on adam

[bro]

to sum things up we will all die and suffer in hell eternally unless we accept christ into our hearts. thats a given, as far as the bible is concerned.

the cause of this is the original sin. when adam decided to give in to the coercion of satan. or at least thats the general idea.

i have a number of issues with this. first off, if he had not eaten of the tree of good and evil before he ate the apple ( just play along and call it an apple ) then how could he have known that disobeying god is evil. he cannot be faulted.

second issue: why are we punished for their mistakes. if someone harmed me, and i killed him AND his kids, that would be considered unfair, unjust and plain wrong. ( lets not debate the killing of the guy, regardless of your views on that i still think that you'd agree that killing his family is wrong )

if god is allpowerful, he could have devised a way to accomplish his plan without punishing innocents. why would a loving, just god choose this seemingly cruel way.

[postroad]

Does Adam get his rib back at the resurrection?

[De Maria]

to sum things up we will all die and suffer in hell eternally unless we accept christ into our hearts. thats a given, as far as the bible is concerned.

the cause of this is the original sin. when adam decided to give in to the coercion of satan. or at least thats the general idea.

i have a number of issues with this. first off, if he had not eaten of the tree of good and evil before he ate the apple ( just play along and call it an apple ) then how could he have known that disobeying god is evil. he cannot be faulted.

1. He was told that disobeying God was wrong and that there would be a penalty.
2. Adam was not a child. He was born without sin and that very fact made him one of the most intelligent people that ever lived. He did not have a fallen nature which would affect his intellect.
3. "Eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil" does not mean "learning" about evil. It means "participating" in that evil.

In other words, you realize that the "apple" is a symbol for something else. The fact that he tied fig leaves around his private parts gives us a hint that the apple represents something other than fruit on a tree.

second issue: why are we punished for their mistakes.

1. We aren't. We are punished for our own.
2. But sometimes the consequences of our own mistakes affect our children.
3. In the case of Adam and Eve, they had something which they lost. When they lost it, they couldn't give it to their children any longer.

For example. Say that a man had a million dollars. Then he turned around and squandered it and within a few years it was all gone. When he dies, he leaves his children only what he still has, debts. The money can't be passed down because it is no longer his to give.

Adam and Eve could not pass down a "pure" nature. They had lost that.
Adam and Eve passed down a "fallen" nature. That is what they had acquired by their sin.

if someone harmed me, and i killed him AND his kids, that would be considered unfair, unjust and plain wrong. ( lets not debate the killing of the guy, regardless of your views on that i still think that you'd agree that killing his family is wrong )

The metaphor doesn't fit. No one harmed God. God isn't harmed by anything we do.

if god is allpowerful, he could have devised a way to accomplish his plan without punishing innocents. why would a loving, just god choose this seemingly cruel way.

God didn't harm anyone. Adam and Eve decided that the Serpent was wiser than God and decided to follow his plan instead of God's.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

1. He was told that disobeying God was wrong and that there would be a penalty.
2. Adam was not a child. He was born without sin and that very fact made him one of the most intelligent people that ever lived. He did not have a fallen nature which would affect his intellect.
3. "Eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil" does not mean "learning" about evil. It means "participating" in that evil.

In other words, you realize that the "apple" is a symbol for something else. The fact that he tied fig leaves around his private parts gives us a hint that the apple represents something other than fruit on a tree.

Yes, God did tell Adam the consequences of eating from the tree...but since Adam did not know what "death" meant, Adam is not at fault.

There is no possible way to show that a "Fallen Nature" reduces intelligence, much in the same way I cannot prove that I own an invisible demon named Azazel. This is also your own subjective interpretation of the bible.

The apple is a symbol, symbols are subjective. Thus your argument is faulty since you cannot prove your subjective interpretations to be true.

second issue: why are we punished for their mistakes.

1. We aren't. We are punished for our own.
2. But sometimes the consequences of our own mistakes affect our children.
3. In the case of Adam and Eve, they had something which they lost. When they lost it, they couldn't give it to their children any longer.

For example. Say that a man had a million dollars. Then he turned around and squandered it and within a few years it was all gone. When he dies, he leaves his children only what he still has, debts. The money can't be passed down because it is no longer his to give.

Adam and Eve could not pass down a "pure" nature. They had lost that.
Adam and Eve passed down a "fallen" nature. That is what they had acquired by their sin.

Good job, both points one and two contradict each other.

God punished Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve passed on the punishment to their children. Thus indirectly the children are being punished for the wrongdoings of their parents. Sin is a Christian term, not a Jewish one, sin is a wrongdoing against God, or any other person. If you read the Old Testament enough you can get a feel for the context of the word sin.

Quote:
if god is allpowerful, he could have devised a way to accomplish his plan without punishing innocents. why would a loving, just god choose this seemingly cruel way.

God didn't harm anyone. Adam and Eve decided that the Serpent was wiser than God and decided to follow his plan instead of God's.

You just dodged the argument completely...[sigh]

Firstly God is not all powerful..."And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron - Judges 1:19 ".

Further, can God create an object he cannot destroy directly or indirectly. If he can create such an object, he cannot be all powerful, since he cannot destroy it. If he cannot destroy it, he is not all powerful.

Although God is not required to be all powerful, all knowing, or all good/loving. In this right we could describe him as an impotent cosmic jerk, who may or may not give a crap about our suffering.

Of course God didn't harm anyone...at least not directly!

I didn't kill that person officer, the gun did it!

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Does Adam get his rib back at the resurrection?

