can provide ANY evidence, biblically or otherwise, where the word "day" is preceded by a number, and the "day" would not be interpreted literally. Thanks!

Since you already know what we believe, why ask? You see the world crumbling around you, do you not begin to think there is something more to Bible prophesy than you thought in your youth?
If Genesis is correct about creation, what else is the Bible correct about? It is meant to be a divider...so which side we are on, determines our future according to the scriptures? This is what we are all deciding right now. There is no coercion, or forcing of beliefs....just choices that are all our own. When we decide the position we take for whatever reason, then we ourselves determine the outcome of that position. Its really that simple.

Deeje · Dec 21, 2016

lewisnotmiller said:
As Confucius suggested, 'Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.'
But then, it's not the 'clever humans' who are suggesting they understand the mind and intent of an all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent super-being.

No, they obviously think they know everything without ever referring to him.

That "all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent super-being" actually gave us an instruction manual on how to make our lives successful

......see what happens when you don't read the instructions.....blokes! They never learn!

They can even suggest that a theory is a fact by changing the definition of the word......how clever is that?

Deeje · Dec 21, 2016

dust1n said:
Which chapter is that again?

Romans 5:12.
"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned"

If it is designed to be a very efficient system, then why does it have, as you say, a fault?

Adam lost his physical and spiritual perfection when he disobeyed God's direct command not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. The fruit itself was not poison, but what it represented, belonged to God. It was his property and to steal this property carried the death penalty. Adam had no idea how death would come....only that God said 'that' it would...not 'how' it would. The implementation of the penalty was not swift, but the imperfection that set in when he 'unplugged' from his Creator was genetically inherited. Science knows about genetically inherited diseases and how hard it is to deal with those imperfections in the genetic code. Much research is going into gene silencing and stem cell repair to damaged areas of the body.

I don't know. Humans are getting much closer to eradicating Malaria. They took out Small Pox. But I'm wondering if a child who dies from a disease, or maybe a disease that is genetic and not a virus or bacteria, has enough time to prove their complete inadequacy with regard to living successfully? I mean... certainly in a miscarriage, they person has not had the opportunity.

What kind of a moron do you take the Creator for? He does not judge infants or children as to "living successfully." if they die prematurely.....how could he? He promises a resurrection to all who have died, faithful or not. (John 5:28-29)
"The wages of sin is death", so if a person has died they have paid sin's wages, regardless of their age. They are then resurrected with a clean slate and a new start in a world where God rules. (2 Peter 3:13)
What do you think the Kingdom of God is? (Matthew 6:9, 10)

Humans are given enough time to make decisions based on what is in their own heart. In the judgment period in which we now live, according to the Bible, all have equal opportunity to learn the truth about everything......but just because the truth is out there, doesn't mean that people will believe it if it doesn't suit them. There is a precedent from long ago....(Matthew 24:14; 37-39)

lewisnotmiller · Dec 21, 2016

Deeje said:
No, they obviously think they know everything without ever referring to him.

Speaking for myself, it would be more accurate to say 'I don't think I know everything without ever referring to him.'

Deeje said:
That "all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent super-being" actually gave us an instruction manual on how to make our lives successful

You'd have to define 'successful' for me to argue the point I guess.

Deeje said:
......see what happens when you don't read the instructions.....blokes! They never learn!

Funny cos it's true!

Deeje said:
They can even suggest that a theory is a fact by changing the definition of the word......how clever is that?

You're being facetious, or you've been listening to the wrong people. Science doesn't deal with 'facts'. Facts is a commonly misused word, quite apart from it's more technical use within the science community. People attribute the property to all sorts of half-baked or subjective concepts.
If it helps, I'll readily tell you the Big Bang isn't a fact, for example.

Sapiens · Dec 21, 2016

Deeje said:
No, they obviously think they know everything without ever referring to him.

That "all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent super-being" actually gave us an instruction manual on how to make our lives successful

......see what happens when you don't read the instructions.....blokes! They never learn!

They can even suggest that a theory is a fact by changing the definition of the word......how clever is that?

No, I say that there is passing small evidence for the existence of an "all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omnipresent super-being" so the conversation is moot, at best and ridiculous as worst.

No one has redefined "theory" in the way you describe. You're the one hung up on poorly defining critical words like "theory" or "kind."

dust1n · Dec 21, 2016

Deeje said:
Romans 5:12.
"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned"

This I'm aware of.. the biological bugs things seemed pretty specific though, that's what I was curious where this was explained.

