Thoughts on the Fall of Adam

[Subduction Zone]

We "all" know? You have already said the fruit in question was a symbolic apple. Something the Bible never said. Yet you maintain it was a symbolic apple, not even just an unnamed fruit but say it's an apple. Symbolic of course.

Anyone with a decent education and that is honest.

And you are going back to the apple again? Seriously you do not understand that it is often portrayed as an apple? This sort of picking away on points that do not matter is an example of you not being able to follow a conversation

I could post more. For convenience, not because it would have been one, apples are used.

 

[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.

So far I have seen nothing but statements without merit from you as if they were true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Anyone with a decent education and that is honest.

And you are going back to the apple again? Seriously you do not understand that it is often portrayed as an apple? This sort of picking away on points that do not matter is an example of you not being able to follow a conversation

I could post more. For convenience, not because it would have been one, apples are used.

You talk about others lying, when you can't even own up to an ignorant error you obviously made? First you say they ate an apple when the Bible says nothing of the sort. Then you say it was a symbolic apple. Then you say everyone knows it was a symbolic apple. And I say after trying to reason with you -- : ok, it's time to close the discussion as you constantly seek to maneuver and improperly position yourself. You have been fascinating and interesting as well as instructive demonstrating the method of displaced and jumparound illogic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, you are projecting your faults upon others. I explained to you repeatedly how and why you are admitting that evolution is a fact when you move the goal posts.

Don't blame me because you do not know how to debate properly.

There is something you have not gotten yet in line with the context of the topic. I am not debating. The holes in your logic are not up for debate. They are glaring and simply not able to be covered over by any sort of rational explanation, far less with any sort of proof. Soon why don't you say that languages genetically evolved and some disappeared? Lol...!

 

[YoursTrue]

You keep using bogus terms. We have observed evolution on the order of the evolution that separated man from our closest relative. There is no "change in form" in our evolution. You as much as admitted that we are very similar to chimps. We are more like chimps than any other species on the Earth.

There are literally mountains of scientific evidence for evolution. There is none for creationism. Why would you believe a myth? Worse yet why do you believe that God lied?

You just beg for answers. No, WE have not observed "evolution on the order of the evolution that separated man from our closest relative." It's about as observable as you seeing Adam eat a symbolic apple. OK,less so.

 

[Thief]

the forbidden fruit was a test

after altering the body and mind
the need to be sure came up

previous to the garden Man was a another species
no names, no garden, no law

and without the garden event Man would have overrun the the planet before
his spirit would gel

so ....a chosen specimen
the garden event
a test

and the specimens passed the test
curiosity and the will to know
even if death is a pending result

the alteration had taken hold

they were released into the environment
and the garden having served it's purpose.....dismantled

the specimens...the release would appear to be
condemnation

 

[YoursTrue]

the forbidden fruit was a test

after altering the body and mind
the need to be sure came up

previous to the garden Man was a another species
no names, no garden, no law

and without the garden event Man would have overrun the the planet before
his spirit would gel

so ....a chosen specimen
the garden event
a test

and the specimens passed the test
curiosity and the will to know
even if death is a pending result

the alteration had taken hold

they were released into the environment
and the garden having served it's purpose.....dismantled

the the specimens...the release would appear to be
condemnation

Not sure what you mean by most of your post, but definitely the forbidden fruit was a test. Genesis 2 says, about the fruits in the garden -- "And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed. 9Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
It says in chapter 3, "The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3but of 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.’”

It is not written that God told Adam they must not touch it, only that they must not eat from it. She added to what God apparently said. We don't know exactly what Adam told Eve,but she knew she was not supposed to eat from that tree, and that it tasted good to her, and she wanted to be wise like God so she took it upon pushing from the devil.

 

[Thief]

Not sure what you mean by most of your post, but definitely the forbidden fruit was a test. Genesis 2 says, about the fruits in the garden -- "And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed. 9Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
It says in chapter 3, "The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3but of 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.’”

It is not written that God told Adam they must not touch it, only that they must not eat from it. She added to what God apparently said. We don't know exactly what Adam told Eve,but she knew she was not supposed to eat from that tree, and that it tasted good to her, and she wanted to be wise like God so she took it upon pushing from the devil.

some say the devil was actually part of the test
and was working under God's instruction

not sure if I believe that

and the use of the word....serpent....
displays the spirit of the character
not the form

so....was the serpent a fallen angel?
seeking to undue the experiment of the garden
to undo the intent of the alteration
that Man might continue as a "low brow" creature

either way.....
both of the specimens DID partake

the alteration had taken hold

 

[Subduction Zone]

Q

So far I have seen nothing but statements without merit from you as if they were true.

