Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

What was made after the fall?

Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2018 5:33:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I posed a question to ethang, and I'm looking for any theist to propose a response.

Ethang said that God's perfect creation didn't contain things like carnivorous plants and animals that require killing others in order to survive. It was humanity, via the fall, that brought these creatures into existence.

I'd like to point out John 1:3
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

God did create these creatures, like it or not. Maybe he did it to spite us? Maybe he did it to make our lives harder? Who knows why God decided to create more things after the creation which were deliberately design to be harmful.

We can believe one of two things:
> harmful creatures like parasites were made in the initial creation, in which case the initial creation wasn't the perfect state of being that it's made out to be

OR

> harmful creatures were made after the fall, in which case God specifically designed them to make our lives more miserable. Things like malaria borne from mosquitoes that kill millions of people every year were intentional acts of God that do exactly what he intended.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2018 6:22:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 5:33:27 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I posed a question to ethang, and I'm looking for any theist to propose a response.

Ethang said that God's perfect creation didn't contain things like carnivorous plants and animals that require killing others in order to survive. It was humanity, via the fall, that brought these creatures into existence.

I'd like to point out John 1:3
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

God did create these creatures, like it or not. Maybe he did it to spite us? Maybe he did it to make our lives harder? Who knows why God decided to create more things after the creation which were deliberately design to be harmful.

We can believe one of two things:
> harmful creatures like parasites were made in the initial creation, in which case the initial creation wasn't the perfect state of being that it's made out to be

OR

> harmful creatures were made after the fall, in which case God specifically designed them to make our lives more miserable. Things like malaria borne from mosquitoes that kill millions of people every year were intentional acts of God that do exactly what he intended.

So in your stupidity, you eliminate the fact that those creatures could simply have changed, and conclude they were not created! You build the silly false dichotomy that "harmful" creatures could only have been made, and then either before or after the fall. Of course, you ignore the verses saying that creation changed after the fall, due to the fall.

Then you start another thread, lie about my position, and artificially restrict the possible "correct" answers. Good job.

You don't need such convoluted antics to make a troll thread.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2018 9:09:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 6:22:46 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/5/2018 5:33:27 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I posed a question to ethang, and I'm looking for any theist to propose a response.

Ethang said that God's perfect creation didn't contain things like carnivorous plants and animals that require killing others in order to survive. It was humanity, via the fall, that brought these creatures into existence.

I'd like to point out John 1:3
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

God did create these creatures, like it or not. Maybe he did it to spite us? Maybe he did it to make our lives harder? Who knows why God decided to create more things after the creation which were deliberately design to be harmful.

We can believe one of two things:
> harmful creatures like parasites were made in the initial creation, in which case the initial creation wasn't the perfect state of being that it's made out to be

OR

> harmful creatures were made after the fall, in which case God specifically designed them to make our lives more miserable. Things like malaria borne from mosquitoes that kill millions of people every year were intentional acts of God that do exactly what he intended.

So in your stupidity, you eliminate the fact that those creatures could simply have changed, and conclude they were not created! You build the silly false dichotomy that "harmful" creatures could only have been made, and then either before or after the fall. Of course, you ignore the verses saying that creation changed after the fall, due to the fall.

Then you start another thread, lie about my position, and artificially restrict the possible "correct" answers. Good job.

You don't need such convoluted antics to make a troll thread.

Changed by who? Evolution?

Who made the abomination called the virus, whose entire replication process requires the infestation of a host?
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2018 10:48:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 9:09:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/5/2018 6:22:46 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/5/2018 5:33:27 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I posed a question to ethang, and I'm looking for any theist to propose a response.

Ethang said that God's perfect creation didn't contain things like carnivorous plants and animals that require killing others in order to survive. It was humanity, via the fall, that brought these creatures into existence.

I'd like to point out John 1:3
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

God did create these creatures, like it or not. Maybe he did it to spite us? Maybe he did it to make our lives harder? Who knows why God decided to create more things after the creation which were deliberately design to be harmful.

