Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Nope. He told us exactly what he did.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Ella S.
*temp banned*
I find the idea that original sin refers to genetic markers for competition and sadism to be intriguing. If this were a discussion thread, I'd enjoy investigating how this could bolster the symbolism for naturalistic Christians. I agree that we must keep control over the more primitive facets of our psyche which we have inherited from evolutionary pressures.
I don't think this makes sense in regards to scripture, though. I think Adam and Eve were literally beings made out of clay, animated with the literal breath of God, and who literally fell from the heaven containing the Garden of Eden down to the physical earth. This earth was, of course, flat, with the heavens and the firmament stretched above it like a tent in a dome shape, resting on four pillars at the cornerstones of the world.
It was constructed on top of the Tehom, or the waters of chaos. This is where Jonah fled to when he temporarily escaped God, and that's why he was swallowed by the leviathan, who is likely a cultural adaptation of the Canaanite god, Yam.
"Original sin" in this context explains why a benevolent and almighty Divine Father couldn't just create all of us in a perfect paradise from the get-go. It's because he already did that and we screwed it up because we're a flawed reflection of him, and so we're cursed to dwell in a flawed reflection of Heaven.
I don't think this makes sense in regards to scripture, though. I think Adam and Eve were literally beings made out of clay, animated with the literal breath of God, and who literally fell from the heaven containing the Garden of Eden down to the physical earth. This earth was, of course, flat, with the heavens and the firmament stretched above it like a tent in a dome shape, resting on four pillars at the cornerstones of the world.
It was constructed on top of the Tehom, or the waters of chaos. This is where Jonah fled to when he temporarily escaped God, and that's why he was swallowed by the leviathan, who is likely a cultural adaptation of the Canaanite god, Yam.
"Original sin" in this context explains why a benevolent and almighty Divine Father couldn't just create all of us in a perfect paradise from the get-go. It's because he already did that and we screwed it up because we're a flawed reflection of him, and so we're cursed to dwell in a flawed reflection of Heaven.
You mean that what we are looking at only appears to be old, such as counting annual tree rings, is simply a matter of misinterpretation? Science is reading the evidence wrongly, is what you mean to suggest here?
Nope. I'm reading the same source material you are, and I'm not interpreting it that way.
Hi...I am reading your religion is Stoicism,
So you believe in the Biblical tale of Creation?
I believe in science. Nature is too imperfect to be the result of some Godly Intelligent Design.
Theologically, we can discuss original sin and atonement.
I think that whoever enjoys seeing a man (whether innocent or not, and Jesus was not only innocent, but was the son of God) suffering on the Cross, it means that this person hasn't evolved from the animal stage yet.
That's what original sin is. And that's what God did. He became man and underwent man's original sin, and that is what theologians call atonement, but that was the only way to ransom us from our previous animal condition.
So we can evolve into something more perfect and dignifying.
Ella S.
*temp banned*
I don't believe in the Biblical tale of creation, but we can historically tell quite a bit about the context it was written in and how it was most likely meant/interpreted by the people who wrote it.
They did not write the story with Jesus in mind. That wouldn't come until centuries later. This is the problem I see with a lot of Christian theology. It's constantly retrofitting texts that mean something completely different into an unrelated, later Christian narrative.
That's why Christians no longer believe in a physical heaven, or a flat earth, or young-earth creation. That is what the scriptures teach, but we're finding more and more as time goes on that these aren't accurate reflections of reality.
For some reason, a belief in original sin and an afterlife persist, even though these are at odds with reality, too, now. I think it's just thousands of years of shifting the goalposts. God was disproven with the invention of the telescope; everything since then has been apologetics.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
As I said it's all in the interpretation. Everyone has the same evidence.
gnostic
The Lost One
Really?
God didn’t write Genesis...it wasn’t even written by Moses.
Genesis as a “book” didn’t even exist until the mid-1st millennium BCE, almost a thousand years that Moses supposedly lived in the 15th century BCE (Late Bronze Age in Egypt and Near East).
No part of Genesis and other books attributed to Moses (eg Exodus) were ever found and dated to the Late Bronze Age. Only fragments of Genesis and Exodus were dated to Babylonian Exile, and even later still in the Greek Septuagint and in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran.
The story of Moses may have set in the time of 18th dynasty Egypt, but there no independent Egyptian sources (eg during the reigns of Ahmose, Thutmose III or Amenhotep II) ever mentioning Moses, the plagues or the mass liberation and exodus out of Egypt. So Mosses (as well as Joshua) was most likely a fictional invention as Adam, Abraham, Jacob & Joseph are literary inventions.
