Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-16-2015, 10:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm seeing a lot of black and white comparisons when it comes to people of faith and people of science. That is a misrepresentation of religious individuals and scientists to be quite frank. There are men and women of faith that are scientists. They don't attribute things they don't understand to "God did it" and they do seek the scientific answers. Many laypeople that have faith are also not in that category.

Yes, there are people that attribute so much to the divine/supernatural that it seems as though they are content to lay about in ignorance and revel in their closed mindedness. But there are millions of people that have faith and work in fields of science, or who are interested in them, or at the very least read an article on some new scientific discovery and allow that to change how they may see the world or even the universe. Faith is not synonymous with closed mindedness. Part of closed mindedness is seeing the world only in black and white and never accepting that a viewpoint other than your own may just have a ring of truth to it. There are closed minded people of faith, and there are closed minded people without faith.

Look at you, trying to slow 'their' roll.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-16-2015, 10:12 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I just don't understand how an all-knowing and all-powerful god can have regrets about anything.  He makes humans who disobey him, he becomes upset (why an all-knowing God could get ticked off about the results of his creations are beyond me) and drowns everyone in a flood for behaving exactly how he knew they would.  

Either this God can't get out of his own way or he gets a kick out of punishing his creations.

Or there could be other reasons. I'm sure, at least, there's more than 2. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-16-2015, 02:55 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The knowledge of good and evil isn't the same as obedience. They were told what they could eat and they were told what not to eat and they were told what would happen if they did eat from one particular tree. As soon as they were told, while every tree was available to them, they had a choice. Obey or ignore. They chose to ignore even though they were warned exactly what would happen. God wouldn't tell them they would die without them having some concept of death. There's nothing logical about telling someone about death if they didn't know what it was. That's not the same as have knowledge of good and evil. Up to that point, it was only evil that they didn't know about. Didn't know about, as in, they had not experienced it. If they had never been exposed to evil, they would never have the ability to do "evil". As a side note, what's the opposite of live? Obviously, the answer is die. What's the literal, visual opposite of live?evil. *Rod Serling music* do do dodo do do dodo. Anyway... It's true your conscience was the result of the original sin. That's not to say they needed to experience something to know not to do it. They were told, explicitly, not to do it and why.

You say they had no way of comprehending the serpent's deceit. Who created them and everything around them? Not the serpent. He was created as well. Knowing the difference between the creator and the created...why would Eve still choose to eat the fruit after she was told not to, knowing the consequences, assuming she understood the concept of death? Because...free will. 




They weren't allowed to eat of the Tree of Life because they ate from the ToK. Until that point, they were free to do so.


Religions excluded. Assuming the bible is a work of fiction, is what i meant.

P.S. I REALLY hate the way this is formatted, when trying to separate a quote. Constantly having to go back and remove or add quote tags...  :angry:

I'm must have done a poor job of explaining myself because it seems you misunderstood much of what I wrote.

I think we can agree you and I have a conscience because of Original Sin. I believe I can logically conclude Adam and Eve did not have a conscience before the fall.   Merriam-Webster defines conscience as "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blame worthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good." God created Adam and Eve without those abilities.

Without a conscience Eve lacked the ability to sense the moral goodness of her conduct and the moral badness of the serpent's conduct. Eve lacked the sense of blame worthiness of her own actions. Eve lacked the feeling of obligation to do right or be good.   It is illogical to punish someone for not doing what they are told when that person lacks the abilities listed above. It is illogical to hold someone morally responsible for their actions if they lack the abilities listed above. It is illogical to punish someone when immorally coerced to do something they otherwise hadn't done when they lack the abilities listed above.   I would go so far as to state that not only is it illogical, but it was immoral of God to punish Adam and Eve for a moral dilemma when their lack of morals and a conscience was God's moral responsibility.   When my sense of morality is more highly developed than that of an omnipotent Creator upon which an entire religion is based upon then I can't accept that religion's premise.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-16-2015, 03:30 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Who said God created him, as if he designed when and where he was born? You keep sticking to that to try and back up your 'knowledge removes free will' argument. Free will logically dictates that in order to exist, a passive--not active--role must be taken. So God sits back as men and women decide to have sex and, voila, Hitler is born. God didn't bring him into this world, his parents did. God may have "got the ball rolling" with Adam and Eve. After that, it was everyone else deciding who was being born and when.

Why do you want to keep millions and millions of people from experiencing Heaven just because there are going to be those that choose to deny and don't get to experience it?

Was Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection active or passive?

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-16-2015, 07:06 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Or there could be other reasons. I'm sure, at least, there's more than 2. 

