Why are we being punished for Adam's sin? is it true story?

[5stringJeff]

Jeff, I'm ignoring the Powerman and atheistic posts.

Most here, know where I'm coming from. Last Friday I went to teach my 7th graders about Catholic doctrine in religion class regarding evolution and God. What many probably do not know is that the 8th grade science/math teacher at our school is 'Lutheran', but not really, he's an evangelist. Which would be ok, if he really was science based or at least would adhere to the school's doctrine.

I've been teaching the same lesson for 7 years. Starts out, "I know you've been taught in science that evolution is currently the accepted explanation of how man achieved this place..." Hands started shooting up, "Mr. XXX says that that is a bunch of hooey!" Fluxomed I said, "You must have misunderstood, the Catholic doctrine accepts evolution regarding science, but also believes that God began the process of life..."

The students reiterated what they had been told. I went and got the principal, who met the same as me. We got the pastor to come in Monday. He finally acquiesed to the students, that they agreed with a literal interpretation of the bible. "Yes, they said." He said, "fine." "So the earth is the center of the universe and the weatherman is correct in 'sunset' and 'sunrise' in that the sun revolves around the earth?" "No, that is silly, the earth turns on its axis." So the pastor asked, "Why the literal for creationism, especially when there is the 7 day story and the Adam and Eve story? Yet, you discount the literal explanation of the earth as the center of the universe?" Ok, they could deal with a prime mover and evolution. I think the 8th grade science teacher's days are numbered...

I totally see where you are getting at. I, like many evangelicals (or at least many that I've talked with about this) am an old-earth creationist. So I don't think that the Genisis account is contradictory with science's aging of the universe at 13 billion years. (I think I read somewhere that the word translated "day" can also be translated "era.")
However, I do object to the argument about the earth being the center of the universe. We all use the language of sunrise, sunset, etc., from an observational standpoint. The sun does, indeed, appear to rise and set, even though the reason behind it is the earth's rotation. So to say that the Bible is somehow literally false because it uses that language... well, I don't buy it. It's common language usage.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm not sure you can have it both ways here because otherwise you open yourself to the possibility that God was wrong. If the Jews had free will, they could have chosen to save Jesus in which case God would have foreseen incorrectly. If God foresaw that the Jews would choose to have Jesus crucified, then the Jews really had no choice in the matter and therefore did not have free will.

Put it this way: If God created beings that could do something that God didn't expect, then God isn't omnipotent. If God created us knowing every single "choice" we would make, then we don't truly have free will since every choice we make was one that God created us to make.

I disagree. God knowing what will happen and God causing it to happen are two very different things.

For example, I know that the sun will rise in the morning. Did I cause the sun to rise? Absolutely not. But it rises nonetheless. Or, the example Darin uses. I know that when I come home, my wife will come to the door and greet me with a hug and kiss. Did I cause her to do that? Not at all, but she still does it.

Foreknowledge does not equal causality.

Let me ask a related question: so what if all our choices are predetermined by God? At least our choices were made for us by an omnipotent being that is never wrong. Better that than some of the alternatives, right?

This is what Calvinists argue. I am not a Calvinist, so I can't really answer.

 

[Annie]

I totally see where you are getting at. I, like many evangelicals (or at least many that I've talked with about this) am an old-earth creationist. So I don't think that the Genisis account is contradictory with science's aging of the universe at 13 billion years. (I think I read somewhere that the word translated "day" can also be translated "era.")
However, I do object to the argument about the earth being the center of the universe. We all use the language of sunrise, sunset, etc., from an observational standpoint. The sun does, indeed, appear to rise and set, even though the reason behind it is the earth's rotation. So to say that the Bible is somehow literally false because it uses that language... well, I don't buy it. It's common language usage.

Good catch Jeff. You sound just like the pastor. His 'lead in', "I always look for the weather report in the paper, the most 'scientific based' daily article. I'm always miffed at the terms 'sunset' and 'sunrise' as it's not the sun that is moving..." The kids got that, it took that to open their eyes to the idea that 'literal' isn't always the way, but does stand for something. Standing for something doesn't mean that the story is true, though the idea may very well be, ignor at your own peril. The Church is not that PC.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

I disagree. God knowing what will happen and God causing it to happen are two very different things.

