Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
gerg said:
Can you go into them for me? I'm genuinely intrigued.
I don't disagree with that
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Religion Thread
- Thread starter U5230
- Start date
- Status
Can you go into them for me? I'm genuinely intrigued.
I don't disagree with that
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Nocebo said:
The reason I ask is to avoid confusion, I'm not trying to be lazy, but if you could identify the verses and you interpret them in a different way, at least I know which verses you're talking about as opposed to just saying "I can't find that in the text". I would really appreciate it if you could quote the areas that are the basis of your points (please). Thanks
Genesis 1:
Genesis 2
See in Genesis 1 god creates the creatures and then man (also note: not A man) and let them rule over the creatures (that are already there). However in genesis 2 God doesn't want THE man to be lonely so he creates some creatures afterwards that can help him in the field.
But I guess you could read this any number of ways depending on your fancy, like almost anything else in the Bible.
Genesis 2
See in Genesis 1 god creates the creatures and then man (also note: not A man) and let them rule over the creatures (that are already there). However in genesis 2 God doesn't want THE man to be lonely so he creates some creatures afterwards that can help him in the field.
But I guess you could read this any number of ways depending on your fancy, like almost anything else in the Bible.
Jdog, in all seriousness. This is annoying.jdogmoney said:
If you can't say more than "what" or a :lol , then why would you think with my Bronze Age brain that I would understand what your issues are?
There is no point in replying if you can't at least ask a question. I'll wait until you do. That way I won't be replying all willy nilly. The sentence in and of itself is pretty self explanatory unless English isn't your language, so help me out.
But I LIKE you.KingGondo said:
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Let's get down to it.
What I'm trying to ask is basically is this: if there is a way to reconcile religion with science in regards to evolution, by for example highlighting some of the allegorical elements of Genesis, then surely there is a conflict on the origins of Man (specifically polygenism). I say that with the presumption that Bible reading Christians that accept evolution (to whatever extent), however, believe that humanity began with Adam & Eve.
What I'm trying to ask is basically is this: if there is a way to reconcile religion with science in regards to evolution, by for example highlighting some of the allegorical elements of Genesis, then surely there is a conflict on the origins of Man (specifically polygenism). I say that with the presumption that Bible reading Christians that accept evolution (to whatever extent), however, believe that humanity began with Adam & Eve.
If my head was shaped like a circle like JGS' is then I think I would be a little "off" too. If you know what I mean.KingGondo said:
Some try to distinguish between macro and micro evolution. The former they insist doesn't happen, ever. The only way you could convince those types is if you presented them with a pig that would suddenly sprout wings during its life span. (ps dogs or kittens that sprout wings don't count)gerg said:
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
gerg said:
Both seem problematic though. The implications of rejecting of a single ancestral couple seems incompatible with the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity.
By the way reading a bit of genesis again this bit was pretty funny:
The serpent was telling the truth wasn't he? God was the one that was being deceiving :lol
Genesis is full of inconsistent dumb shit. Oh man's punishment was to toil the field? But he was made to toil the field a chapter earlier :lol
This is after man and woman eat the fruit etc. but:
The serpent was telling the truth wasn't he? God was the one that was being deceiving :lol
Genesis is full of inconsistent dumb shit. Oh man's punishment was to toil the field? But he was made to toil the field a chapter earlier :lol
*Gulp*Meus Renaissance said:
Yes, but there is not a way to reconcile abiogenesis (not science at all) with creation.
Intelligent human life as we know it started with Adam & Eve- at least in relation to God's purpose which is what the Bible is about, not whether we came from a Neanderthal. They were his and Satan's focus and God's promises/relationship toward humans started with them.
The Bible does not address how cavemen or ancient civilizations developed beyond Adam & his offspring so there's nothing to go on with that except conjecture (Anything I say at least on that is hypothetical). However, it is entirely possible that humankind as we know it developed from two people and the population growth of their offspring could easily be done in a timespan of several thousands of years.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
gerg said:
Because if you believe in original sin which we inherited, and subsequently Christ died for, then you must believe in the fall of man. Paul himself refers to Adam as a single person, whereas Luke describes Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam again. I can see where the allegorical elements may be seen in the Bible, and in Genesis, but I don't see how this can work without a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve; scripture appears adamant about that. Remember the Church welcomes scientific theories as long as they don't "contradict dogma" and so you can't make a theological argument without the support of scripture.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Nocebo said:
What?
Meus Renaissance said:
True, but you needn't believe the manner in which the Bible tells you this happens.
Do we accept that the Fall of Man is, at its core, man's movement from general obedience with God to one where he is generally disobedient? If that is its core, then it can occur with or without Adam.
I'm not actually convinced by this, although, to be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by the statement either.
[Edit: So at the heart of Jesus' death is that man, somehow, had fallen and that Jesus' somehow died for such sins. (I apologise, my knowledge of Christian teaching isn't very strong.)]
Nocebo said:
Original sin refers to the nature in which now man resides based on the "original sin" committed by Eve - that is, according to the scripture, all people are now born in a state different to the condition in which they were born prior to the Fall of Man.
