Although I don't believe this apparently scientists believe life formed on its own

[AV1611VET]

The number of things you don't believe would make an excellent topic list for an informative suite of factual textbooks.

The number of things academia does believe would fill an encyclopedia.

 

[AV1611VET]

So would the number of things that he does believe.

The ones I support with the Bible? or the ones I support with AI? or Wikipedia? or Webster's 1828 dictionary? or my Boolean standards? or my Prime Directive?

Or are you talking about my suppositions?

 

[AV1611VET]

The world we are in is not the one God created for you to live on,

Um ...

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

 

[partinobodycular]

I absolutely accept that this post is not scientific, but I believe I am replying to an unscientific question.

You are indeed correct on both counts.

The world we are in is not the one God created for you to live on, humans are banned from that one....

Yup, that's the God that I don't like.

23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3 NIV

Okay, fair enough I suppose, but why did He have to go and curse the ground? That seems rather vindictive to me... 17 Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, fair enough I suppose, but why did He have to go and curse the ground?

He did it for Adam's sake.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Matthew Henry has an interesting perspective:

(1.) Adam himself is not cursed, as the serpent was (Ge 3:14), but only the ground for his sake. God had blessings in him, even the holy seed: Destroy it not, for that blessing is in it, Isa 65:8. And he had blessings in store for him; therefore he is not directly and immediately cursed, but, as it were, at second hand.

(3.) This curse upon the earth, which cut off all expectations of a happiness in things below, might direct and quicken him to look for bliss and satisfaction only in things above.

 

[stevevw]

A person who tries to "beat down God with science" can easily be shown to be wrong. Even atheist scientists like Hans have tried to show you that it can't be done.

If this is the case that atheist scientists or anyone using science to beat down the beliefs of Christians know that its impossible. Then every time they do ( and plenty of examples can be shown).

Then they are purposely attacking Christians knowing its impossible and this is blantant cruelty and bias against them. Its also a complete contradic tion to the sientific thinking they are using by insisting that it can. Making them hypocrites.

As for Christian beliefs you rarely, if ever, present any, so I don't see what you are complaining about.

Lol and what has that got to do with anything. Are you saying I have none and therefore its ok to attack me on Christian beliefs. The very fact I am arguing for Christian belief is supporting Christian belief.

The problem is you want specific words. Everything is measured by the words. You miss all the language that may not specifically mention Christian belief but is supporting Christian belief.

It's not our fault that you know so little of Christian theology that you think such a thing is even possible.

What that people are demanding Christians show evidence of God or otherwise they are fools and deluded. Do you want me to show you the evidence lol. Its in the language used.

On the contrary, we're 1500 posts into a thread in which you are promoting pagan ideas about "transcendent knowlege" and "mind out of body" that we are trying to talk you out of. You should thank us.

Once again you make a false claim. Show me where I am promoting pagan beliefs or mind and body. Let alone trying to talk me out of it.

Don't mistake mentioning the fact that there are pagan beliefs and others (even science) who themselves work on the mind and body issue and have done for centuries. Don't mistake mentioning them as some sort of endorsement or belief that they are true in themselves.

I have mentioned these only to point out that it is quite natural for humans to be inclined to believe in such transcedent ideas. Not that they are all true in any particular belief. Only that there is such a transcedent realm and that all the different beliefs are attempts to express this.

If there is a God and belief and spirituality as Paul mentions and we all know God. Then it makes sense that this knowledge is expressed in all sorts of different ways when people replace God with their own versions. Its actually support for a God.

 

[BCP1928]

If this is the case that atheist scientists or anyone using science to beat down the beliefs of Christians know that its impossible. Then every time they do ( and plenty of examples can be shown).

Then they are purposely attacking Christians knowing its impossible and this is blantant cruelty and bias against them. Its also a complete contradic tion to the sientific thinking they are using by insisting that it can. Making them hypocrites.

Lol and what has that got to do with anything. Are you saying I have none and therefore its ok to attack me on Christian beliefs. The very fact I am arguing for Christian belief is supporting Christian belief.

The problem is you want specific words. Everything is measured by the words. You miss all the language that may not specifically mention Christian belief but is supporting Christian belief.

What that people are demanding Christians show evidence of God or otherwise they are fools and deluded. Do you want me to show you the evidence lol. Its in the language used.

Once again you make a false claim. Show me where I am promoting pagan beliefs or mind and body. Let alone trying to talk me out of it.

Don't mistake mentioning the fact that there are pagan beliefs and others (even science) who themselves work on the mind and body issue and have done for centuries. Don't mistake mentioning them as some sort of endorsement or belief that they are true in themselves.

I have mentioned these only to point out that it is quite natural for humans to be inclined to believe in such transcedent ideas. Not that they are all true in any particular belief. Only that there is such a transcedent realm and that all the different beliefs are attempts to express this.

If there is a God and belief and spirituality as Paul mentions and we all know God. Then it makes sense that this knowledge is expressed in all sorts of different ways when people replace God with their own versions. Its actually support for a God.

Mind/body dualism is a pagan belief, it is Platonism. It is informally believed by many Christians, but it didn't really enter Western Christian thought until the reintroduction of Classical philosophy to the West during the late middle ages. The Bible does not explicitly answer the question, but makes clear that we will never be a conscious mind without a body, either in this life or the next. That is why Christians all swear once a week to a belief in the "resurrection of the body." Christian doctrine does not depend on mind/body dualism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mind/body dualism is a pagan belief, it is Platonism. It is informally believed by many Christians, but it didn't really enter Western Christian thought until the reintroduction of Classical philosophy to the West during the late middle ages. The Bible does not explicitly answer the question, but makes clear that we will never be a conscious mind without a body, either in this life or the next. That is why Christians all swear once a week to a belief in the "resurrection of the body." Christian doctrine does not depend on mind/body dualism.

