Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[YoursTrue]

That's why I said freedom doesn't exist since even God Himself is bound by His nature. Everyone's a slave and true freedom is found in nonexistence where you don't have a nature to be bound to.

I'm not sure what you mean that God is bound by His nature. Right now all I can say is that the Bible says there is one thing God cannot do. Do you know what that is? And it is important to know this, but also to know what His qualities are.

 

[nPeace]

Ah @Jos. I just thought about this one.
If you say that people live fulfilled happy lives, then that means you must agree that people are free, but all of them are dependent.
So to be truly happy, one must reach the level that is considered true happiness. Do you agree?
Likewise, to be truly free, there must be a level, one must reach, which is considered true freedom.
So it means there is a standard, or determining factor involved in what is true. Agreed?
Therefore, once that standard is reached, a lesser being cannot deny that a person is not truly free, truly happy, etc., because that standard is not set by them.

It's like a measuring tape.
A person may use a measuring rod to measure someone's height, and say they got an accurate measurement... but is it?
To the standard set by those who determine the rule, but that standard may not be in agreement with the truth.
Nonetheless, we accept it, because it is the only started we know, with our limited understanding.
The same is true with happiness, fulfillment, freedom... We set our own standards.

The creator likewise has his own standards, and they are vastly higher than ours.
Moreover, they are absolute - the highest standard possible - they are true.
So we can't contend with them. Whether we agree with them, or not, truth is truth, and they are set, so no one can change them.

So one can be truly happy, truly free.. if they reach the standard of true happiness, and freedom.
Makes sense?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course, you also notice the excuses.
If I thought it was not possible for Creationist to be truthful, do you think I would borrow creationists videos to try to support my claim that the fruit was an apple - a symbolic apple?

Yes. In the first century, there were those knowledgeable about their viewpoint, but failed to see the real picture. There were the Saducees and the Pharisees, and they thought the other was wrong, even when Paul was preaching the resurrection, eventually putting Jesus and Paul to death on false charges they made seem as if true. This is what we see today:
Jubilee Bible 2000
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was desirable to the eyes, and a tree of covetousness to understand, she took of its fruit and ate and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ah @Jos. I just thought about this one.
If you say that people live fulfilled happy lives, then that means you must agree that people are free, but all of them are dependent.
So to be truly happy, one must reach the level that is considered true happiness. Do you agree?
Likewise, to be truly free, there must be a level, one must reach, which is considered true freedom.
So it means there is a standard, or determining factor involved in what is true. Agreed?
Therefore, once that standard is reached, a lesser being cannot deny that a person is not truly free, truly happy, etc., because that standard is not set by them.

It's like a measuring tape.
A person may use a measuring rod to measure someone's height, and say they got an accurate measurement... but is it?
To the standard set by those who determine the rule, but that standard may not be in agreement with the truth.
Nonetheless, we accept it, because it is the only started we know, with our limited understanding.
The same is true with happiness, fulfillment, freedom... We set our own standards.

The creator likewise has his own standards, and they are vastly higher than ours.
Moreover, they are absolute - the highest standard possible - they are true.
So we can't contend with them. Whether we agree with them, or not, truth is truth, and they are set, so no one can change them.

So one can be truly happy, truly free.. if they reach the standard of true happiness, and freedom.
Makes sense?

I know you asked jos, but I would like to say that I agree with you here. Many people are coping with extreme depression. And suggestions are given for them to be happier. Some people say they are happy. Again -- happiness right now is obviously relative. But when we're happy, we're happy. We know when we're happy. Actually, now that I think about it, I get a great deal of joy, or happiness, seeing cats and kittens play. Or listening to some music. But then of course, I am concerned about accidents, car accidents and thinking about the senseless murders throughout the world. I feel very sorry for those that have their lives ruined by such awful things.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure what you mean that God is bound by His nature. Right now all I can say is that the Bible says there is one thing God cannot do. Do you know what that is? And it is important to know this, but also to know what His qualities are.

I think Jos means, God cannot go outside his nature. In other words. He is holy - pure to the superlative degree. Therefore God cannot be tainted, or become corrupted. He cannot become unjust, etc.
I assume you are thinking of the scripture that says, God cannot lie.
So it is in this sense "God is bound by his nature", and laws.
However, for you and I, we may just refer to it that, he is God - he is what he is.

 

[nPeace]

I know you asked jos, but I would like to say that I agree with you here. Many people are coping with extreme depression. And suggestions are given for them to be happier. Some people say they are happy. Again -- happiness right now is obviously relative. But when we're happy, we're happy. We know when we're happy. Actually, now that I think about it, I get a great deal of joy, or happiness, seeing cats and kittens play. Or listening to some music. But then of course, I am concerned about accidents, car accidents and thinking about the senseless murders throughout the world. I feel very sorry for those that have their lives ruined by such awful things.

Yes. I agree.
It means we need to truly grasp what Jesus meant when he used the word happy (blessed, according to some translations). Matthew 5
Why would Jesus say this...
Matthew 5:10-12
10 “Happy are those who have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake, since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them. 11 “Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake. 12 Rejoice and be overjoyed, since your reward is great in the heavens, for in that way they persecuted the prophets prior to you.