Original sin, therefore, contrasts with the "actual sins" that we commit, individually, in our lifetime.
Chaplain
Member
jdogmoney said:
Here you go (right click and save as):
The New Age, The Invisible Denomination - God's Word vs. the Emerging Church - Ray Yungen
Signs of the Times, Pt. 1 - God's Word vs. the Emerging Church - Warren Smith
Comtemplative Spirituality - God's Word vs. the Emerging Church - Ray Yungen
Signs of the Times, Pt. 2 - God's Word vs. the Emerging Church - Warren Smith
I got permission from my church to upload the dvds to youtube once the dvds come in. The video for each session shows allot of stuff that needs to be seen.
Chaplain
Member
Nocebo said:
Here is what God said to Adam:
You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the gardenexcept the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.
Here is what Satan said to Eve:
Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden? "You wont die! the serpent replied to the woman. God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.
Here is what Eve said to Satan:
Of course we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, the woman replied. Its only the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God said, You must not eat it or even touch it; if you do, you will die.
Notice that Eve added an extra rule that God never mentioned, that they were not to touch the forbidden fruit.
Because of original sin? We're also born punished if that's the case.Game Analyst said:
What's your point? What did the snake say that was deceiving? He was correct wasn't he?Game Analyst said:
What God said was incorrect, meaning he lied.
Are you saying it was Adam that lied to Eve?Game Analyst said:
How is that explicitly stated that Eve purposely added stuff? Did the bible record EVERY conversation God ever had with Adam and Eve? :lolGame Analyst said:
Again how did Eve know what God said when she wasn't there when he said it and it doesn't say in the bible who told her? Maybe Adam told her what God said and he added that bit!
Again how did Eve know what God said when she wasn't there when he said it and it doesn't say in the bible who told her? Maybe Adam told her what God said and he added that bit!Game Analyst said:
Then LATER:
So who told Eve what God initially commanded to the man ONLY?
It's also interesting to note and emphasize that only the man was forbidden from eating the fruit of that tree. If you go with the idea of everything God said has been recorded in the bible:lol
That's exactly my point. Game Analyst claims Eve added a bit to what God had said. However how can you be sure of that when not everything that has been said was recorded? Perhaps later God added they were not to even touch the fruit either?JGS said:
Also it all still doesn't explain how the snake was being deceptive for telling the truth while God was the one deceiving Adam and Eve.
PS: can't you guys read? Sheesh.
Sorry, I was just basing it on you past posts about Biblical subjects. The comments fit in lione with your views which are generally incorrect.Nocebo said:
What Satan said was not true. I never get why people can even interpret that to be the case. Satan said you positively will not die which was false. A half truth is still a lie.
Further, them becoming like God and knowing good and bad was to their detriment, not benefit- something they realized immediately (Actually Adam probably knew it before he even ate the fruit).
Satan is a liar.
They didn't die from the fruit did they? Adam died like 930 years later. So no they did not die from the fruit. Or are you implying that they were immortal before they ate that fruit?JGS said:
1) How was it to their detriment? You would rather not know truth?
2) How does any of this make the serpent a liar?
You've only got your first point which is bunk in my opinion.
Dude Abides
Banned
JGS said:
If all people are descended from Adam then everyone, including all cavemen, were/are his offspring, so the bolded sentence makes no sense.
Yes, they died for eating it. The fruit itself was not poisonous. The death penalty was completely from God who was the only one that had the ability to take it away.Nocebo said:
1. They knew the truth. They knew they would die. Eve was even able to quote it back.Nocebo said:
2. Who said the serpent was sinned? Animals don't have obedience requirements.
I suppose if you assume that the fight between man and snake began and ended in the Garden of Eden and we just go around stepping on their heads all day, you may have a point, but otherwise not really. There is clearly more to the story which is spelled out in pretty good detail throughout the Bible.
1) Then God was being deceptive.JGS said:
2) That's bullshit too because they could already die:
Genesis 3
There was a tree in the garden of Eden which would have granted them immortality. If God could have taken away their immortality (which they didn't have) why would this tree be a problem? :lol
In light of the fact that they could already die, how was God not full of shit?
1. I'm speaking of the truth of good and evil. How can you know truth if you can't tell right from wrong, good from bad?
2. You were calling the serpent a liar, yet you failed to prove how the serpent told any lies. I'm confused now. The bad guy is God in this story.
JGS said:
If humanity experienced such a bottleneck just a few thousand years ago, we could see it. Cheetahs, for example, went through a comparable bottleneck during the last ice age. Today, you can make a skin graft from any cheetah to any other cheetah without provoking a response from the immune system. They also suffer from high infant mortality and other genetic diseases iirc. I don't think there would be nearly enough time for all the variation we see to evolve. Besides that amount of inbreeding wouldn't make for a stable population and we'd probably have gone extinct.