Ella S.
*temp banned*
Every now and then I come across someone who says something that makes me think to myself, "Oh woah, okay, so I'm not crazy! Other people are seeing this, too."
This was one of those posts for me. I sometimes feel like I've taken a wrong turn in the Twilight Zone in some of these debates.
But does that apply to science? Can someone look a lake and call it a rock?
But what you said was that science cannot be right because, in your words, "Nope. He told us exactly what he did." Did he? I disagree with that. God did not tell us exactly how he created the universe. Who could have possibly understood it?
Instead, these are basically children's stories, taking the complexities of the natural world and putting them in magical language, rather than scientific terms. Is there anything wrong understanding Genesis as that? Does that deny God to you? Honestly, I don't see how it could.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I so not believe that is an accurate description of self evident Bible theology. The bible very clearly outlines that the incarnation, death, ressurection, and future second coming of Christ is all about Creation, The Fall, Redemption and Restoration.
It is not God who corrupted the world. He did not create us in some kind of animal condition. I am not sure what bible passage you use to justify that position?
He gave His creation free will because if he did not and simply struck down those who disobey, then Lucifers charge against God in Heaven at the start of all of this would have been justified (surely this concept is easy to understand...its a regular charge made in society even today!).
Creation: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (pretty simple statement...nothing difficult about this one)
The Fall:
Genesis Ch3: 1Now the serpenta was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’
”2The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’
”4“You will not surely die,” the serpent told her.
5“For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
Redemption - Adam and Eve sinned and the consequences of that sin for all future generations is death.
Romans 6:
20 For when you were slaves to sin, you were free of obligation to righteousness.
21What fruit did you reap at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? The outcome of those things is death.
22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and the outcome is eternal life.
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Restoration - to restore us back to our former glory (The Apostle Paul talks extensively about this all throughout his writings, however, one point of starting is 1 Corinthians 15 (read the whole chapter)
Verse 3: Christ died for our sins
Verse 21: just as death came through one man (Adam) life comes through one man (Christ)
Verse 49: when we are gathered together in the sky to meet the Lord at the Second Coming, we will be changed from corrupt earthly bodies into bodies matching that of Christ...bodies without corruption, bodies that do not contain illness, heavenly bodies as was originally designed for us before sin entered this world (verse 38).
We can also see parallels in the plight of the kingdom of Israel in the restoration too. Lamentations Ch5 goes into great depth about this topic and this applies to us today as we (the gentiles) are spiritual Israel (theological fact...so not just my words)
Lamentations 5:
1Remember, O LORD, what has happened to us. Look and see our disgrace!
7Our fathers sinned and are no more, but we bear their punishment.
15Joy has left our hearts; our dancing has turned to mourning.
16The crown has fallen from our head. Woe to us, for we have sinned!
21Restore us to Yourself, O LORD, so we may return; renew our days as of old,
Isaiah 65
17For behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth.f The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
Revelation 21
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Make no mistake about it however, there is a very definite answer to those who make the claim, a loving God wouldn't do bad things to us...
11But you who forsake the LORD, who forget My holy mountain, who set a table for Fortuned and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny,e
12I will destine you for the sword, and you will all kneel down to be slaughtered, because I called and you did not answer, I spoke and you did not listen; you did evil in My sight and chose that in which I did not delight.”
Enlighten me.
I would love to know how anyone can interpret the evidence of a 4.6 billion year old Earth that was lifeless until 3.7 billion years ago into created fully mature in a week just how Genesis describes it.
Given that the evidence shows this evolution that you deny occurring over time up until the present, how can you interpret it to fit the story of Genesis?
Again, please show us your interpretation using that same evidence.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Who says it's 4.6 billion years old?
We were not there to see what actually happened.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
It's not magical language. That's just how you choose to see it.
I see. So the evidence is only the evidence you accept.
The findings of studies by scientists reveal that it is 4.6 billion years old, but I'm sure that you can dismiss that with a wave of your hand.
Of course, many times people were not there to see some event happen. Of course that means it never did. How could I forget that?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
At the moment... Until they discover that they're wrong... again.
This is exactly where I thought you would go. The same evidence does not turn out to be the same evidence. Only evidence that supports your position is going to be considered evidence and everything else is tossed aside for no valid reason that will ever be given.
Thanks. That's all I needed to know.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Do you think time existed when the earth was forming?
I can fully see how this would validate dismissing it. It could be that they are off by 4.5997 billion years too much and will eventually discover that.
LOL!
Anyway, as I said, thanks for your answer. It was sufficient to enlighten me.