In the doctrine of tripartism (body, soul, and spirit), the mind resides in the heart, not the brain.

Consciousness resides in the soul, and can indeed exist outside of the body.

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

 

[dlamberth]

In the doctrine of tripartism (body, soul, and spirit), the mind resides in the heart, not the brain.

Consciousness resides in the soul, and can indeed exist outside of the body.

Wow!!!
Thank You!
You have brought up something in which we agree.
But for me it's not in any way a "doctrine".
Rather it's experiential, meaning a bit of gnosis is involved.

 

[partinobodycular]

Matthew Henry has an interesting perspective:

(1.) Adam himself is not cursed, as the serpent was (Ge 3:14), but only the ground for his sake. God had blessings in him, even the holy seed: Destroy it not, for that blessing is in it, Isa 65:8. And he had blessings in store for him; therefore he is not directly and immediately cursed, but, as it were, at second hand.

(3.) This curse upon the earth, which cut off all expectations of a happiness in things below, might direct and quicken him to look for bliss and satisfaction only in things above.

I assume that you didn't see the irony in this. You know how you often criticize scientists for publishing papers that draw rather dubious conclusions. Well that's exactly what this looks like to me. It's as if old Henry had to come up with something to explain Gen. 3:17 and this is the best that he could do. Unfortunately I just don't buy it. To me the idea of God cursing someone is a feature of old school theology, wherein people blamed their misfortunes on God's retribution for some wrong that they'd supposedly done.

To my way of thinking the best explanation is one in which everything that happens after the fall is a natural consequence of the process of gaining the knowledge of good and evil, and not the result of a direct curse from a vindictive God, or even one practicing tough love.

But hey, if you're satisfied with that explanation... fine. Just keep in mind that it looks a wee bit hypocritical to me.

 

[stevevw]

Mind/body dualism is a pagan belief, it is Platonism. It is informally believed by many Christians, but it didn't really enter Western Christian thought until the reintroduction of Classical philosophy to the West during the late middle ages.

And you don't think Christian beliefs had anything to do with this reintroduction.

The Bible does not explicitly answer the question, but makes clear that we will never be a conscious mind without a body, either in this life or the next. That is why Christians all swear once a week to a belief in the "resurrection of the body." Christian doctrine does not depend on mind/body dualism.

This is silly. Your using the arguement of the belief in the resurrection of the body which defies physical reality to dismiss the idea that there is a material/spiritual reality.

It does not matter really what you want to call it. The fact is one way or another humans have this belief in a transcedent and immaterial reality. Whether thats paganism or Christianity.

For the purposes of supporting that material and immaterial or mind/consciousness and physical brain divide it doesn't matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow!!!
Thank You!

You're welcome!

The following verses support tripartitism:

Genesis 2:7 = dust, breath, soul
Mark 12:30 heart, soul, mind, strength
1 Thessalonians 5:23 = spirit, soul, body
Hebrews 4:12 = soul, spirit, joints and marrow, heart
1 John 5:8 = Spirit, water, blood

The body -- soma -- gives us world consciousness.

The soul -- psyche -- gives us self-consciousness.

The spirit -- pneuma -- gives us God consciousness.

 

[AV1611VET]

To my way of thinking the best explanation is one in which everything that happens after the fall is a natural consequence of the process of gaining the knowledge of good and evil, and not the result of a direct curse from a vindictive God, or even one practicing tough love.

God always gives us a choice.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

And the tree in the Garden was no exception.

And what you think was an act of hypocrisy, was actually a master stroke of wisdom.

Had God not made Adam the federal head of the entire human race, then Jesus would have to come back and die on the Cross separately for each and every human being that was ever born, alive today, or will be alive tomorrow.

But by making the "first Adam" the federal head of the human race, He made the "last Adam" a one-time sacrifice for sins.

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[RamiC]

Um ...

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Yes, but we are banished from the Garden of Eden, hence the need for Jesus, that is why I quoted the expulsion from Eden in my post #40. I was responding to an objection to God for creating a world littered with problems, not saying He did not create at all.

 

[partinobodycular]

And what you think was an act of hypocrisy, was actually a master stroke of wisdom.

Ah, that explains why I didn't recognize it.

Had God not made Adam the federal head of the entire human race, then Jesus would have to come back and die on the Cross separately for each and every human being that was ever born, alive today, or will be alive tomorrow.

But by making the "first Adam" the federal head of the human race, He made the "last Adam" a one-time sacrifice for sins.

As you might expect I'm not a fan of the whole 'Christ as a sacrificial lamb' story. Like Genesis, I think that it too is allegory. Genesis is the story of how humanity acquired the knowledge of good and evil, and all of the negative consequences that came with it. Christ is the story of how we overcame those consequences, by figuratively taking them to the cross and leaving them there.

 

[AV1611VET]

As you might expect I'm not a fan of the whole 'Christ as a sacrificial lamb' story.

Unfortunately you're not alone.

The Jews at the time of Christ's birth were anticipating the Psalm 72 / Isaiah 11 Lion.

But when Christ presented His credentials as the Psalm 22 / Isaiah 53 Lamb, they cried "Away with Him."

Please don't make the same mistake they made.

 

[partinobodycular]

Please don't make the same mistake they made.

Actually I'm just repeating what you already said.

Had God not made Adam the federal head of the entire human race, then Jesus would have to come back and die on the Cross separately for each and every human being that was ever born, alive today, or will be alive tomorrow.

But by making the "first Adam" the federal head of the human race, He made the "last Adam" a one-time sacrifice for sins.

The only difference is that I'm suggesting that they're both allegorical. That Adam is representative of all of humanity, and likewise so is Christ.