For example, I know that the sun will rise in the morning. Did I cause the sun to rise? Absolutely not. But it rises nonetheless.

You prove my point. Why do you know the sun will rise in the morning? It is because the laws of physics predetermine it. The laws of physics do not allow the sun to "choose" what days it will rise and what days it will not rise. If the sun truly had free will, you certainly would not know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

Or, the example Darin uses. I know that when I come home, my wife will come to the door and greet me with a hug and kiss. Did I cause her to do that? Not at all, but she still does it.

You know this? Would you be willing to bet your life on it? How about if you called her in the morning and said some really nasty things to her, would she still greet you with a hug and a kiss? I would say that your foreknowledge in this case is better described as "a really good guess". If one day she doesn't greet you, maybe because she is in the bathroom, it really isn't a big deal that you told your friend "My wife will greet me with a hug and kiss". You would be wrong but that's okay, humans are allowed to be wrong. God can't so if God foresaw your wife greeting you with a hug and a kiss, nothing could possibly prevent your wife from doing so and she therefore cannot make the choice to be in the bathroom instead of greeting you.

Foreknowledge does not equal causality.

I would agree that foreknowledge does not equal causality but it does require predetermination. If you predetermined it (because you were God), then yes, you caused it. If something else predetermines it (like in the example of the rising sun) then the fact that you were not the cause does not change the fact that something else was.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

I'm always miffed at the terms 'sunset' and 'sunrise' as it's not the sun that is moving..."

I wouldn't be too miffed. There is no such thing as "absolute" movement, all things move in relation to something else. If the sun rises relative to your city in the morning, the term "sunrise" is as accurate as any other term you could use. If we wanted to use truly precise language, we could never say we were standing still or even moving at a certain speed since we are always rotating around the earth's axis, we are always orbiting the sun, which in turn orbits the milky way, etc. etc. You could try to use that as a defense for your next speeding ticket!

 

[Gunny]

me doust think he protest too much......let me ask you...what would it take to convince you god does not exist?

For God to come tell me face to face he didn't exist.

 

[Annie]

I wouldn't be too miffed. There is no such thing as "absolute" movement, all things move in relation to something else. If the sun rises relative to your city in the morning, the term "sunrise" is as accurate as any other term you could use. If we wanted to use truly precise language, we could never say we were standing still or even moving at a certain speed since we are always rotating around the earth's axis, we are always orbiting the sun, which in turn orbits the milky way, etc. etc. You could try to use that as a defense for your next speeding ticket!

Oh I like that idea! :clap1:

 

[Shattered]

Oh I like that idea! :clap1:

That's about as likely to work as trying to convince the cop that the 50mph winds were pushing you forward.. They didn't buy that one, either..

 

[Annie]

That's about as likely to work as trying to convince the cop that the 50mph winds were pushing you forward.. They didn't buy that one, either..

Actually I've managed to get out of every ticket, except the one for speeding in a school zone. Man that was expensive!

 

[Shattered]

Actually I've managed to get out of every ticket, except the one for speeding in a school zone. Man that was expensive!

Hmph! I've been pulled over twice, and (highly) ticketed twice. In the same weekend. Friday, and Sunday. Grr. Spent a year only having 4pts on my license.

One of them, I'm willing to *bet* was because of the "Bad cop! No donut!" sticker in my wallet...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And since Genesis was allegedly written by Moses how the fuck would he know what the real stories were?

I dont think Moses was attempting to alter a previously written book, and claim his version is correct, and the other one is a lie. You savy the difference? FUCK?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah I'm not talking about whether or not you believe or not. I'm talking about a particular situation. Jesus had to be crucified to fulfill the scriptures. Therefor people were not making choices of their own volition. Those choices weren't really choices if you believe that the scripture had to be fullfilled. Seems pretty simple to me.

nah, nah, nah, just because one can predict human nature and its resulting actions, doesnt absolve those people of making the choices they do.