Care to name them?

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-16-2015, 08:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm must have done a poor job of explaining myself because it seems you misunderstood much of what I wrote.

I think we can agree you and I have a conscience because of Original Sin. I believe I can logically conclude Adam and Eve did not have a conscience before the fall.   Merriam-Webster defines conscience as "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blame worthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good." God created Adam and Eve without those abilities.

Without a conscience Eve lacked the ability to sense the moral goodness of her conduct and the moral badness of the serpent's conduct. Eve lacked the sense of blame worthiness of her own actions. Eve lacked the feeling of obligation to do right or be good.   It is illogical to punish someone for not doing what they are told when that person lacks the abilities listed above. It is illogical to hold someone morally responsible for their actions if they lack the abilities listed above. It is illogical to punish someone when immorally coerced to do something they otherwise hadn't done when they lack the abilities listed above.   I would go so far as to state that not only is it illogical, but it was immoral of God to punish Adam and Eve for a moral dilemma when their lack of morals and a conscience was God's moral responsibility.   When my sense of morality is more highly developed than that of an omnipotent Creator upon which an entire religion is based upon then I can't accept that religion's premise.

No. That's exactly what i thought you were saying. I'd say it was more me not being clear in my reply. 

I agree with the premise of your second paragraph. But i look at it as, as true as that is, i don't believe God would have created them without enough intelligence to at least understand the situation; God, the creator, explains what they can and can't do. Explains to them what will happen if they do what they're not supposed to do, yet she listens to what was created instead of what was instructed by the creator. It just seems to me that a pretty basic level of understanding is the only thing that is required. But that goes mostly if not all to my belief in personal responsibility.

I agree, the scenario you are giving would be considered unfair. I just don't believe it happened that way. Unfortunately, with such vague and 'this film has been modified from its original version... formatted to run in the time allotted...etc etc' writing, i don't have anything to back it up other than my belief.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-16-2015, 08:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Was Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection active or passive?

It was an active way to allow man to atone for their sins, making it easier than it was before, but it didn't actively take part in determining whether someone did right or wrong.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-16-2015, 10:08 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Care to name them?

I have. A few times in this thread and others but i can again. 

Since man was given free will to choose or reject God, to do good or bad and to seek forgiveness or not, when man chooses to do enough bad that it corrupts a whole city or region, through the free will they were given, they have decided to completely reject God. 

Though that was the case with the flood, God still made a way for anyone that still wanted to accept him to not be affected (killed) by the flood. In the same manner that he created a way for 'the originals' to be redeemed through sacrifice and then some time after the flood, once again, created an easier way for man to be redeemed by Christ's death. 

Every step of the way, the God you keep accusing, continues to make a way for man to get out of the bad he continues to do.

And it all goes back to free will. God wants people to choose to follow him. When they don't, he still waits and makes ways for them to be able to. I could understand the accusatory nature of what's been posted by a few here, but only if you were given one chance and one chance only to get it right. You're given many chances, and by any account, that can only be done through love. (picture flowers and soft music here)

[Ben Richards]

(06-16-2015, 07:00 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: How cute. Another ignorant reply. God was setting an example for mankind. 

Work 6, rest 1. 

Very simple concept. And we both know, you read this.

It's ignorant?  Again, the idea of an all powerful entity having to rest is stupid.  Whine about it all you want, won't change your stories bruh.

Very simple concept, not surprised you can't comprehend what I say.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2015, 12:27 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: It's ignorant?  Again, the idea of an all powerful entity having to rest is stupid.  Whine about it all you want, won't change your stories bruh.

Very simple concept, not surprised you can't comprehend what I say.

Where does the Scripture say God had to rest? 

[Ben Richards]

(06-17-2015, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Where does the Scripture say God had to rest? 

I thought you were the theologian around here?  Your post leads me to believe you haven't even opened a bible in your lifetime. 
I couldn't tell you the last time I even opened that sci-fi novel and even I know where that is located.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-17-2015, 12:27 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: It's ignorant?  Again, the idea of an all powerful entity having to rest is stupid.  Whine about it all you want, won't change your stories bruh.

Very simple concept, not surprised you can't comprehend what I say.

Apparently you don't understand what setting an example means. And i'm the one that can't comprehend. Bruh

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2015, 12:40 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: I thought you were the theologian around here?  Your post leads me to believe you haven't even opened a bible in your lifetime. 
I couldn't tell you the last time I even opened that sci-fi novel and even I know where that is located.