Adam lost his physical and spiritual perfection when he disobeyed God's direct command not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. The fruit itself was not poison, but what it represented, belonged to God. It was his property and to steal this property carried the death penalty. Adam had no idea how death would come....only that God said 'that' it would...not 'how' it would. The implementation of the penalty was not swift, but the imperfection that set in when he 'unplugged' from his Creator was genetically inherited. Science knows about genetically inherited diseases and how hard it is to deal with those imperfections in the genetic code. Much research is going into gene silencing and stem cell repair to damaged areas of the body.

Seems like a particularly cruel thing to do.

It always struck me strange to the Ezekiel goes into so much detail about how a son shouldn't be punished for the sin's of the father. And yet, apparently, we are all punished for the one sin of the father of all fathers...

"The One Who Sins Will Die

18 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.

10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other thingsa]">[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):

“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.

Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people."

What kind of a moron do you take the Creator for? He does not judge infants or children as to "living successfully." if they die prematurely.....how could he? He promises a resurrection to all who have died, faithful or not. (John 5:28-29)
"The wages of sin is death", so if a person has died they have paid sin's wages, regardless of their age. They are then resurrected with a clean slate and a new start in a world where God rules. (2 Peter 3:13)
What do you think the Kingdom of God is? (Matthew 6:9, 10)

Ah. I think I mistook your original reply, and did not necessarily understand what you were getting at, or that you were a universalist.

Humans are given enough time to make decisions based on what is in their own heart.

Not all of them, but most of them, sure.

In the judgment period in which we now live, according to the Bible, all have equal opportunity to learn the truth about everything......but just because the truth is out there, doesn't mean that people will believe it if it doesn't suit them. There is a precedent from long ago....(Matthew 24:14; 37-39)

If I've understood you correctly, people are already enduring their punishment for their sins and will be redeemed upon death?

Deeje · Dec 22, 2016

lewisnotmiller said:
Speaking for myself, it would be more accurate to say 'I don't think I know everything without ever referring to him.'

I'm still trying to figure out what this means.....

You'd have to define 'successful' for me to argue the point I guess.

I guess when you boil it all down, the vast majority of people who live on this planet just want to be happy with their family members and live a secure and peaceful life. That kind of "success" is rare in any nation, but the other kind...the one the world seems to chase, has wealth as its aim and academic or business success to feed its ego and insatiable appetite for material things. Genuine happiness can't be bought. "The best things in life aren't things".

Funny cos it's true!

I know....right?

You're being facetious, or you've been listening to the wrong people. Science doesn't deal with 'facts'. Facts is a commonly misused word, quite apart from it's more technical use within the science community.

That was the point actually. Its use within the scientific community is a bit like its language....not substantiated truth, but presented as such nonetheless. "We suggest that this happened" is translated to "we know this happened" even though the evidence is interpreted in a completely biased way.
Those who want to sing in the same choir join in the song.

What does it really prove except "birds of a feather flock together"?

People attribute the property to all sorts of half-baked or subjective concepts.

Yes, I know....like macro-evolution.....dinosaurs evolved from microbes.....no fantasy there.

If it helps, I'll readily tell you the Big Bang isn't a fact, for example.

Since no human was around to document the event, I can see why educated guesswork is required to shed some kind of light on things.

But then again, if someone was around and they left a simple record to inform us about how it happened, who are we to say it isn't true. Eyewitness testimony is better than guesswork surely?

Hockeycowboy · Dec 22, 2016

Guy Threepwood said:
And there is a tangible hostility towards dissenters.

I.e., "don't argue with the boss." Unless you have tenure.

Hockeycowboy · Dec 22, 2016

dust1n said:
This I'm aware of.. the biological bugs things seemed pretty specific though, that's what I was curious where this was explained.

Seems like a particularly cruel thing to do.

It always struck me strange to the Ezekiel goes into so much detail about how a son shouldn't be punished for the sin's of the father. And yet, apparently, we are all punished for the one sin of the father of all fathers...

"The One Who Sins Will Die

18 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.

10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other thingsa]">[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):

“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.

Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people."

Ah. I think I mistook your original reply, and did not necessarily understand what you were getting at, or that you were a universalist.

Not all of them, but most of them, sure.

