Evidence for God from Science

I guess this is why I did not want to go into these other subjects. It gets too complex to do justice. I want to stick with the first 4 chapters of Genesis. I would gladly debate all these other issues but each one is a extremely complex subject in in itself that men have been debating since Christainily was only a small sect ofJudahism.

I would just say there are many reasons I feel the story is a fable, an analogy, a story that teaches, a parable. First of all in its literal form it goes against what we know from a scientific point of view; however, from a story's point of view the time line is correct. Again, you say I suggest I know more than God. No, I do know some of human nature and know that from the literal story's point of view, God does not appear too bright. Again, a very good reason to feel the story is a fable. I think the story does a great injustice to God, the creator, reflecting him in a less than favorable light. The God I imagine is much more than this God acting much like a human in the story.

Again, I think you miss my point. They did not have everything. If they had everything then there would have been no motivation for their behavior. Humans have to have a desire in order to do something. In order to desire you have to want something. If you have everything then how can you want something?

....so the entirety of Christian doctrine, creation, fall, repentance, restoration rests on a fable.....why bother? If the doctrine of original sin cannot be trusted, why should anything else be trusted?

This is also a very difficult question for me. I posed a theory of how we devoloped into sinful creatures.

According the Augustine the greatest since of man is pride. This sinfulness developed I believe at the beginning when we were first able to identify ourself as ourself. Look at a baby, nothing exists but him or her, complete narcissism. He has to be socialized but even in the best home this is only partially successful. As much as I care for my spouse I have hurt her by my lack of caring at times. It seems so easy to do the wrong thing at times even when I know it is the wrong thing. It is our nature. It is our nature to hurt others, just look at any children's school yard how they will team up on someone who is different. I believe this sin is in our basic foundation. It is just the way we developed. I believe Jesus' message of love demonstrated a perfect love, a perfect selfless sacrifice, and perfect means of forgiveness.

Is this correct? No one can really know. I just know from my observations mankind has an evil tent to it and need something or someone to help with it. I just do not see how a just God could punish me for the sins of my ancestors. For one to do evil one must commit an act or at least have an intent to do an evil act. I agree that I have inherited a narcissism for lack of a better term, maybe a tendency to sin, what I would call human nature, but for me to be held responsible for what Adam and Eve did does not seem to be fair to me. Should my son be responsible for my robbing a bank and go to jail because he was my son? This is another reason I have problems with the story. You did not seem to like my term fable.

I do not remember having any choice on whether to be born or not. If I did not have the original choice to exist then someone else made that choice for me. My parents made the decision for me in the physical sense. In the metaphysical sense, many believe our essence is contained in a soul or spirit or at least a spirit of life. I would think if this is true then whoever created my spirit would also have some responsiblity for my life and my actions in that life. If I created a self conscious android who would be responsible for his actions, the creator, the android, or both? I don't really know the answer a court of law would rule. I would be interested in a comment on this particular issue since I have not seen any comments on our responsibility for our creations.

As far as the rest you comments I don't have enough time at the moment to respond but it looks like if we continue we are going to dissect the entire Bible, and the history of Christainity, a very big job indeed.

PLease provide the scripture you have in supporting this idea of Christ. What scripture are you using to support the idea that Christ was *merely* an example?

I think you have misquoted me here. I did not say Christ was merely an example. I feel the Jesus was a manifestation of God in the flesh. Please don't ask me to explain this for it is beyond what one can know. The general held belief by most Christians was established by the Nicene Counsel after Constantine decided it was a good political move to become a Christian. He also made his Army become Christian whether they wanted to or not as a side note.

I don't claim to understand how Jesus could be the "son of God". I think he was God but then the old argument that has created many Christian denominations of whether Christ was fully man, fully God, both though the God aspect separated at his death, or that he was simply fully human and fully God at the same time. Obviously, this is contradiction that is beyond human understanding and I believe most use the term "mystery", as in the "mystery of the 3 in 1."

I believe in some form God sacrifice himself for us to demonstrate his love for us. There are many aspects of the story that I do not claim to understand. I know that when I pray to Jesus something happens. It is more than just self thought. I also believe Jesus is one of the methods we humans have of obtaining the presence of God in our life. I also believe all men sin. How could you not in this world as it is? And I believe that a perfect just God will forgive us of these sins. One way to do this is through Jesus. I have not participated in other religions so will not comment on them.