Obviously, it an inner joy that not even the most painful experience can erase. It's a joy that comes from having God's spirit.
That is why Jesus's followers had that joy even when they were flogged for preaching the Christ. (Acts 5:40-42)

This is true happiness - yet relative to a greater happiness, which those in paradise during Christ thousand year rule, will enjoy.
A person who has God's spirit is truly fulfilled.
Galatians 5:22, 23 . . .the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, you also notice the excuses.
If I thought it was not possible for Creationist to be truthful, do you think I would borrow creationists videos to try to support my claim that the fruit was an apple - a symbolic apple?

Wow! Way to miss the point. The apple was symbolic of the fruit in the Garden of Eden myth. Why is this concept so hard for you two to understand when even other creationists understand it?

This is some serious Dunning Kruger going on here.

 

[nPeace]

Oh @Sharikind, he is now backing other Creationists, so apparently all Creationists are not dishonest after all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution has not stopped. It does not stop. It is a much slower process than the development of languages, but it is similar to it in many ways.

You might as well say clothing styles evolved also.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow! Way to miss the point. The apple was symbolic of the fruit in the Garden of Eden myth. Why is this concept so hard for you two to understand when even other creationists understand it?

This is some serious Dunning Kruger going on here.

you keep saying apple. Where do you get the idea the fruit was an apple? Yet symbolic apple? You will keep it up I notice, even when you are so obviously wrong. You are interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one says they did. All of them, including humans, evolved from earlier forms.

Your ignorance is betraying you.

Forms?? Now it's ok to say they evolved from earlier forms? The intermediary form populations must have died out...lol. Apes remain apes and do not have sexual relations with other "forms," earlier or later, producing regenerative forms. Not only is it conjectural, it's ridiculous.

 

[YoursTrue]

This article has a very clear cladogram. Think of it as a family tree. It shows your ancestors and cousins:

Primate - Wikipedia

You can see that chimpanzees are very close relatives and lemurs are rather distant ones. There is no going back and there is no crossing over. Once a branch occurs that branch exists forever. Or at least until the line dies out.

It's conjecture and nothing you can do will change that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might as well say clothing styles evolved also.

Do you not know what an analogy is and how they can be useful teaching tools?

You are very confused about how evolution occurs and I used language as an analogy to help you to understand better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you keep saying apple. Where do you get the idea the fruit was an apple? Yet symbolic apple? You will keep it up I notice, even when you are so obviously wrong. You are interesting.

Wow!

I will answer when you answer the question I have asked many times:

Is English your first language?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's conjecture and nothing you can do will change that.

Why do you lie? It has been explained to you why this is not conjecture so repeating an error that you were corrected on crosses the border from being wrong to lying. Why do you think that you can abuse the Ninth Commandment? Is there some special rule that allows Christians to lie for their beliefs? It is not conjecture. This is a false claim on your part that you cannot justify. That your myth would be false if it is not conjecture is not a good enough excuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Forms?? Now it's ok to say they evolved from earlier forms? The intermediary form populations must have died out...lol. Apes remain apes and do not have sexual relations with other "forms," earlier or later, producing regenerative forms. Not only is it conjectural, it's ridiculous.

And you are still an ape. They did not go away. They did not change "forms" ( a term that is useless since you cannot define it). They merely evolved into new populations, just as Latin because several languages none of which would be understandable by a Latin speaker, the ancestor of humans evolved into several species of apes. None of them could breed with the ancestral species today if it existed today, just as a Spanish speaker could not understand a Latin speaker.


Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[YoursTrue]

Q

Once again you break the Ninth Commandment. If you do not understand the correct action is to ask questions, politely and properly. Do not ask questions with false assumptions built into them.

Once again the change that one would see would be very similar to the changes that one sees in language, only much slower. Could you understand your grandparent's English? Hopefully yes. Can you understand your grandchildren, Hopefully yes. But if your grandkids could talk with your grandparents there might be the beginning of trouble understanding each other.

The creationist "change of kinds" is a strawman. It is a false argument.

Again, language change in the human population is not biological change. Like I said, you might as well say changes in dress are evolution, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Q


Again, language change in the human population is not biological change. Like I said, you might as well say changes in dress are evolution, too.

Once again it is an analogy. A teaching tool. You may understand how languages change. If you understand how languages change that can help you to understand how species evolve.

Do you know what a parable is? I am having my doubts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you lie? It has been explained to you why this is not conjecture so repeating an error that you were corrected on crosses the border from being wrong to lying. Why do you think that you can abuse the Ninth Commandment? Is there some special rule that allows Christians to lie for their beliefs? It is not conjecture. This is a false claim on your part that you cannot justify. That your myth would be false if it is not conjecture is not a good enough excuse.

So you're saying there are proofs of genetic biological small changes where finally one population cannot biologically intermingle with a "close" earlier or later population. You know there are no proofs and so does everyone else whether you or they admit or not. Your continual statements that evolution is true based on fact does not make it so. In fact, it doesn't make you look real good.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again it is an analogy. A teaching tool. Do you know what a parable is? I am having my doubts.

You spoke about changing language as describing evolution. You are funny.