We can believe one of two things:
> harmful creatures like parasites were made in the initial creation, in which case the initial creation wasn't the perfect state of being that it's made out to be

OR

> harmful creatures were made after the fall, in which case God specifically designed them to make our lives more miserable. Things like malaria borne from mosquitoes that kill millions of people every year were intentional acts of God that do exactly what he intended.

So in your stupidity, you eliminate the fact that those creatures could simply have changed, and conclude they were not created! You build the silly false dichotomy that "harmful" creatures could only have been made, and then either before or after the fall. Of course, you ignore the verses saying that creation changed after the fall, due to the fall.

Then you start another thread, lie about my position, and artificially restrict the possible "correct" answers. Good job.

You don't need such convoluted antics to make a troll thread.

Changed by who? Evolution?

It helps to read the script before questioning the script genius. And if you disbelieve the script, then why are you asking for it?

Who made the abomination called the virus, whose entire replication process requires the infestation of a host?

I don't care for posts where the poster simply oozes from point to point, never acknowledging what I say or admitting points that have been debunked.

This is not an interrogation. You aren't the boss whose questions I must satisfy. Stay on topic and take off the referee's shirt. You are just a player.

What you call an "abomination" is subjective. As a liberal, this will be hard for you to understand, but your subjective opinions are not only NOT reality, but are not our standard of reality.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2018 12:44:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 10:48:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:
What you call an "abomination" is subjective. As a liberal, this will be hard for you to understand, but your subjective opinions are not only NOT reality, but are not our standard of reality.

Organisms that exist necessarily through the pain and death of other creatures isn't a point of subjectivity. God created them either during the 6 days or after, but parasites were created at some point. When were they made?
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2018 3:10:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 12:44:27 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/5/2018 10:48:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:

What you call an "abomination" is subjective. As a liberal, this will be hard for you to understand, but your subjective opinions are not only NOT reality, but are not our standard of reality.

Organisms that exist necessarily through the pain and death of other creatures isn't a point of subjectivity.

Whether that is "abominable" is a point of subjectivity. Ask why that is so, not why it is abominable.

And your stupidity is not my responsibility. The answer is in the story. That you are too intellectually slothful to read it, is not my problem. I told you, God did not create them that way.

But rather than think they changed, you went with your stupidity to insist that God must have created them that way. Well then, you aren't talking Christianity, and I only defend Christianity.

God created them either during the 6 days or after,...

The question was not, "Were organisms created by God?" The question was, "Were organisms that exist necessarily through the pain and death of other creatures created by God?"

The answer, for the non-stupid, is no, they became so after creation.

..but parasites were created at some point. When were they made?

You don't know what a parasite is. If you did, you would know this question is stupid. Sort of like asking, when did God make weeds? Plus, I told you, I don't care for the liberal atheist silly tendency to just keep asking stupid questions as if I must subject myself to his grilling.

You will understand your place, and know that I'm not selling you anything and I don't give one fig for your belief. If you want to talk, fine, but if you think you are interrogating me from your high atheist table, you will find that you are sadly confused.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2018 11:31:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 3:10:02 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/5/2018 12:44:27 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/5/2018 10:48:09 AM, ethang5 wrote:

What you call an "abomination" is subjective. As a liberal, this will be hard for you to understand, but your subjective opinions are not only NOT reality, but are not our standard of reality.

Organisms that exist necessarily through the pain and death of other creatures isn't a point of subjectivity.

Whether that is "abominable" is a point of subjectivity. Ask why that is so, not why it is abominable.

And your stupidity is not my responsibility. The answer is in the story. That you are too intellectually slothful to read it, is not my problem. I told you, God did not create them that way.

But rather than think they changed, you went with your stupidity to insist that God must have created them that way. Well then, you aren't talking Christianity, and I only defend Christianity.

It doesn't say in the bible that anything was changed after creation. What do you base this postulation on?

God created them either during the 6 days or after,...

The question was not, "Were organisms created by God?" The question was, "Were organisms that exist necessarily through the pain and death of other creatures created by God?"

The answer, for the non-stupid, is no, they became so after creation.

Says who? Organisms whose reproductive means necessarily entails the death of others are unique. There's no version of them that doesn't harm others, so there's no version of them to change from in the first place. Unless you're saying that one being morphed into a completely different being, like a monkey to a human for example.