So, yes I believe a very important aspect of Jesus' mission on earth was to set an example. But this was not his only mission and I hope I have explained some of the other reasons and the many complex issues related to a perfect God becoming human.

Again, just answer these questions and then below I want to continue to address Genesis.

1. If Christ came to die, why did He die? Were our sins that great that we needed to become acceptable to God? If so, then our sins are great enough for condemnation and death (physical death and separation from God). ANd whether or not the strory is a fable, the meaning is true. Our sin warrants condemnation.

2. If we are not horrible enough to warrant condemnation and death, then why does CHrist need to die? Why not simply come to teach us? Why die and then conquer death?

YOu keep missing my point about Genesis. THe pre-fall world Adam and Eve did have everything. Why do you think otherwise? THe fruit did not "enlighten them" in the sense of making them wise. It opened their eyes to their rebellion and shame and guilt. Their relationship between each other was affected (they saw their nakedness as something shameful), they did not trust each other. The relationship between God and Adam and Eve were affected. They hid from God. The fruit did not give them wisdom or some eye-opening realization or a measure of intelligence of the world that they would not have had before (they had complete access to God, they were able to walk with HIm and have a relationship with HIm). Adam and Eve were able to study creation in a way that we could only hope to. I think a huge misconception of the pre-fall conditions is that the "naivete" of ADam and Eve somehow was worse than the "enlightened" Adam and Eve after the Fall. YOu keep bringing up their gullibility. But gullibility implies that they did not understand the condidtions of their environment (they didn't understand the rules) or they were stupid enough that the arguments of the serpent were such that they "fell for" his deception. And in your scenario, yes, we see a God who metaphorically smacks His forehead, saying "Uh, why did I do that? They weren't ready!"

But here a major assumption is made that God did not provide the mental capacity for Adam and Eve nor provide them with the rules. Don't know why you make this assumption with this story. The Goodness of the pre-fall world is something so hard to conceptualize, given our familiarity with this sinful, corrupt world. But Imagine a world where you are intelligent, rational, reasonable with everything your human heart, mind, and body could hope for. A beautiful, intelligent spouse, a helpmeet in every way. No coveting, no jealousy, no tears, a tremendous curiosity but a world that is yours to examine. Given the incredible knowledge that was waiting to be gained (think of a world where you get to explore to your heart's content) they had plenty to explore.

**I think we imagine Adam and Eve just tripping and skipping merrily along the pathways of the Garden "tra la la la la"...dumb and content. And plenty of children's bibles probably have a lot to answer for. Nothing to do but wander the Garden and bump into the serpent. And even the word content implies laziness and apathy. But this meaning is carried along because of sin. Can a person by content and at the same time curious? IN this world many might say no, but in the pre-fall world, why not? So why should we have this image of Adam and Eve as laying around, sighing, just ripe for the plucking?? God commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply" and the be stewards of the Garden. Be stewards.....Good stewards learn what they are to be stewards of. While Adam and Eve were intelligent, they certainly would have needed to satisy their curiosity about their world.

YOu keep bringing up the idea that they shouldn't be blamed for their curiosity. But in this incredible, vast universe, they had plenty to be curious about. A fruit? This is what brings them down?!? The night sky, the sun, the stars, their orbits, their own bodies, each other, the animals, the environment, the plants, trees, crops....GOd!! We marvel at the questions children ask us "Why...." and yet we somehow imagine Adam and Eve to be totally oblivious about their world, never asking questions.

See, ultimately, original sin has nothing to do with curiosity, like we think of curiosity. I think my parent child analogy misses the mark now. BEcause we think of Adam and Eve as children. And a good child does examine. But they were adults. Adults who were given intelligence, plenty of things to exercise their curiosity on, and a wealth of opportunities to discuss and question. And One Simple Rule

"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

The Genesis account hints at the fact that Adam and Eve were able to have an intimacy with GOd that we can only marvel at. So no, the fall had nothing to do with just curiosity. It had to do with a decision to not trust the creator and doubt HIm and trust a serpent. A serpent who misquoted God....DId they not remember? Were they not capable of a reasonable defense? COuld they have not run away? Bult ultimately they did none of those things. And rejected God.

