Petty name-calling doesn't prove either side

[notto]

Umm, read that out loud to yourself. It pretty much sounds like 'You're not stupid, you're just not as smart as me or you would believe what I do.'

There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. Vances point is that creationists often tend to be ignorant of what the theory of evolution really says. Have you read Darwin? Taken a class in Biology? Understand the physics involved in the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If not, then you are ignorant of the topic. This doesn't make you stupid.

 

[herev]

No, it really doesn't. I think that the teaching that the result of the Fall was physical death goes directly against Scripture and is theologically very dangerous, as I have set out in full elsewhere. But will summarize here:

Jesus came to redeem us, to allow us to come back into full communion with God, thus UNDOING the death that was suffered at the Fall. I believe, and all Christians must believe, that He was successful in this endeavor for all those who accept the gift of redemption.

Now, we know that Christians still suffer death, even after fully accepting the gift of that redemption. Thus, if the death suffered at the Fall was physical death, then Jesus would not have been successful in His redemptive effort. And we know that it is not merely the "eternal life" which we will experience in heaven after our physical death, since this applies to EVERYONE, even those who do not accept Christ. After all they WILL have eternal life, just not in communion with God (spiritual life). They will be spiritually dead.

very good post--I agree

 

[herev]

It simply is a more consistent reading within Christian doctrine that the death suffered at the Fall was a spiritual death. This means that once you accept the redemption bought by Christ's sacrifice, you immediately regain full communion with God (Spiritual Life), thus undoing the loss suffered at the Fall (which was the purpose for the redemptive sacrifice, after all).

the odd thing about this is that seeing this as spiritual death is a more consistent reading on just one side of the argument. For the TE's it makes sense with the theory of evolution and with Genesis 1 and 2 being metaphorical in nature. With creationists, however--they can surely see that the "plainest" reading--on that day you will surely die"--did NOT occur, so it must be interpreted some--and when they interpret, they go against the plainest reading, saying, "well, they began to die or they were now allowed to die or whatever--which is adding to the scriptures, interpreting the scriptures away from the most "plain" reading, etc--not at all consistent whether they view it as physical or spiritual. But of course, that is simply my opinion.

 

[gluadys]

Umm, read that out loud to yourself. It pretty much sounds like 'You're not stupid, you're just not as smart as me or you would believe what I do.'

It is, of course, commonplace in modern American English, to use "ignorant" as a synonym of "stupid". But the words actually have an entirely different meaning.

"Stupid" means "lacking intelligence", "unable to learn".

"Ignorant" means "lacking information" "not knowing the full story".

There is absolutely no person on earth who knows everything. EVen among the best educated, everyone is ignorant in some field of knowledge or another. EAch and every one of us is ill-informed--ignorant--about something. I am all at sea when it comes to chemistry. It is a field in which I have not chosen to immerse myself, and so I don't know much about it. I am even more ignorant if possible when it comes to racing cars, reality TV, impressionist art and Chinese folktales.

So if someone tells me I don't know these fields (and many others) in depth, that is not an insult. And it doesn't mean they perceive me as being stupid. It is simply a fact that I can't study everything in depth, and these are some of the things I have not studied.

If I choose to, I can study them. I can learn about them in depth. That is the difference between ignorance (not knowing) and stupidity (not being able to learn).

The wisest among us are those who are aware of the depth of their ignorance. As Socrates said--the sum of his wisdom was to know that he did not know.

It IS true that many creationists do NOT KNOW much about evolution. The same egregious errors on basic evolutionary concepts are made again and again and again. That does not mean the people who make these errors are too stupid to learn better. It only means they haven't taken the time to investigate the matter in more depth.

Stupidity is a handicap some of us are born with. Ignorance is a handicap all of us are born with. Stupidity may not be curable. Ignorance is curable, at least in part. All of us make choices as to what is worthwhile investing our time in to learn. All of us choose to remain ignorant in other areas.

There is no shame in that, and no one should take it as an insult if they are told they don't know something. They simply need to decide if this is something worth their time to study. And not pretend to a knowledge they do not really have.