..but parasites were created at some point. When were they made?

You don't know what a parasite is. If you did, you would know this question is stupid. Sort of like asking, when did God make weeds? Plus, I told you, I don't care for the liberal atheist silly tendency to just keep asking stupid questions as if I must subject myself to his grilling.

I'm a christian, not an atheist. I simply ask questions about your interpretation of the scriptures because you're adding into the bible a narrative that it doesn't support. There is no scriptural basis for a fall metamorphosis of millions of species of creatures. It's its own creation event at this point.

You will understand your place, and know that I'm not selling you anything and I don't give one fig for your belief. If you want to talk, fine, but if you think you are interrogating me from your high atheist table, you will find that you are sadly confused.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2018 1:02:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 11:31:32 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/5/2018 3:10:02 PM, ethang5 wrote:

What you call an "abomination" is subjective. As a liberal, this will be hard for you to understand, but your subjective opinions are not only NOT reality, but are not our standard of reality.

Organisms that exist necessarily through the pain and death of other creatures isn't a point of subjectivity.

Whether that is "abominable" is a point of subjectivity. Ask why that is so, not why it is abominable.

And your stupidity is not my responsibility. The answer is in the story. That you are too intellectually slothful to read it, is not my problem. I told you, God did not create them that way.

But rather than think they changed, you went with your stupidity to insist that God must have created them that way. Well then, you aren't talking Christianity, and I only defend Christianity.

It doesn't say in the bible that anything was changed after creation. What do you base this postulation on?

He bible idiot. You have not read the Genesis account. You have gotten your info from some ignorant atheist website, and have swallowed their narrative without an ounce of critical thought.

God created them either during the 6 days or after,...

The question was not, "Were organisms created by God?" The question was, "Were organisms that exist necessarily through the pain and death of other creatures created by God?"

The answer, for the non-stupid, is no, they became so after creation.

Says who?

The bible idiot. The place you got the original story from. Perhaps you should read it?

Organisms whose reproductive means necessarily entails the death of others are unique.

Do you think the first animals ate meat? Could you be ignorant of the bible AND science?

There's no version of them that doesn't harm others, so there's no version of them to change from in the first place.

Then what are you here for? You asked why did God do X, you are told why, and you reject it. Cool. Then be on your way. As I said, your stupidity is not my responsibility.

Unless you're saying that one being morphed into a completely different being, like a monkey to a human for example.

No you moron, I'm saying one being that did not previously eat meat started eating meat.

..but parasites were created at some point. When were they made?

You don't know what a parasite is. If you did, you would know this question is stupid. Sort of like asking, when did God make weeds? Plus, I told you, I don't care for the liberal atheist silly tendency to just keep asking stupid questions as if I must subject myself to his grilling.

I'm a christian, not an atheist.

Christians are always voluntary. One must understand what he is committing to. You don't know Christian doctrine, how in the world could you have made a conscious commitment to something you do not understand? You are not a Christian.

I simply ask questions about your interpretation of the scriptures because you're adding into the bible a narrative that it doesn't support.

You think so because you're a moron who has not read the passage you wish to debate.

There is no scriptural basis for a fall metamorphosis of millions of species of creatures. It's its own creation event at this point.

How do you know it's millions? Here genius. You say you've read the passage? The "serpent" that tricked Eve into eating the fruit, did it have legs? Well, did it?

You will understand your place, and know that I'm not selling you anything and I don't give one fig for your belief. If you want to talk, fine, but if you think you are interrogating me from your high atheist table, you will find that you are sadly confused.

See moron? You are ignorant. I do not care to teach you. If you return to me ignorant, or without answering my question, I will ignore you. I have better things to do than spoon feed some idiot who could not be bothered to read the passage he wants to debate.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2018 1:03:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2018 1:02:01 AM, ethang5 wrote:
[adhominem trimmed]

where in genesis does it support your theory of a multimillion species metamorphosis?

In response to some of your other comments, I was raised by very conservative christian parents who spent an hour each day for 20 years drilling me into memorising the bible and learn theology. When I say your theory isn't scripturally based, it's because I know what scripture says about it and the only way you can support your claim is by citing the passages you're referring to.