Then please pay attention. I have linked articles that support my position I have explained your errors to you, but you keep making the same ones. It appears that you are seeking excuses not to learn rather than trying to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You talk about others lying, when you can't even own up to an ignorant error you obviously made? First you say they ate an apple when the Bible says nothing of the sort. Then you say it was a symbolic apple. Then you say everyone knows it was a symbolic apple. And I say after trying to reason with you -- : ok, it's time to close the discussion as you constantly seek to maneuver and improperly position yourself. You have been fascinating and interesting as well as instructive demonstrating the method of displaced and jumparound illogic.

I am sorry, but when you make such statements you make it look as if you have very poor reading comprehension. The fruit is quite often referred to as "the apple". That does not mean that it was an apple. Most people understand this without any explanation needed at all. This is why I asked if English was a second language for you. People that grew up with English understand this usage. I did not lie. I did not make an error. You simple could not understand a common convention.

And please do not lie about me. As a Christian you should not continually break the Ninth Commandment. If you do not understand something I will endeavor to explain it to you. If you cannot understand something it does not mean that the person used "jump around logic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just beg for answers. No, WE have not observed "evolution on the order of the evolution that separated man from our closest relative." It's about as observable as you seeing Adam eat a symbolic apple. OK,less so.

Yes we have. I gave you an example. By not even bothering to either look into it or even ask me you effectively lied again when you make a claim that you cannot justify.

Is your myth so important to you that you cannot approach the topic rationally and politely? Not knowing something is fine. But denying what you do not know can never be honest. Only the weak in faith demand that the Genesis myths are true. There are countless Christians that accept evolution. In fact it makes their faith stronger since taken literally the God of Genesis is both immoral and incompetent. Plus when we look at all of the evidence out there the people that believe the myths of Genesis are claiming, though they do not know it, that their God is a liar.

 

[nPeace]

You talk about others lying, when you can't even own up to an ignorant error you obviously made? First you say they ate an apple when the Bible says nothing of the sort. Then you say it was a symbolic apple. Then you say everyone knows it was a symbolic apple. And I say after trying to reason with you -- : ok, it's time to close the discussion as you constantly seek to maneuver and improperly position yourself. You have been fascinating and interesting as well as instructive demonstrating the method of displaced and jumparound illogic.

You know what else is noteworthy...
If you link him a video from a Creationist or Creationist website, he will complain about how lied they are, and not discuss it with you. Yet he posts not one, but two Creationists videos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know what else is noteworthy...
If you link him a video from a Creationist or Creationist website, he will complain about how lied they are, and not discuss it with you. Yet he posts not one, but two Creationists videos.

If you can be honest I will gladly point out the lies to you. And I use creationist videos to demonstrate what creationists believe. I am sorry but this complaint of yours does not reflect well on you.

If I post a creationist video that is done to either show what they believe or to show how they lie. There is no inconsistency there. You make the mistake of posting creationist videos as if they have a valid point on evolution when they have to lie continually in their work.

 

[Jos]

I can agree to that, since you used the word truly. I can see you are a deep thinker. That explains a few things about the structure of your earlier questions.
However, where one might think that is a bad thing, to the contrary, it is a good thing.

Yeah I'd like to believe I'm a deep thinker

Not a trick question, but...
Can a slave be free?
Your answer I am going to assume from what you said, is no.

A free slave would be a contradiction in terms and contradictions don't exist so a free slave doesn't exist.

Notice, free in one sense, slave in another, but is the slavery good, or bad. Slavery to what is truly right (good), is good. Agreed?
One is a slave to something, regardless.
This is a universal law that no one can escape.
So for example, a person may say they are free of... let's say God, righteousness, etc. etc. What are they a slave of? Something right?

If one is free (in the sense of real freedom. I used the word real, as I am speaking of a greater freedom than normal - a superior freedom), it is because they are bounded by a law.
Notice again how the book of truth presents this fact.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now Jehovah is the Spirit, and where the spirit

If that's the case then no one is truly free and everyone's bound to their nature... freedom doesn't exist at all

Some people may doubt this, but God is happy to be bound by his own nature. It is still his own laws.