BTW, I do not agree with the traditional 6000 year timetable. I am an Old Earth creationist. But I do not view this as a non-literal approach to Genesis. Nor do I feel this transports this story in the realm of fables and fairytales. I believe in the historical accuracy of Genesis. Literal can still mean an old universe. Check out the sites on this web page.

Sorry, I didn't see your other post about CHrist.

But I have more questions.

YOu say that He died to show HIs love for us. But what did His death accomplish? Dying for somebody just to show your love is meaningless unless that death is effective towards something.

Greather love hath no man than to lay down HIs life *for* his friend. But why die unless there is a reason? Unless I am about to die, my friend saying he will die for me is a ridiculous and meaningless concept. An atoning sacrifice is reflectrive of substitutionary death shown throughout the Old Testament sacrifices. Christ is the passover lamb sacrificed so that God's judgement will not be placed on us. Christ died to pay for the sins for which we are condemned. But unless we are condemned for our sins, His sacrifice means nothing. He lived a perfect life and died a death meant for us to reconcile us to God.

Saying Christ died to show His love for us and yet leaving out that we deserve judgement makes HIs death meaningless and ridiculous.

When I have time I will attempt to address your questions as I have been doing for most of the time. However, let me asked you a couple of questions that you have not answered for me?

1. Why should I suffer the guilt of two humans of which I had no interaction and no possible means to effect their actions? Hence my example, if my father killed someone, why should I go to jail because I was his son?

2. If I create a self willed android who has free choice, who is responsible for his actions?

YOu keep missing my point about Genesis. THe pre-fall world Adam and Eve did have everything. Why do you think otherwise?

If all of Adam and Eve's desires had been met by their situation in the garden they would have had no motivation to act upon the serpent's manipulations. Yes, I think there were all physical needs met, there were likely all the things you said. The story seems to agree with this notion. So I agree they had everything they needed, but I find it obvious they did not have everything they wanted. This makes them vulnerable to Satan's manipulations. This was the plot of the story. Adam and Eve were not satisfied. Thus, this denotes a deficit in their situation. If I had just eaten a bowl of candy and was totally satieated, if I had everything (all the candy that I wanted and had plenty more) you would be unable to manipulate me by offering me candy. I am saying that one flaw in the story is that Adam and Eve did not feel they had everything. Satan offer them what they did not have.

And again, I give Satan credit that you do you seem to give him. He was a super creator. He had been God's favorite angle as the story says. He had to be super intelligent and a great manipulator. He knew what he was doing. He could see the weakness of Adam and Eve and their one and only flaw. He offered them what they did not have. If they had had everything Satan's hands would have been tied. He would have had nothing to use to manipulate them. As per the story, Satan did not care anything about the humans, he cared about attacking God.

I have never said Man was not guilty, only that he was pitted against super beings and he lost. If I played chess with a grand champion, I would loose. Of course, I would know before hand that I was going to loose. Even if Adam and Eve were very intelligent they were playing a game between God, the creator of everything, and Satan, the entity that while inferior was probably the second in power of all entities. And the story does not indicate that when the serpent began talking to Eve that she had any clue with whom she was dealing. Given that the serpent had unlimited time with which to manipulate the humans, they did not have a chance.

I was just wondering are we the only ones here with opinions? Of course, you are keeping me quite busy thinking. And I still have not addressed all the many issues in your last two posts.

Otisblues wrote:When I have time I will attempt to address your questions as I have been doing for most of the time. However, let me asked you a couple of questions that you have not answered for me?

1. Why should I suffer the guilt of two humans of which I had no interaction and no possible means to effect their actions? Hence my example, if my father killed someone, why should I go to jail because I was his son?

Adam and Eve were our representatives and as such represent any human. The point of the story is that humanity sinned and this sin affected and corrupted everything, including the generations to come.

CSonsequences of mothers and fathers always affect generations, good and bad. In this sin simply affected very aspect of our lives.