For your information, I still am a church going christian who studies the bible and I know that your narrative is fabricated.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2018 2:46:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Babies
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,636
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2018 2:46:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
and lots of em :O
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2018 2:40:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.debate.org...
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2018 7:36:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2018 1:03:04 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/6/2018 1:02:01 AM, ethang5 wrote:
[adhominem trimmed]

where in genesis does it support your theory of a multimillion species metamorphosis?

In response to some of your other comments, I was raised by very conservative christian parents who spent an hour each day for 20 years drilling me into memorising the bible and learn theology. When I say your theory isn't scripturally based, it's because I know what scripture says about it and the only way you can support your claim is by citing the passages you're referring to.

For your information, I still am a church going christian who studies the bible and I know that your narrative is fabricated.

But apparently not if the serpent had legs. It may not have been the bible you were "studying".

You did not answer my question and came back with more nonsense. Consider yourself ignored.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2018 9:33:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2018 7:36:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/6/2018 1:03:04 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/6/2018 1:02:01 AM, ethang5 wrote:
[adhominem trimmed]

where in genesis does it support your theory of a multimillion species metamorphosis?

In response to some of your other comments, I was raised by very conservative christian parents who spent an hour each day for 20 years drilling me into memorising the bible and learn theology. When I say your theory isn't scripturally based, it's because I know what scripture says about it and the only way you can support your claim is by citing the passages you're referring to.

For your information, I still am a church going christian who studies the bible and I know that your narrative is fabricated.

But apparently not if the serpent had legs. It may not have been the bible you were "studying".

You did not answer my question and came back with more nonsense. Consider yourself ignored.

I typically use the NKJV. I'm familiar with any translation more conservative than the NIV, and more liberal than that I don't go out of my way to read. If your question was 'did the serpent have legs,' it doesn't say in scriptures. Obviously I can't answer a question that doesn't have an answer.

What passages do you refer to when you claim that there was a mass metamorphosis around the time of the fall?
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2018 1:39:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2018 9:33:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/8/2018 7:36:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/6/2018 1:03:04 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/6/2018 1:02:01 AM, ethang5 wrote:
[adhominem trimmed]

where in genesis does it support your theory of a multimillion species metamorphosis?

In response to some of your other comments, I was raised by very conservative christian parents who spent an hour each day for 20 years drilling me into memorising the bible and learn theology. When I say your theory isn't scripturally based, it's because I know what scripture says about it and the only way you can support your claim is by citing the passages you're referring to.

For your information, I still am a church going christian who studies the bible and I know that your narrative is fabricated.

But apparently not if the serpent had legs. It may not have been the bible you were "studying".

You did not answer my question and came back with more nonsense. Consider yourself ignored.

I typically use the NKJV. I'm familiar with any translation more conservative than the NIV, and more liberal than that I don't go out of my way to read. If your question was 'did the serpent have legs,' it doesn't say in scriptures. Obviously I can't answer a question that doesn't have an answer.

What passages do you refer to when you claim that there was a mass metamorphosis around the time of the fall?

Gen 3:14 - So the LORD God said to the serpent:

"Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.


If he will now go on his belly now, how did he go before?

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;

How was she to bring forth children before?

Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

What did the curse on the ground mean?

Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,...

What did it bring up before?

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,...

How did he eat bread before?

Rom 8:19 - For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

What eagerly waits?

Rom 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

What was subjected to futility?

Rom 8:21 - because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

What is going to be delivered? And delivered from what?

Rom 8:22 - For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

The whole creation groans? Why? And about what?

You have never been a Christian. And you haven't a clue of what you're talking about now.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2018 2:26:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2018 1:39:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/8/2018 9:33:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/8/2018 7:36:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/6/2018 1:03:04 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/6/2018 1:02:01 AM, ethang5 wrote:
[adhominem trimmed]

where in genesis does it support your theory of a multimillion species metamorphosis?

In response to some of your other comments, I was raised by very conservative christian parents who spent an hour each day for 20 years drilling me into memorising the bible and learn theology. When I say your theory isn't scripturally based, it's because I know what scripture says about it and the only way you can support your claim is by citing the passages you're referring to.