I could take a black man to a KKK meeting and pretty much bet he will get beat up,,,its just human nature is so predictable at times....but the people still have a choice....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not comparing the people genius. Comparing the situations. The crimes in both instances are non-violent. Jesus was guilty, in the eyes of the Roman state, of making false claims about being a god and a king and of disturbing the peace. To the Romans, he was a rabble-rouser.

Why do you feel the need to fulfill your urge to insult people when they have spoken respectfully to you?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Powerman, this is going to go over like a turd in the punchbowl.

Now you're calling Powerman a turd? Hmm, we finally agree !

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not sure you can have it both ways here because otherwise you open yourself to the possibility that God was wrong. If the Jews had free will, they could have chosen to save Jesus in which case God would have foreseen incorrectly. If God foresaw that the Jews would choose to have Jesus crucified, then the Jews really had no choice in the matter and therefore did not have free will.

Put it this way: If God created beings that could do something that God didn't expect, then God isn't omnipotent. If God created us knowing every single "choice" we would make, then we don't truly have free will since every choice we make was one that God created us to make.

Let me ask a related question: so what if all our choices are predetermined by God? At least our choices were made for us by an omnipotent being that is never wrong. Better that than some of the alternatives, right?

There is a difference between predicting individual actions and group actions. Group actions are much more predictable, and at times 100% accurate.

Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov deals with this precisely.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Half of those problems are because drugs are illegal. And the other problems would not change either way if drugs were legal.

You've posted some real doozies, but Im still scratching my head over this one.

So, half the problems are only cuz drugs are illegal, in other words, if they were legal, the problem would dissappear. Fine, so thats an arguement against those set of problems created by drugs.

NOw, we have another set of problems created by drugs that are inherent in drug usage, in other words, it will exist as a problem whether drugs are illegal or not...

so how does the second paragraph sustain your arguement that drugs are a victimless, and violent free crime?

 

[Powerman]

Jeff, I'm ignoring the Powerman and atheistic posts.

Most here, know where I'm coming from. Last Friday I went to teach my 7th graders about Catholic doctrine in religion class regarding evolution and God. What many probably do not know is that the 8th grade science/math teacher at our school is 'Lutheran', but not really, he's an evangelist. Which would be ok, if he really was science based or at least would adhere to the school's doctrine.

I've been teaching the same lesson for 7 years. Starts out, "I know you've been taught in science that evolution is currently the accepted explanation of how man achieved this place..." Hands started shooting up, "Mr. XXX says that that is a bunch of hooey!" Fluxomed I said, "You must have misunderstood, the Catholic doctrine accepts evolution regarding science, but also believes that God began the process of life..."

The students reiterated what they had been told. I went and got the principal, who met the same as me. We got the pastor to come in Monday. He finally acquiesed to the students, that they agreed with a literal interpretation of the bible. "Yes, they said." He said, "fine." "So the earth is the center of the universe and the weatherman is correct in 'sunset' and 'sunrise' in that the sun revolves around the earth?" "No, that is silly, the earth turns on its axis." So the pastor asked, "Why the literal for creationism, especially when there is the 7 day story and the Adam and Eve story? Yet, you discount the literal explanation of the earth as the center of the universe?" Ok, they could deal with a prime mover and evolution. I think the 8th grade science teacher's days are numbered...

Why would you want to ignore me? I'm always blatantly honest on this forum. Which is much more than we can say for most of the Christians on this board who will spout out lies whenever it supports their agenda. I offer factual information, insight, and logic. Nothing more and nothing less. Do I think that religion is silly? Yes. Do I hate Christians? No. Of course not. My problem isn't with the morals or teachings of Christianity. My problem is more with the Bible than anything else. New testament isn't so bad but nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in the Old Testament should be taken seriously. At least 30% of it is immoral trash.