Did God create those laws or did they flow of His nature, the same nature He has no control over?

You are right - attaining true happiness would be a choice, but that choice depends on whether we choose to be slaves of God, and righteousness, or free of them.
Adam and Eve chose to be free of God, and righteousness. Now look at the world. Does independent from God lead to happiness? To me that answer seems clear.
True happiness though, is attainable.

Many people live fulfilled, happy lives as atheists though. And can we really say that people have free will, especially given that our choices are influenced by something?

Trust me. There are no happy dead people.
You said correctly, "you won't have any desires, emotions, expectations etc". That includes joy, peace, happiness.
People often speak as though the dead are really conscience. They say, "Rest in peace. (RIP)", but we know the dead don't hear, nor are they enjoying peace, but certainly, they are not unhappy anymore.

When I spoke of nonexistence I didn't mean death, I meant having never existed at all... If you never existed at all you wouldn't have to deal with both the negatives and positives of existence and in that case you'll truly be free.

 

[Jos]

No matter how you look at it, to be free is relative. We can't fly through the air by ourselves, we can't deep sea dive without breathing equipment, etc. Freedom is relative no matter what you do.

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.

 

[nPeace]

Yeah I'd like to believe I'm a deep thinker

A free slave would be a contradiction in terms and contradictions don't exist so a free slave doesn't exist.

If that's the case then no one is truly free and everyone's bound to their nature... freedom doesn't exist at all

Fair enough.
However, we know how detrimental it can be to break laws that are good.
So since God is all wise, he would know that laws are vital to keep things in order.

Did God create those laws or did they flow of His nature, the same nature He has no control over?

Good question.
From what I understand, God is lawgiver and judge, and so as the beginning and the end, it would seem logical that the law is part of his nature. He is the epitome of good, therefore his laws are good. He is absolute and perfect.
If I were God, I would have no reason to complain.
In fact, if God complained about his nature, he would not be God, because then he would not be perfect.

Many people live fulfilled, happy lives as atheists though.

Many people live happy fulfilled lives, but isn't that relative to various degrees, or levels?
Your idea of happiness, and fulfillment is vastly different to your neighbors', and yet we still believe there are even greater levels of happiness and fulfillment.
Isn't that why people are always trying new and different things, and why certain things excite them more than others?

And can we really say that people have free will, especially given that our choices are influenced by something?

Free will is subjective, and like all things, there are various levels.
Nothing in life is absolute Jos. There is only one absolute.
We have the will to choose.
For example, one can choose to believe that everything started by an intelligent agent, or they can believe that no intelligent agent was needed, but everything is an infinite regression of uncaused, unguided events.

When I spoke of nonexistence I didn't mean death, I meant having never existed at all... If you never existed at all you wouldn't have to deal with both the negatives and positives of existence and in that case you'll truly be free.

If you never existed at all, there would be no you, so to say, you wouldn't have to deal with both the negatives and positives of existence and in that case you'll truly be free. sounds to me a dichotomy too impossible to even contemplate.

 

[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.

Well, I don't look forward to eternal nothingness. Or nonexistence. I really believe in what the Bible says. Eternal life, and yes, with its conditions. Jesus said it means everlasting life to take in knowledge of him and his Father. (John 3:15.) Just thinking about the stars, many of us enjoy looking at them. Apparently we are originally (and I use the word originally purposely) to enjoy life. Despite life's problems now, there are things to be enjoyed as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know what else is noteworthy...
If you link him a video from a Creationist or Creationist website, he will complain about how lied they are, and not discuss it with you. Yet he posts not one, but two Creationists videos.

I see that trend in SZ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that trend in SZ.

Amazing. You do not see the errors in his post.

Have you noticed that when I ask either you or nPeace if you can be honest neither one of you can say that you will try to be? Using creationist videos to show what they believe is reasonable. You had issues with "the apple". You could not seem to understand that one fruit could be symbolic of another. Yet creationists use "the apple" very very often. That was my claim. You tried to say that I lied. That I flip flopped. Etc.. Can you do the right thing and admit that you were wrong in this area. I made a small error in this thread and when nPeace called me on it I did not argue as you have done. I did not make foolish claims. I owned up to my error.

When you keep not only repeating an error of yours, but mix in personal attacks as part of your defense you do not look very "Christian" .

 

[nPeace]

I see that trend in SZ.

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?