For your information, I still am a church going christian who studies the bible and I know that your narrative is fabricated.

But apparently not if the serpent had legs. It may not have been the bible you were "studying".

You did not answer my question and came back with more nonsense. Consider yourself ignored.

I typically use the NKJV. I'm familiar with any translation more conservative than the NIV, and more liberal than that I don't go out of my way to read. If your question was 'did the serpent have legs,' it doesn't say in scriptures. Obviously I can't answer a question that doesn't have an answer.

What passages do you refer to when you claim that there was a mass metamorphosis around the time of the fall?

Gen 3:14 - So the LORD God said to the serpent:

"Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.


If he will now go on his belly now, how did he go before?

If you read further into the passage, you'll notice that God prophesies that the serpent will bruise his heel, and he will crush his head. Is this what actually happened? No, God is using poetic speech for the entirety of this curse. You already know that the last bit is in poetic form because you left it out. Unless you want to suggest that the serpent literally bruised Jesus on the heel, you obviously are aware that this is prophetic speech and not literal speech.

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;

How was she to bring forth children before?
Again, prophetic speech is used throughout the old testament, such as in Isaiah, "He will be a holy place; for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare." Every time the writers use prophetic speech, you know that they are using Hebrew poetry. In this poetic form, metaphors are used in place of the explicit statement. For example, the star of david, the lamb of God etc. The writers do not mean that Jesus is literally a rock, a star or a lamb, that's prophetic speech at work. Furthermore, the same thing is used to describe satan. In Genesis he is a serpent, but he is also depicted as a dragon, a beast, a prowling lion waiting for someone to devour. The takeaway is that the bible is not referring to a physical, real-life snake. It's talking about satan himself. We know Genesis was written in this style because the same style appears elsewhere when Isaiah refers to the coming one. Snake is a metaphor for satan and Satans actual form is not revealed. It could have been a person for all we know.

Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

What did the curse on the ground mean?
It's a part of the stanza that comes after, and can't be read alone. Here God is saying that they are going to have to sustain themselves, as they are no longer going to be supplied food for free.

Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,...

What did it bring up before?
Thorns and thistles, although clearly not in the garden. Remember that human civilisation existed outside of eden. Adam and Eve's children married foreigners and founded cities. These people weren't relevant to Hebrew history so they aren't mentioned outside of when they do interact with the notable characters.

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,...

How did he eat bread before?
"You shall eat of any tree of the garden" clearly indicates they were foragers and never tilled the ground previously.

Rom 8:19 - For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

What eagerly waits?

Rom 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

What was subjected to futility?

Rom 8:21 - because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

What is going to be delivered? And delivered from what?

Rom 8:22 - For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

The whole creation groans? Why? And about what?

Firstly, Romans 8 isn't referring to some massive metamorphosis event, as such an event isn't in Jewish creation traditions and nobody would have known about it until you brought it up.

Secondly, Romans 8 is talking about the end of days. It's not talking about the coming of Christ, as that's already happened, and it's not talking about the establishment of an earthly kingdom, as the kingdom of God is actually the church and already exists as well. The children of God mentioned here are the same as the ones mentioned in Luke 20:36.

Romans 8 is often cited as evidence for the establishment of an earthly kingdom. The logic is that only an earthly kingdom would suit the description especially in verse 21, but this isn't the case. The end of sin, as a release from the bondage of corruption wouldn't occur in an earthly kingdom, but it would in a second coming, to which Paul here is saying "stay steady brothers, the creation waits for it's release from the bondage of sin."

That's all an aside to the fact that nothing in Romans 8 in any way references a metamorphic event that never happened.

You have never been a Christian. And you haven't a clue of what you're talking about now.
I follow the bible quite simply. Do not add and do not subtract is one biblical principle I observe, and one you clearly don't. Furthermore, I've noticed that you are quite abusive without even being provoked and so I question the legitimacy of your claim that you follow Christ. You certainly don't follow his example.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2018 4:07:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2018 2:26:26 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 8/8/2018 1:39:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:

[adhominem trimmed]

where in genesis does it support your theory of a multimillion species metamorphosis?