If I've understood you correctly, people are already enduring their punishment for their sins and will be redeemed upon death?

If I may speak for Deeje.....we are on opposite sides of the world but we are both Jehovah's Witnesses, so we believe the same:

The penalty for Adam, as God stated, was death. Through sinning (an act that didn't come easy -- he had to force himself to do it), he became imperfect. As his offspring, we inherited imperfection, thus we die, too.

But for humans, since death is the payment for sin (not torment - Romans 6:23), your sin is no longer held against you (Romans 6:7); you are 'acquitted'. Through the value of Jesus' sacrifice, humans will be resurrected (John 5:28-29) at a later time (John 6:44).

Deeje · Dec 22, 2016

Sapiens said:
No one has redefined "theory" in the way you describe. You're the one hung up on poorly defining critical words like "theory" or "kind."

Ummm, it's not my hangup. If I look up "theory in a dictionary, what is the definition?

THEORY:...."a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention"

Science changed the definition....not me.

Deeje · Dec 22, 2016

dust1n said:
This I'm aware of.. the biological bugs things seemed pretty specific though, that's what I was curious where this was explained.

"Sin" is an archery term that means to "miss the mark". So "sin" in human beings simply means we all fall short of perfection.That is how we are born 'sinful'....imperfect, carrying the defect that all humans have.

Seems like a particularly cruel thing to do.

When you consider that Adam spent quite a bit of time being educated by his Creator before his wife was even created, you will understand that he was not ignorant about the penalty that disobedience to this one command, carried. If the penalty is clearly stated before you commit a crime and you do it anyway, who is to blame when the penalty is implemented? Is it cruel or deserved?

Adam had spent enough time with God to know what death was. He was told that he would go back to the dust from which he was created....a termination of his life. (Genesis 3:19)
Doesn't science tell us that we are made from the same elements as the earth itself and that our bodies are 70% water. You think that is co-incidence?

It always struck me strange to the Ezekiel goes into so much detail about how a son shouldn't be punished for the sin's of the father. And yet, apparently, we are all punished for the one sin of the father of all fathers...

"The One Who Sins Will Die

18 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

“‘The parents eat sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

5 “Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.
6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife
or have sexual relations with a woman during her period.
7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
8 He does not lend to them at interest
or take a profit from them.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between two parties.
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign Lord.

10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other thingsa]">[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):

“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.

Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

14 “But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

15 “He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife.
16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.
17 He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor
and takes no interest or profit from them.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people."

In the above case it is the individual being punished for his own crimes. When you understand what happened in Eden, you will see that Adam lost his physical perfection before he had children. He became genetically defective and passed that defect onto all his children. Was that God's fault? Wasn't Adam given incentive NOT to disobey his God in the first place? What kind of fool toys with the death penalty?
Because Adam did this to his children, the Creator organized for a redeemer to release them from the results of the inherited defect. Not everyone will accept the terms of release, but they are offered to everyone. Only those who can be obedient to the Creator will get to enjoy what Adam threw away.

Ah. I think I mistook your original reply, and did not necessarily understand what you were getting at, or that you were a universalist.

I am not a universalist because I do not believe that everyone is saved. Jesus came to die for those who are prepared to serve the Creator's interests, not just their own. According to Bible prophesy, the majority of earth's inhabitants will not survive the judgment that is coming. (Matthew 7:13-14) Even "many" who think that they are serving the interests of Christianity will be rejected. (Matthew 7:21-23)

If I've understood you correctly, people are already enduring their punishment for their sins and will be redeemed upon death?

That is not entirely correct. This life is a time of testing, not because God wanted it this way, but because his sovereignty was challenged and a usurper tried to hijack humanity in order to gain worship for himself. Since the first humans gave in to him without much resistance, God obviously wanted to test humans to see if they could remain obedient to his commands, despite their imperfect condition. Many have proven over the centuries that they can. Experience is the best teacher, but only for those who can see the objective of the lesson.
Those who have paid sin's wages are guaranteed a resurrection......those who fail the current test by not responding to the "good news of the Kingdom" will forfeit their existence entirely. (Matthew 24:14) They will join Adam in going back to the dust, never to be seen again.

People living in judgement periods have one shot at getting things right....just like the days of Noah, Jesus said.....

"For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be."