It depends on who you ask...and I thought Theologians were supposed to be experts on the bible. Not experts on their own opinion!

[postroad]

Does Adam get his rib back at the resurrection?

It depends on who you ask...and I thought Theologians were supposed to be experts on the bible. Not experts on their own opinion!

Who said I was a theologian?

If Adam undivided, as originally created, is resurrected that would indicate that all humanity would necessarily revert back into his body.

Now would God punish that body in eternal torment or allow him to reenter Paradise?

1 Corinthians 15:25-28

New International Version (NIV)


25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he has put everything under his feet.[a] Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Does Adam get his rib back at the resurrection?

It depends on who you ask...and I thought Theologians were supposed to be experts on the bible. Not experts on their own opinion!

Who said I was a theologian?

If Adam undivided, as originally created, is resurrected that would indicate that all humanity would necessarily revert back into his body.

Now would God punish that body in eternal torment or allow him to reenter Paradise?

1 Corinthians 15:25-28

New International Version (NIV)


25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he has put everything under his feet.[a] Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I didn't say you were a theologian lol. I was simply saying that theologians cannot agree upon most topics, so how are they supposed to be the authorities of Christianity?

I don't know what would happen to Adam, it's a purely hypothetical situation. Much like asking if Jesus was physically resurrected or spiritually resurrected. There is no definitive answer, this is the major flaw of theological debate. It's all based on hypotheses and verses that outright contradict each other.

"It says here that Jesus was physically resurrected...well actually I have a verse right here that says he was resurrected in spirit."

[postroad]

Its the one question both liberal and conservative Christianity can not answer.

[Starboard Tack]

1. He was told that disobeying God was wrong and that there would be a penalty.
2. Adam was not a child. He was born without sin and that very fact made him one of the most intelligent people that ever lived. He did not have a fallen nature which would affect his intellect.
3. "Eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil" does not mean "learning" about evil. It means "participating" in that evil.

In other words, you realize that the "apple" is a symbol for something else. The fact that he tied fig leaves around his private parts gives us a hint that the apple represents something other than fruit on a tree.

Yes, God did tell Adam the consequences of eating from the tree...but since Adam did not know what "death" meant, Adam is not at fault.

Adam was brought into the garden from outside the garden, and tended same. He knew precisely what death was, but more than that, he understood who his creator was, and chose to place his own judgment above his creators on what was good and what was evil. By eating of the apple, he found out clearly which was which.

There is no possible way to show that a "Fallen Nature" reduces intelligence, much in the same way I cannot prove that I own an invisible demon named Azazel. This is also your own subjective interpretation of the bible.

Whether disobeying God represents a reduction in intelligence could be debated, I suppose. However, it sure sounds like a bone-headed move, what with all that omnipotence, omnipowerful stuff and all.

The apple is a symbol, symbols are subjective. Thus your argument is faulty since you cannot prove your subjective interpretations to be true.

Incoherent.

second issue: why are we punished for their mistakes.

1. We aren't. We are punished for our own.
2. But sometimes the consequences of our own mistakes affect our children.
3. In the case of Adam and Eve, they had something which they lost. When they lost it, they couldn't give it to their children any longer.

For example. Say that a man had a million dollars. Then he turned around and squandered it and within a few years it was all gone. When he dies, he leaves his children only what he still has, debts. The money can't be passed down because it is no longer his to give.

Adam and Eve could not pass down a "pure" nature. They had lost that.
Adam and Eve passed down a "fallen" nature. That is what they had acquired by their sin.

Good job, both points one and two contradict each other.

Not so. The alcoholic father is punished in mind and body, as are the children of such fathers. If you deny the obvious, or can't understand the obvious, you will simply be viewed as argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

God punished Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve passed on the punishment to their children. Thus indirectly the children are being punished for the wrongdoings of their parents. Sin is a Christian term, not a Jewish one, sin is a wrongdoing against God, or any other person. If you read the Old Testament enough you can get a feel for the context of the word sin.

As noted, the children are eligible for punishment for their own sins, not their parents, although they may suffer in this world for the sins of the parent.

Firstly God is not all powerful..."And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron - Judges 1:19 ".

You've mis-quoted the very passage you quote. The correct reference is: " The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron." Your misquotation suggests that God was unable, when the actual text says the men of Judah were unable. Lots of reasons for that, but I wonder why you would misquote a reference to prove a point?

Further, can God create an object he cannot destroy directly or indirectly. If he can create such an object, he cannot be all powerful, since he cannot destroy it. If he cannot destroy it, he is not all powerful.

With respect, that is an argument made by high school debaters and college sophomores working their way through the second keg of beer. If you ask man sized questions in a God sized creation using the language of men, you can arrive at mobius loops that deceive. Requiring that God do things that are inherently illogical is pretty lame, like asking if he can make a spherical triangle.

Although God is not required to be all powerful, all knowing, or all good/loving. In this right we could describe him as an impotent cosmic jerk, who may or may not give a crap about our suffering.

Which may be the argument the serpent used with Eve. Worked once, I guess.

[McCulloch]

3. In the case of Adam and Eve, they had something which they lost. When they lost it, they couldn't give it to their children any longer.

Scientific objection: Acquired traits are not inheritable.
Philosophic objection: Why would a just and loving God deprive the children of a pure nature?

Adam was not a child. He was born without sin and that very fact made him one of the most intelligent people that ever lived. He did not have a fallen nature which would affect his intellect.

Adam and Eve decided that the Serpent was wiser than God and decided to follow his plan instead of God's.

That does not sound like a decision made by one of the most intelligent people that ever lived.