I'm not a biologist by any means though.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
gerg said:
I find Genesis' account interesting because it shows Man with free will, and this is important. Man is told not to eat that specific fruit and then disobeys. As a result, the serpent (Satan) is cursed and man is punished with enmity between them (and their children), women will suffer pain in childbirth, husbands shall rule over wives, the land is cursed and banishment from the Garden. As a result, we inherited the tendency to sin and burden the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience. If it was allegorical, then God is working on the presumption that man will disobey him, and will sin regardless. This undermines the theme of free will apparent in the original Genesis account. If God created man to sin, and therefore punished him for it, then what is left of original sin? Saying this is allegorical is quite different to Augustine's idea that the "light" and "darkness" were metaphorical (and literal). It appears to be an event. As a result some believe that the garden was in heaven (e.g. not on Earth so as to reconcile this with the theory of evolution) yet Eden is described as literal in the Genesis, with descriptions of the river watering it splitting to different directions (e.g. Euphrates). Where is the allegory here?
Genesis continues with Eve beginning a lineage, with Cain and Abel and then their families and those families having their own etc. So if Eve was a symbol, then is the following lineage entirely an allegory itself? It's interesting because, regardless of Eve and Adam, you still have Cain and Abel - and if you disregard them, you have to deal with the individuals that are said to be their direct descendants and we have a situation where you have one or two people, a pair, whose existence cannot be dismissed as symbolic as you may do with the fall of man story. Enoch and the rest have no symbolism, yet they are listed, so it suggests they were literal.
A question that has to be asked whilst we're on this subject is that, if we're talking symbolism, then almost every event and indeed every figure in the Bible can be seen as allegorical; the story of Moses, for example, is a popular narrative of God's sheer power on Earth. Jesus Christ' miracles (as I alluded to earlier) can be rationalised (as some do, dismissing them as symbolism). A priest said to me that "your belief in Christianity won't be based on your views on whether a man can survive in a whale for three days", suggesting that some do not. But I respond that no one would deny it, perhaps question it, but they could not fail to the possibility that it was a divine event.
Not every event need be an allegory when you have God in the equation.
Do we accept that the Fall of Man is, at its core, man's movement from general obedience with God to one where he is generally disobedient? If that is its core, then it can occur with or without Adam.
I think this would only work, as I said, if an event that showed this move to disobedience occurred. Some of the details of the story may be allegorical, but the core of it must have happened. If it was just purely a story, and it was made up (all of it), then there is no original sin. If there is an alternative explanation, let me know.
You should have bolded more:Dude Abides said:
me said:
Cavemen could have easily been considered creatures that had no kind of moral obligation before God. We don't have the always present if...then statements that humans are obligated to follow.
In Adam & Eve's case, the "if you eat the fruit, then you die" was the first conditional relationship God had with humans and everthing after that was affected by that decision.
1. Nope. He said quite clearly what would happen.Nocebo said:
2. They were mortal. Of course they could die. That does not mean they would die.
Immortality and everlasting life are not the same thing. Further, you answered your own question, but since you apparently don't see it... The tree would have been a problem had they eaten from it. It would have been a reward for obedience which they failed. Thus God made sure they did not get to it. The fact that they had the possibility of eating fruit that means their death and eating fruit that could give them eternal life has nothing to do with each other. We're almost talking literal apples and oranges although we don't know what kind of actual fruit made up the two trees.Nocebo said:
1. If you follow what God tells you to do, you're right. If you don't, you're wrong. It's a little thing called faith in your creator. Your posing the question simply means you thought like Adam & Eve did, not whether God was wrong in forbidding them to eat a tree that would end in their death.Nocebo said:
2. Your being confused is not surprising, but I explained clearly why Satan lied.
I'll try to make the explanation a little more monosyllabic if you want, but you'll have to let me know what you don't get about that statement.me said:
Dude Abides
Banned
JGS said:
Are you saying cavemen weren't human? Weren't "intelligent humans"? Were not descended from Adam?
There is no bottleneck and and no real inbreeding risk which would come with more specialization. Our genetic make-up is much different then the first versions of anything. That's got to be scientific or else the implication would be that several types of the same animal simply sprang up on their own and in enough numbers to avoid inbreeding issues.Dever said:
At some point, all animals came from a similar source and inbreeding simply wasn't an issue. This would make sense if you started out with a couple people close to biological perfection anyway. There would not be any defects to begin with.
In a very short period of time we can see the results in the mixing of races. In as short as one generation, you can literally have a different mix of people with no hinderance to reproduction. However, because of our nature, they are not holed up in particular geographic areas. They can literally go anywhere they want and adapt accordingly even with little technology (Except maybe Antartica).
All major civilizations came about in a relatively short period of time in relation to the age of the Earth and also in a bracnhing out fashion. It's pretty clear that man can grow and become varied at a much faster rate simply because we can choose our adaptations to an extent
Dude Abides said:
For the record, I don't know. However, you're thinking too hard on this & every one of these was answered in the two paragraphs of possibilities.
1. Didn't say that at all in any bold part.
2. Nope, not in comparison to us or more importanly in regards to God's expectations of us.
3. If Neanderthals were around before Adam & Eve, then how could they have descended from them?
Dude Abides
Banned
JGS said:
Don't get pissy with me for trying to clear up your extremely bad and vague writing. Are you using neanderthal as a synonym for caveman?
- Status