According to the Bible, once Christ comes as judge, all opportunity for an adjustment in attitude will cease. Just as in Noah's day, once the door of the ark was closed, there was no changing your mind. This is why we must make our choices wisely whilst the door of opportunity is still open.

dust1n · Dec 22, 2016

Deeje said:
"Sin" is an archery term that means to "miss the mark". So "sin" in human beings simply means we all fall short of perfection.That is how we are born 'sinful'....imperfect, carrying the defect that all humans have.

I understand that is the general. I don't really see how any of that relates to DNA, or diseases or anything.

When you consider that Adam spent quite a bit of time being educated by his Creator before his wife was even created, you will understand that he was not ignorant about the penalty that disobedience to this one command, carried. If the penalty is clearly stated before you commit a crime and you do it anyway, who is to blame when the penalty is implemented? Is it cruel or deserved?

Usually I would blame the person who committed the supposed crime, not thier children and their children's children ad infintum.

Adam had spent enough time with God to know what death was. He was told that he would go back to the dust from which he was created....a termination of his life. (Genesis 3:19)
Doesn't science tell us that we are made from the same elements as the earth itself and that our bodies are 70% water. You think that is co-incidence?

Do I think it's co-incidence that humans are made up of the same materials at the planet itself is? No, not at all, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

In the above case it is the individual being punished for his own crimes. When you understand what happened in Eden, you will see that Adam lost his physical perfection before he had children. He became genetically defective and passed that defect onto all his children.

This seems to me like a big extrapolation from what the book of Genesis says. No where does it mentions genetics, and the eating things doesn't change genetics anyways. I thought eating the apple gave people God's wisdom, not like, AIDs or whatever.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Was that God's fault? Wasn't Adam given incentive NOT to disobey his God in the first place? What kind of fool toys with the death penalty?

Apparently the sort of fools God makes?

Because Adam did this to his children, the Creator organized for a redeemer to release them from the results of the inherited defect. Not everyone will accept the terms of release, but they are offered to everyone. Only those who can be obedient to the Creator will get to enjoy what Adam threw away.

I am not a universalist because I do not believe that everyone is saved. Jesus came to die for those who are prepared to serve the Creator's interests, not just their own. According to Bible prophesy, the majority of earth's inhabitants will not survive the judgment that is coming. (Matthew 7:13-14) Even "many" who think that they are serving the interests of Christianity will be rejected. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Ah, then I am a little confused. How is someone as a young as a child capable of redeeming themselves before death? Is it just assumed all kids are redeemed immediately? But aren't they born in sin?

That is not entirely correct. This life is a time of testing, not because God wanted it this way, but because his sovereignty was challenged and a usurper tried to hijack humanity in order to gain worship for himself. Since the first humans gave in to him without much resistance, God obviously wanted to test humans to see if they could remain obedient to his commands, despite their imperfect condition.

What does it mean to test humans when you already know in advance what they will do.... assuming that is God is omnipotent...

Many have proven over the centuries that they can. Experience is the best teacher, but only for those who can see the objective of the lesson.
Those who have paid sin's wages are guaranteed a resurrection......those who fail the current test by not responding to the "good news of the Kingdom" will forfeit their existence entirely. (Matthew 24:14) They will join Adam in going back to the dust, never to be seen again.

Ah, I gotcha. Sounds more like a Sheol sort of thing than a Hell then.

People living in judgement periods have one shot at getting things right....just like the days of Noah, Jesus said.....

"For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be."

According to the Bible, once Christ comes as judge, all opportunity for an adjustment in attitude will cease. Just as in Noah's day, once the door of the ark was closed, there was no changing your mind. This is why we must make our choices wisely whilst the door of opportunity is still open.

Gotcha.

McBell · Dec 22, 2016

Deeje said:
I can make "suggestions" till the cows come home....none of them need necessarily be true. So why is the "suggestion" of evolution so widely accepted when ID can be an equally reasonable scenario to explain the origin and profusion of life on this planet?

The "evidence" is not the basis for evolution...it is the biased "interpretation" of the evidence that is presented as facts....and preaching it to the converted. People will believe whatever their hearts impel them to. We all have those choices for a reason.

Until such time as you can evidence creation beyond "I believe evolution is bogus, therefore creation"....

McBell · Dec 22, 2016

Deeje said:
Ummm, it's not my hangup. If I look up "theory in a dictionary, what is the definition?

THEORY:...."a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention"

Science changed the definition....not me.