In response to some of your other comments, I was raised by very conservative christian parents who spent an hour each day for 20 years drilling me into memorising the bible and learn theology. When I say your theory isn't scripturally based, it's because I know what scripture says about it and the only way you can support your claim is by citing the passages you're referring to.

For your information, I still am a church going christian who studies the bible and I know that your narrative is fabricated.

But apparently not if the serpent had legs. It may not have been the bible you were "studying".

You did not answer my question and came back with more nonsense. Consider yourself ignored.

I typically use the NKJV. I'm familiar with any translation more conservative than the NIV, and more liberal than that I don't go out of my way to read. If your question was 'did the serpent have legs,' it doesn't say in scriptures. Obviously I can't answer a question that doesn't have an answer.

What passages do you refer to when you claim that there was a mass metamorphosis around the time of the fall?

Gen 3:14 - So the LORD God said to the serpent:

"Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.


If he will now go on his belly now, how did he go before?

If you read further into the passage, you'll notice that God prophesies that the serpent will bruise his heel, and he will crush his head. Is this what actually happened?

Yes. As later proplets referred to that very thing happening.

No, God is using poetic speech for the entirety of this curse. You already know that the last bit is in poetic form because you left it out. Unless you want to suggest that the serpent literally bruised Jesus on the heel, you obviously are aware that this is prophetic speech and not literal speech.

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;

How was she to bring forth children before?
Again, prophetic speech is used throughout the old testament, such as in Isaiah, "He will be a holy place; for both Israel and Judah he will be a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. And for the people of Jerusalem he will be a trap and a snare." Every time the writers use prophetic speech, you know that they are using Hebrew poetry. In this poetic form, metaphors are used in place of the explicit statement. For example, the star of david, the lamb of God etc. The writers do not mean that Jesus is literally a rock, a star or a lamb, that's prophetic speech at work. Furthermore, the same thing is used to describe satan. In Genesis he is a serpent, but he is also depicted as a dragon, a beast, a prowling lion waiting for someone to devour. The takeaway is that the bible is not referring to a physical, real-life snake. It's talking about satan himself. We know Genesis was written in this style because the same style appears elsewhere when Isaiah refers to the coming one. Snake is a metaphor for satan and Satans actual form is not revealed. It could have been a person for all we know.

Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

What did the curse on the ground mean?
It's a part of the stanza that comes after, and can't be read alone. Here God is saying that they are going to have to sustain themselves, as they are no longer going to be supplied food for free.

Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,...

What did it bring up before?
Thorns and thistles, although clearly not in the garden. Remember that human civilisation existed outside of eden. Adam and Eve's children married foreigners and founded cities. These people weren't relevant to Hebrew history so they aren't mentioned outside of when they do interact with the notable characters.

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,...

How did he eat bread before?
"You shall eat of any tree of the garden" clearly indicates they were foragers and never tilled the ground previously.

Rom 8:19 - For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

What eagerly waits?

Rom 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

What was subjected to futility?

Rom 8:21 - because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

What is going to be delivered? And delivered from what?

Rom 8:22 - For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

The whole creation groans? Why? And about what?

Firstly, Romans 8 isn't referring to some massive metamorphosis event, as such an event isn't in Jewish creation traditions and nobody would have known about it until you brought it up.

Secondly, Romans 8 is talking about the end of days. It's not talking about the coming of Christ, as that's already happened, and it's not talking about the establishment of an earthly kingdom, as the kingdom of God is actually the church and already exists as well. The children of God mentioned here are the same as the ones mentioned in Luke 20:36.

Romans 8 is often cited as evidence for the establishment of an earthly kingdom. The logic is that only an earthly kingdom would suit the description especially in verse 21, but this isn't the case. The end of sin, as a release from the bondage of corruption wouldn't occur in an earthly kingdom, but it would in a second coming, to which Paul here is saying "stay steady brothers, the creation waits for it's release from the bondage of sin."

That's all an aside to the fact that nothing in Romans 8 in any way references a metamorphic event that never happened.

Even you had to admit that there were changes to the physical world due to the fall, and as that was the point, and not your little semantic ploy of a "metamorphic event", I think I can count you as done and dusted.

You have never been a Christian. And you haven't a clue of what you're talking about now.