I have read where he finished his work so he took it easy one day. I just never read the part that said he had to take a day off.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-17-2015, 12:40 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: I thought you were the theologian around here?  Your post leads me to believe you haven't even opened a bible in your lifetime. 
I couldn't tell you the last time I even opened that sci-fi novel and even I know where that is located.

I'll help you out. He asked where the bible said he "had" to rest, as in, had no choice...was tired. 

That wasn't the case. "Rest" in this example is more 'cease' or 'stop' than a literal rest from being weary. 

Educate yourself bruh. It will help to strengthen your arguments in the future. I'll even give you the course study.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rest.html

[Ben Richards]

(06-17-2015, 12:49 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'll help you out. He asked where the bible said he "had" to rest, as in, had no choice...was tired. 

That wasn't the case. "Rest" in this example is more 'cease' or 'stop' than a literal rest from being weary. 

Educate yourself bruh. It will help to strengthen your arguments in the future. I'll even give you the course study.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rest.html

If you cannot grasp the problem that arises when an all knowing all powerful being becomes tired or needing to rest, I don't know what else I can do for you.  And no, I'm not clicking on your stupid links.  You can't be an adult and have a conversation without getting all defensive and going to ad hominem attacks, so I'll give it right back to ya cool guy.  Learn to turn the other cheek bruh, it's what your stories tell you to do.  Or did I misinterpret what was written there as well? Keep your faith though, it really makes you look like a genius when you tell us all what 'GOD' meant by this or that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2015, 12:04 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: No. That's exactly what i thought you were saying. I'd say it was more me not being clear in my reply. 

I agree with the premise of your second paragraph. But i look at it as, as true as that is, i don't believe God would have created them without enough intelligence to at least understand the situation; God, the creator, explains what they can and can't do. Explains to them what will happen if they do what they're not supposed to do, yet she listens to what was created instead of what was instructed by the creator. It just seems to me that a pretty basic level of understanding is the only thing that is required. But that goes mostly if not all to my belief in personal responsibility.

I agree, the scenario you are giving would be considered unfair. I just don't believe it happened that way. Unfortunately, with such vague and 'this film has been modified from its original version... formatted to run in the time allotted...etc etc' writing, i don't have anything to back it up other than my belief.

A 5 year old knows better than to go to school naked. Adam and Eve would have strolled in bucked naked without hesitation.

I agree only a basic understanding is all that is needed. The ability to know right from wrong. God didn't give them that ability and he punished them for not doing the right thing. I cannot believe in a Creator that illogical. Therefore, I believe the entire story is just that, a story. Fiction written by someone whose most advanced form of entertainment was probably watching Ranger TV.

Funny how two people can draw different conclusions from the same information.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2015, 12:08 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It was an active way to allow man to atone for their sins, making it easier than it was before, but it didn't actively take part in determining whether someone did right or wrong.

Christianity doesn't actively take part?

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2015, 01:22 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: If you cannot grasp the problem that arises when an all knowing all powerful being  becomes tired or needing to rest, I don't know what else I can do for you.  

..and if you cannot grasp the problem that arises when you make up things the scripture says then I don't know what else I can do for you.

Once again please post or just give me the chapter and verse of where scripture stated God was tired and had to rest.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-17-2015, 01:22 AM)Ben Richards Wrote: If you cannot grasp the problem that arises when an all knowing all powerful being  becomes tired or needing to rest, I don't know what else I can do for you.  And no, I'm not clicking on your stupid links.  You can't be an adult and have a conversation without getting all defensive and going to ad hominem attacks, so I'll give it right back to ya cool guy.  Learn to turn the other cheek bruh, it's what your stories tell you to do.  Or did I misinterpret what was written there as well? Keep your faith though, it really makes you look like a genius when you tell us all what 'GOD' meant by this or that.

Anyone can grasp the problems that arise when an all-knowing, all-powerful being becomes tired or needs to rest. 

I'll say it again. Rest, here, does not mean tired. 

By all means, don't click on anything. Continue to bathe in the ignorance that so freely flows whenever you type.

Bruuuuuuuuuuuuh

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-17-2015, 01:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A 5 year old knows better than to go to school naked. Adam and Eve would have strolled in bucked naked without hesitation.

I agree only a basic understanding is all that is needed. The ability to know right from wrong. God didn't give them that ability and he punished them for not doing the right thing. I cannot believe in a Creator that illogical. Therefore, I believe the entire story is just that, a story. Fiction written by someone whose most advanced form of entertainment was probably watching Ranger TV.

Funny how two people can draw different conclusions from the same information.

But not really all that uncommon. 

That means one of us is crazy.