*yawn*

Two related, yet distinct, meanings of theory
There are many shades of meaning to the word theory. Most of these are used without difficulty, and we understand, based on the context in which they are found, what the intended meaning is. For instance, when we speak of music theory we understand it to be in reference to the underlying principles of the composition of music, and not in reference to some speculation about those principles.

However, there are two senses of theory which are sometimes troublesome. These are the senses which are defined as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena” and “an unproven assumption; conjecture.” The second of these is occasionally misapplied in cases where the former is meant, as when a particular scientific theory is derided as "just a theory," implying that it is no more than speculationor conjecture. One may certainly disagree with scientists regarding their theories, but it is an inaccurate interpretation of language to regard their use of the word as implying a tentative hypothesis; the scientific use of theory is quite different than the speculative use of the word.

Source

Please feel free to ignore it.

Sapiens · Dec 22, 2016

Deeje said:
Ummm, it's not my hangup. If I look up "theory in a dictionary, what is the definition?

THEORY:...."a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

That's fine. The sense that "theory" is used in science is: "a system of ideas intended to explain something, based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

You choose to make a semantic game of it and quote mine, incorrectly using: "a supposition intended to explain something." which is not the way scientists use the word.

What you are doing is playing quote mine with the word since NO SCIENTIST using the term would be referencing your meaning and all would be referencing the form I indicate.

Quote mining of that sort is a form of lying.

gnostic · Dec 22, 2016

Deeje said:
Scripture interprets scripture. Indeed some of the "days" mentioned were literal, but not always. "Days" could be used figuratively for eons of time, as Genesis 2:4 suggests. Since the creative periods were called "days" it was indicated that these periods had a beginning (a new day began at sunrise) and an end (evening or sunset). The fact that they are numbered denotes sequence, not literal days.

This is poor understanding of Genesis 1, and substandard in literary scholarship, to the point of dishonest idiocy.

The "day" presented in Genesis 1 may be "yom" in Hebrew transliteration, which mean an unspecified period of time.

I know that some Christian creationists tried to specify yom being "era" and "epoch", and some of them tried to assert this yom to be 1000 years because a verse from 2 Peter 3:8:

2 Peter 3:8 NRSV said:
8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

But Genesis yom is not really "unspecified" and it is certainly not a long "epoch" and "era".

This argument from creationists who believe that (Genesis) yom is the same as (Peter's verse) era of 1000 years, is a logical fallacy of false equivalence.

It is false equivalence because 2 Peter 3 is not Genesis 1, and the authors of these two works are not from the same author. But more importantly, Genesis 1 has never equate yom to be "1000 years" or a "millennium".

The reason why we do know that yom in Genesis 1 to be "1 day" is because yom is always equated immediately before with "evening" and "morning" with each mention of yom (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31), as highlighted in red, below:

Genesis 1:5 said:
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

...hence each time a verse say "And there was evening and there was morning...", yom will mean "day" in these verses.

A first, second, etc "day" would only make sense because it always linked "evening" and "morning".

Genesis 1 is clearly referring to day, not a millennium.

If what you say that yom means "a thousand-year" or "millennium", then the translation should read something like this:

Genesis 1:5 said:
...And there was evening and there was morning, the first millennium.

It doesn't say that.

Why is Genesis never translated as "1000 years"?

Also, if we used Peter's verse of a day equals to 1000 years, that mean there are 3000 years of mornings, but mornings without the sun, moon and stars, because these would be created until 4th millennium.

Plants were created in the 3rd day (Genesis 1:9-13), and most plants require the sun's light and heat for survival. But if what Peter say is true about 1000 years, then there has been plants without the sun for 1000 years.

Genesis 1:3-5 stated that light was created on the first day, dividing the day into "day" and "night", with no mention of the sun at all. How can you have night and day, or evening and morning without the sun?

Also, a sun is essential in forming the Sky or Earth's atmospheres. Atmosphere cannot be created from nothing. And the sky wasn't created until the 1000 years, if creationists used Peter's verse.

The whole yom being an era or epoch is false assertion, because the "evening and morning" is definitely equated to being a day, not a millennium.

Just Accidental?

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Grand Hat

Zindīq

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Grand Hat

Polymathematician

Zindīq

Avid Bible Student

Witness for Jehovah

Witness for Jehovah

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Zindīq

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler

Polymathematician

The Lost One