I follow the bible quite simply. Do not add and do not subtract is one biblical principle I observe, and one you clearly don't. Furthermore, I've noticed that you are quite abusive without even being provoked and so I question the legitimacy of your claim that you follow Christ. You certainly don't follow his example.

Luckily for me, you aren't my judge. But be careful, perhaps the verses telling you to " follow Christ" were just poetic speech.
21stCenturyIconoclast
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2018 5:40:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2018 2:26:26 PM, Smithereens wrote:

What did it bring up before?
Thorns and thistles, although clearly not in the garden. Remember that human civilisation existed outside of eden. Adam and Eve's children married foreigners and founded cities. These people weren't relevant to Hebrew history so they aren't mentioned outside of when they do interact with the notable characters.

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,...

How did he eat bread before?
"You shall eat of any tree of the garden" clearly indicates they were foragers and never tilled the ground previously.

Rom 8:19 - For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

What eagerly waits?

Rom 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

What was subjected to futility?

Rom 8:21 - because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

What is going to be delivered? And delivered from what?

Rom 8:22 - For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

The whole creation groans? Why? And about what?

Firstly, Romans 8 isn't referring to some massive metamorphosis event, as such an event isn't in Jewish creation traditions and nobody would have known about it until you brought it up.

Secondly, Romans 8 is talking about the end of days. It's not talking about the coming of Christ, as that's already happened, and it's not talking about the establishment of an earthly kingdom, as the kingdom of God is actually the church and already exists as well. The children of God mentioned here are the same as the ones mentioned in Luke 20:36.

Romans 8 is often cited as evidence for the establishment of an earthly kingdom. The logic is that only an earthly kingdom would suit the description especially in verse 21, but this isn't the case. The end of sin, as a release from the bondage of corruption wouldn't occur in an earthly kingdom, but it would in a second coming, to which Paul here is saying "stay steady brothers, the creation waits for it's release from the bondage of sin."

That's all an aside to the fact that nothing in Romans 8 in any way references a metamorphic event that never happened.

You have never been a Christian. And you haven't a clue of what you're talking about now.
I follow the bible quite simply. Do not add and do not subtract is one biblical principle I observe, and one you clearly don't. Furthermore, I've noticed that you are quite abusive without even being provoked and so I question the legitimacy of your claim that you follow Christ. You certainly don't follow his example.

_________________________________

SMITHEREENS,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: "Thorns and thistles, although clearly not in the garden. Remember that human civilisation existed outside of eden. Adam and Eve's children married foreigners and founded cities. These people weren't relevant to Hebrew history so they aren't mentioned outside of when they do interact with the notable characters."

Therefore, what you are comically proposing, WITHOUT A THREAD OF BIBLICAL OR HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, is that other civilizations were created by other gods!

The primitive Christian serial killer god named Yahweh created the Hebrew people: "God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)

Since the Hebrew Yahweh god of the Old Testament is said to have created ALL of mankind and the animals to begin with, and since the earth was bare and void beforehand (Genesis 1:2), then what gods created those "other civilizations" BEFORE Adam and Eve were created, and that they procreated with as you so state?!!!

Seriously, this forum accepts that ETHANG5 is the token dumbfounded and most ignorant pseudo-christian, but are you vying to take his place in this respect? Huh?

_____________________________
rnjs
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2018 9:30:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2018 5:33:27 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I posed a question to ethang, and I'm looking for any theist to propose a response.

Ethang said that God's perfect creation didn't contain things like carnivorous plants and animals that require killing others in order to survive. It was humanity, via the fall, that brought these creatures into existence.

I'd like to point out John 1:3
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

God did create these creatures, like it or not. Maybe he did it to spite us? Maybe he did it to make our lives harder? Who knows why God decided to create more things after the creation which were deliberately design to be harmful.

We can believe one of two things:
> harmful creatures like parasites were made in the initial creation, in which case the initial creation wasn't the perfect state of being that it's made out to be

OR

> harmful creatures were made after the fall, in which case God specifically designed them to make our lives more miserable. Things like malaria borne from mosquitoes that kill millions of people every year were intentional acts of God that do exactly what he intended.