I don't understand how everyone thinks I'm some evil person just because I don't believe in the same things as you all. Take any 3rd party person and try to tell them the story of Christianity. They'd look at you like you were crazy if you wanted them to believe all of it. Rightfully so.

So the main difference between me and the Christians here is this:

We all know that the stories in the Bible are hard to believe...

Christians: Yeah it seems like completely impossible bullshit but it's a matter of "faith" so we don't question it.

Me: It really is completely impossible bullshit and anyone who believes in it is falling for the worst prank of all. Why would anyone believe in such nonsense?


That's the big difference. We both see the same stories and probably both think they are silly. Difference is, I don't believe in it. And most of the people that "believe" are really just hedging and playing the odds just in case anyway.

There comes a point in someones life where you have to sit down and seriously ask yourself : "Is there really some invisible creator out there that cares whether or not I masturbate?" My answer to that cosmic question is probably not.

 

[Powerman]

You've posted some real doozies, but Im still scratching my head over this one.

So, half the problems are only cuz drugs are illegal, in other words, if they were legal, the problem would dissappear. Fine, so thats an arguement against those set of problems created by drugs.

NOw, we have another set of problems created by drugs that are inherent in drug usage, in other words, it will exist as a problem whether drugs are illegal or not...

so how does the second paragraph sustain your arguement that drugs are a victimless, and violent free crime?

I never said that drugs are victimless violent free crimes. Apparently you aren't much of a think for yourselfer over there so I'll spell out a couple things for you real quick.

When I said that half of the problems are from drugs being illegal it's from an economic standpoint. When you have a risk involved in doing business(in this case dealing drugs) then you will have to seriously raise the price of your product. The high cost of drugs coupled with the addictive nature of drugs is what leads to crimes such as theft. If you take the high price out of the equation then you can reduce the occurence of such crimes that stem from drug abuse. Seems simple right? I'm sure it will go right over your head though.

On to the next point. If you legalize drugs then law enforcement can concentrate their efforts elsewhere hopefully reducing other crimes.

Any person who gives it any serious thought will realize that there would be a net positive on society if drugs were made legal. Even if it were only weed which is much less destructive than alcohol, it would make a big difference.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Dude I'm not talking about any scriptures. Was the death of Christ something that was inevitable and the only way for salvation according to the bible? Yes of course it was. So that removes the idea that anyone had any free will. They would have only thought they were making choices in that situation.

You can not have free choice and predestination. You can only have one or the other. I don't know how I'm going to beat this into you but it's simple logic.

Im predicting you will make more posts with personal insults and attacks on religion.

Is this pre destination or are you free to change?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I never said that drugs are victimless violent free crimes. Apparently you aren't much of a think for yourselfer over there so I'll spell out a couple things for you real quick.

When I said that half of the problems are from drugs being illegal it's from an economic standpoint. When you have a risk involved in doing business(in this case dealing drugs) then you will have to seriously raise the price of your product. The high cost of drugs coupled with the addictive nature of drugs is what leads to crimes such as theft. If you take the high price out of the equation then you can reduce the occurence of such crimes that stem from drug abuse. Seems simple right? I'm sure it will go right over your head though.

On to the next point. If you legalize drugs then law enforcement can concentrate their efforts elsewhere hopefully reducing other crimes.

Any person who gives it any serious thought will realize that there would be a net positive on society if drugs were made legal. Even if it were only weed which is much less destructive than alcohol, it would make a big difference.

Listen MORON,,, you responded to GOP who was debating Haggy about the "victimless" status of drug crimes. Since GOP was arguing drugs is not a victimless crime, and you resonded to his post, then you are automatically taking up the "its a victimless criime" posisition. I know thats thinkiing beyond just a few personal insults, maybe your little brain can figure that one out.

Now, since I didnt understand what you were saying, I was QUESTIONING IT, if yoiu cant give me a civilized answer, thats fine. What I really dont understand is why you consider it acceptable to yourself to live a lonely, bitter, unhappy existence.

Have a nice day...Oh, and by the way

GOD LOVES YOU