And all of us have sinned and are sinful in our own right anyway. We cannot use Adam and Eve;s sin as our excuse. The purpose of the law was to poit out our sinfulness. All of the laws were designed to show us that none of us are righteous. Then when Christ came, He not only pointed out that cheating was wrong, but even looking at a woman with lust i our hearts was wrong. So in our right and essence, all of us are condemned. We are not condemned simply because of Adam and Eve but for our own sinful nature.

2. If I create a self willed android who has free choice, who is responsible for his actions?

Let me respnd by using our exmple of the criminal as before. We can bring up all sorts of things that cause us to do things , genetics, upbringing, temptations, physiology....other people....but at the heart of it, our justice system is built upon the idea that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Do we let rapists off the hook because of some idea of a genetic predisposition? Is he still not considered guilty? Are we willing to devekop a society that allows crime to go unpunished simply because it's our nature to do so?

It's a hard and bitter pill to swallow, but whatever the reasons, we rejected God....and we bear that guilt.

Otisblues wrote:YOu keep missing my point about Genesis. THe pre-fall world Adam and Eve did have everything. Why do you think otherwise?

If all of Adam and Eve's desires had been met by their situation in the garden they would have had no motivation to act upon the serpent's manipulations. Yes, I think there were all physical needs met, there were likely all the things you said. The story seems to agree with this notion. So I agree they had everything they needed, but I find it obvious they did not have everything they wanted.

Ah, but what did they desire? TWhat did they want? hey did not desire more food, more relationships, more knowledge (despite what you may think). They desired and wanted to replace God with themselves. And that was the decision they made. To reject God's authority, to doubt Him and His provision.

otisblues wrote: This makes them vulnerable to Satan's manipulations. This was the plot of the story. Adam and Eve were not satisfied. Thus, this denotes a deficit in their situation.

YES!! They were not satisfied with God....Ah! Now we have the problem....Again, they doubted God and were not satisfied. This is inherently not a defeicit in provision but rather rejction of God.

If I had just eaten a bowl of candy and was totally satieated, if I had everything (all the candy that I wanted and had plenty more) you would be unable to manipulate me by offering me candy. I am saying that one flaw in the story is that Adam and Eve did not feel they had everything. Satan offer them what they did not have.

And again, I give Satan credit that you do you seem to give him. He was a super creator. He had been God's favorite angle as the story says. He had to be super intelligent and a great manipulator. He knew what he was doing. He could see the weakness of Adam and Eve and their one and only flaw. He offered them what they did not have. If they had had everything Satan's hands would have been tied. He would have had nothing to use to manipulate them. As per the story, Satan did not care anything about the humans, he cared about attacking God.

Dude, satan will be thrown in to hell, I think he ill get what he deserves.

Will write more later....answer the questions I asked please. ...

You have not answer my two questions?

1. Why should I suffer the guilt of two humans of which I had no interaction and no possible means to effect their actions? Hence my example, if my father killed someone, why should I go to jail because I was his son?

2. If I create a self willed android who has free choice, who is responsible for his actions?


I was also wondering, from you have said it seems you would read the Bible as a completely literal text (except for certain obvious poetic symbolism such as the hill shed teas as in Psalms) with no errors or inconsistencies? It seems on the story of the garden we have reach a point where we are simply repeating arguments we have both already used. I was thinking beginning a new subject since this one has gotten very long.


Otisblues

otisblue wrote:I have never said Man was not guilty, only that he was pitted against super beings and he lost. If I played chess with a grand champion, I would loose. Of course, I would know before hand that I was going to loose. Even if Adam and Eve were very intelligent they were playing a game between God, the creator of everything, and Satan, the entity that while inferior was probably the second in power of all entities. And the story does not indicate that when the serpent began talking to Eve that she had any clue with whom she was dealing. Given that the serpent had unlimited time with which to manipulate the humans, they did not have a chance.