Nothing needed to be made they just changed from their original state since the potential for change was part of the original design.
Axonly
Posts: 2,621
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2018 3:55:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I follow the bible quite simply. Do not add and do not subtract is one biblical principle I observe, and one you clearly don't. Furthermore, I've noticed that you are quite abusive without even being provoked and so I question the legitimacy of your claim that you follow Christ. You certainly don't follow his example.

Luckily for me, you aren't my judge. But be careful, perhaps the verses telling you to " follow Christ" were just poetic speech.

I'm kind of curious how you're justifying your abusive behaviour in your head. Somehow I doubt you'd ever talk to people IRL the way you've talked to smith.
"Hate begets hate"
ethang5
Posts: 19,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2018 8:58:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2018 3:55:50 AM, Axonly wrote:

I follow the bible quite simply. Do not add and do not subtract is one biblical principle I observe, and one you clearly don't. Furthermore, I've noticed that you are quite abusive without even being provoked and so I question the legitimacy of your claim that you follow Christ. You certainly don't follow his example.

Luckily for me, you aren't my judge. But be careful, perhaps the verses telling you to " follow Christ" were just poetic speech.

I'm kind of curious how you're justifying your abusive behaviour in your head.

I'm curious about why you would think I consider it 'abusive' in my head. Wait, you're liberal, so for you, whatever you think, you think is synonymous with reality. OK.

Somehow I doubt you'd ever talk to people IRL the way you've talked to smith.

Sure I do, when they act as he has.

Rather than come back to me, he makes a thread and deliberately misstates my argument. When I correct him, he simply insists that it must be the way he says.

So I ask him questions, telling him I will ignore him if he fails to answer. He does not answer. I tell him he has been put on ignore. Only then does he answer. What was his problem?

He has been disingenuous from the beginning. Nothing about this issue is complex or difficult to understand. He is playing obtuse because a clear look at the issue would immediately kill his ignorant argument.

Unlike you, I am not a liberal. I don't coddle stupidity, and I do not indulge militant ignorance. If you will use stupidity and obtuseness as debate tools, I will give you the response those things deserve.

And at any time that agent smith feels 'abused', he is free to withdraw from the convo and find a safe space. Maybe he already has. You snowflakes tend to be very delicate.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2018 3:18:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2018 8:58:25 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 8/13/2018 3:55:50 AM, Axonly wrote:

I follow the bible quite simply. Do not add and do not subtract is one biblical principle I observe, and one you clearly don't. Furthermore, I've noticed that you are quite abusive without even being provoked and so I question the legitimacy of your claim that you follow Christ. You certainly don't follow his example.

Luckily for me, you aren't my judge. But be careful, perhaps the verses telling you to " follow Christ" were just poetic speech.

I'm kind of curious how you're justifying your abusive behaviour in your head.

I'm curious about why you would think I consider it 'abusive' in my head. Wait, you're liberal, so for you, whatever you think, you think is synonymous with reality. OK.

Please distinguish your behavior from BP's, aside form using more words.

Somehow I doubt you'd ever talk to people IRL the way you've talked to smith.

Sure I do, when they act as he has.

Rather than come back to me, he makes a thread and deliberately misstates my argument. When I correct him, he simply insists that it must be the way he says.

So I ask him questions, telling him I will ignore him if he fails to answer. He does not answer. I tell him he has been put on ignore. Only then does he answer. What was his problem?

Your ineffective communication skills.
Or that we are working on a text based and imperfect medium, exact intent is subject to interpretation.

There might be more.

He has been disingenuous from the beginning. Nothing about this issue is complex or difficult to understand. He is playing obtuse because a clear look at the issue would immediately kill his ignorant argument.

Says BP.

Like I said, please distinguish your behavior from Bully's beyond word count.

Unlike you, I am not a liberal. I don't coddle stupidity, and I do not indulge militant ignorance. If you will use stupidity and obtuseness as debate tools, I will give you the response those things deserve.

"Abuse"?

And at any time that agent smith feels 'abused', he is free to withdraw from the convo and find a safe space. Maybe he already has. You snowflakes tend to be very delicate.

Conversations with you typically bear no fruit. Why continue in general?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.