But you said several times that you think the punishment of death and separation from God, condemantion, was too severe. When asked, you said that God should not have punished them but rather have given them second, and third and fourth chances...this indicates that you believe we really should nbot be held guilty. And if we are really not guilty, then why the need for a savior.

otisblues wrote:What should the punishment be? I compare this again to parent who loves his children. I think death and total condemnation fall far from a just punishment particulary since I continue to suggest this story's Creator set up a very unfair set of circumstances. This does not sound like a just God. If I have to anwser such a question of punishment, it was be more of rehabilation type sentence. It would include God educating and counseling Adam and Eve about the overall situation. Now that they had the knowledge of good and evil they would the ability to understand and thus, would be more responsible for their actions. Remember, before they ate the fruit they had no knowledge of good and evil. They could not have known they acted in an evil manner until they ate the fruit. God could have worked with them to use this knowledge in a constructive manner. Instead, according to the story things just got worse and worse until this God purposely destroyed the human race other than just a few under Noah's care. As you can guess I do not believe the Noah story as a literal event.

otisblue wrote:If I took the story literally and applied my concept of justice (yes, I know I do not have a perfect knowledge of justice) I would not have banished them from the garden but sat down with them as a parent with a child. I would attempt to explain to them what had happen and in my love would have tried to work with them, to teach them a better way. In others words, I would have at the least given them a second chance. Any parent who loves their children would give a second, third, and many chances. It seems you are suggesting this God of this story did not even have as much love for his creation as a parent does for his child. Again, that is not the God I worship.

So they are guilty but you wouldn't give them the consequences....in which case, again, why the need for a savior if God doesn't not condemn us for the sin? If we will not be punished, why do we need to be reconciled to God?

otisblue wrote:I was just wondering are we the only ones here with opinions? Of course, you are keeping me quite busy thinking. And I still have not addressed all the many issues in your last two posts.

dunno the answer to that one

Otisblues wrote:You have not answer my two questions?

1. Why should I suffer the guilt of two humans of which I had no interaction and no possible means to effect their actions? Hence my example, if my father killed someone, why should I go to jail because I was his son?

i did answer...the consequences of the sin are passed on... Adam and Eve were our representatives and as such, showed what any of us would do in the garden...

zoegirl wrote:Adam and Eve were our representatives and as such represent any human. The point of the story is that humanity sinned and this sin affected and corrupted everything, including the generations to come.

CSonsequences of mothers and fathers always affect generations, good and bad. In this sin simply affected very aspect of our lives.

And all of us have sinned and are sinful in our own right anyway. We cannot use Adam and Eve;s sin as our excuse. The purpose of the law was to poit out our sinfulness. All of the laws were designed to show us that none of us are righteous. Then when Christ came, He not only pointed out that cheating was wrong, but even looking at a woman with lust i our hearts was wrong. So in our right and essence, all of us are condemned. We are not condemned simply because of Adam and Eve but for our own sinful nature.

2. If I create a self willed android who has free choice, who is responsible for his actions?

zoegirl wrote:Let me respnd by using our exmple of the criminal as before. We can bring up all sorts of things that cause us to do things , genetics, upbringing, temptations, physiology....other people....but at the heart of it, our justice system is built upon the idea that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. Do we let rapists off the hook because of some idea of a genetic predisposition? Is he still not considered guilty? Are we willing to devekop a society that allows crime to go unpunished simply because it's our nature to do so?

otisblue wrote:I was also wondering, from you have said it seems you would read the Bible as a completely literal text (except for certain obvious poetic symbolism such as the hill shed teas as in Psalms) with no errors or inconsistencies? It seems on the story of the garden we have reach a point where we are simply repeating arguments we have both already used. I was thinking beginning a new subject since this one has gotten very long.


Otisblues

Except for the fact that you have not answered my questions yet....what did Christ's death on the cross accomplish? I want your theology, essentially....why die if God is in the business of rehabilitation? What is the mechanism of salvation?

And yes, I believe that the word of God is infallible. Does this mean I take everything literally? As with any piece of written record, we can read sections appropriately, thus we can read sections as poetry, as historical fact, as parables, as prophecy, as allegory, etc. Does the fact that a section might be a parable does not negate its message. Thus Job still contains truths even if you think it is simply an allegory. This should really be a separate thread however. I woujld really like to finish Christ's purpose. I feel like I have explained my theology...I want to know more about yours.

Biblical study is essentially this process....understand the contect of the sections in the Bible with the intent of the INSPIRED writer. Is this poetry? history? parable? allegory? How do we understand the scripture in it's appropriate context. Is it infallible? I believe so....Could a sovereign God ensure that what goes down in writing is what He wants? Absolutely.

Read up in the sections on the main page on the age of the earth and you will understand our position . By inderstanding the Hebrew, we can understand it literally to mean tha thte universe is ancient.

You have ask for my belief system and this is a fairly large task. While I will first say I know that I am not an authority and I am overall unclear on my specific theological belief. I know that I deviate from fundamentalists' beliefs on most topics but have never been asked to write a statement of my overall belief system. This will be an interesting task and I don't know how successful I will be. You will have to give me a few days to work on this task since up till now I have been putting various thoughts as I read your responses. To explain the purpose of creation and the later development and purpose of Jesus' life is not a small item.

I will first say I am not capable of giving a precise answer to these questions because I don't have one. That is one reason I ask questions and continue to study. If I knew all these answers I would really be someone indeed. However, I will work on a document that will hopefully explain where I am at this time in the evolution of my belief system. Yet, I hope that I am always willing to accept new information and thus, adapt my belief system to take into account the new information.

The one thing that I do envy (likely a sin) of strict Fundamentalists of any major Religion is they are so sure of themselves. They have all the answers. It must be nice to believe you know exactly what God wants and how he operates. I am just the opposite, I will admit my ignorances and have to work toward not falling into a totally agnostic type of belief, saying this information simply is not available to Man. However, this would be giving up and I don't choose to that at this point.

Otisblues wrote:You have ask for my belief system and this is a fairly large task. While I will first say I know that I am not an authority and I am overall unclear on my specific theological belief. I know that I deviate from fundamentalists' beliefs on most topics but have never been asked to write a statement of my overall belief system. This will be an interesting task and I don't know how successful I will be. You will have to give me a few days to work on this task since up till now I have been putting various thoughts as I read your responses. To explain the purpose of creation and the later development and purpose of Jesus' life is not a small item.

I will first say I am not capable of giving a precise answer to these questions because I don't have one. That is one reason I ask questions and continue to study. If I knew all these answers I would really be someone indeed. However, I will work on a document that will hopefully explain where I am at this time in the evolution of my belief system. Yet, I hope that I am always willing to accept new information and thus, adapt my belief system to take into account the new information.

The one thing that I do envy (likely a sin) of strict Fundamentalists of any major Religion is they are so sure of themselves. They have all the answers. It must be nice to believe you know exactly what God wants and how he operates. I am just the opposite, I will admit my ignorances and have to work toward not falling into a totally agnostic type of belief, saying this information simply is not available to Man. However, this would be giving up and I don't choose to that at this point.

My apologies if I come of as overly confident. I will say that I do struggle with the lack of logic I see in some of your statements. You say Adam and Eve should not be condemned and judged harshly, and yet say that they are in need of a savior. That is ultimatley where my confusion arises.

I guess when I say theology, I am specifically asking about the cross. What did Christ accomplish on the cross in relation to us and why was it needed?

I would disgaree that a lot of this stuff is unavailable to man. MOst of this is available through scripture, but you state your lack of confidence in scripture's authority, which certainly would place a person's beliefs in a predicament.

LOoking forward to the discussion. THanks

zoegirl

This seems to me to address the question that according the plot of the story, man was set up to fail, the odds were certainly against him. Yes, he had free choice and could have chosen not eat the fruit and did choose not to eat the fruit for likely a very long time. However, with an unlimited time span, no experience with any type of crime or misbehavior, a lack of knowledge on the issue of death as a penalty, and an evil super being with unlimited time working constantly to manipulate them to eat the fruit, it seems they had no chance.

The tone of your post indicates you think God is to blame for man's fall. But if you read Genesis you will find that Adam tried the same tactic ("The woman you gave me gave me the fruit") and Eve also ("The serpent deceived me"). God's response was to pronounce judgment.

I should also point out there is no indication at all that the temptation from the serpent which God allowed extended for any longer than the one instance. There is no indication that Adam lived millions of years

It seems plain that Seth wasn't born until after the fall, and that Adam was 130 at the time. Also, Genesis 5:5 says:

So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

This seems to mean Adam lived 930 years total.

Otisblues wrote:The one thing that I do envy (likely a sin) of strict Fundamentalists of any major Religion is they are so sure of themselves. They have all the answers.

People in general are often so sure of themselves when it comes to discussing their beliefs.