 

[GodSaves]

the odd thing about this is that seeing this as spiritual death is a more consistent reading on just one side of the argument. For the TE's it makes sense with the theory of evolution and with Genesis 1 and 2 being metaphorical in nature. With creationists, however--they can surely see that the "plainest" reading--on that day you will surely die"--did NOT occur, so it must be interpreted some--and when they interpret, they go against the plainest reading, saying, "well, they began to die or they were now allowed to die or whatever--which is adding to the scriptures, interpreting the scriptures away from the most "plain" reading, etc--not at all consistent whether they view it as physical or spiritual. But of course, that is simply my opinion.

And might I point out that it is blantantly against scripture to attribute pain and suffering to God. It is blantantly against scripture to attribute death to God. This is exactly what theistic evolutionists do when they say that physical death was part of creation before the fall, created by God. You laid the road of pain and suffering to originate at God's feet, instead of man and sin's feet.

Man did not die that day. But man did start dying that day. When we are born, we begin to die. So you believe God created man and the moment after man was created(before the fall), God intended for man to start dying. Yet, man did not suffer spiritual death that day. I have yet to read in Genesis where Adam and Eve were thrown into the lake of fire. There are only two types of death, physical and spiritual.

Explain for all of us creationists why, if physical death is part of God's creation before the fall of man, that Jesus Christ speaks of a physical resurrection, as does Paul and John? I thought we were suppose to die and be physically dead, not cheat death and rise from the dead, by God's Power. If we die, but are ressurected, did we truly die, or were just asleep as Jesus Christ taught? If you teach differently then you teach against Christ.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Teaching differently to your interpretation of the words of Christ is not the same as teaching differently to Christ. To suggest it is is the height of arrogance, which, fankly, is the third most common creationist distinctive after ignorance of the subject matter and appalling spelling and grammar.

 

[TwinCrier]

So the gist of it is, if creationist only studied to be as learned as thou, we would just have to accept evolution as fact.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No, you'd have to be open to the possibility that you were wrong as well. Not all creationists are. You'd also have to be willing to go with the evidence. Polls on the topic on these boards have shown, again, that not all creationists are so willing.

 

[artybloke]

So the gist of it is, if creationist only studied to be as learned as thou, we would just have to accept evolution as fact.

Either that or we wouldn't see the same boring old refuted arguments we've heard a million times before repeated ad infinitum, and we might be able to get some where.

But frankly I don't hold out much hope of that happening this side of the next millenium.

And while we're at it:

And might I point out that it is blantantly against scripture to attribute pain and suffering to God.

This is the same scripture, is it, where God sends plagues down on the Egyptians, destroys the world in a "universal" flood and says it's OK to kill children who diss their parents? Methinks thou'rt reading a different Bible to the one I got.

 

[Vance]

And might I point out that it is blantantly against scripture to attribute pain and suffering to God. It is blantantly against scripture to attribute death to God. This is exactly what theistic evolutionists do when they say that physical death was part of creation before the fall, created by God. You laid the road of pain and suffering to originate at God's feet, instead of man and sin's feet.

Man did not die that day. But man did start dying that day. When we are born, we begin to die. So you believe God created man and the moment after man was created(before the fall), God intended for man to start dying. Yet, man did not suffer spiritual death that day. I have yet to read in Genesis where Adam and Eve were thrown into the lake of fire. There are only two types of death, physical and spiritual.

Explain for all of us creationists why, if physical death is part of God's creation before the fall of man, that Jesus Christ speaks of a physical resurrection, as does Paul and John? I thought we were suppose to die and be physically dead, not cheat death and rise from the dead, by God's Power. If we die, but are ressurected, did we truly die, or were just asleep as Jesus Christ taught? If you teach differently then you teach against Christ.

Yes, we will experience a physical resurrection. Yes, we will have eternal life. EVERYONE will experience both of these things. We will all be resurrected and brought to judgment before God and then spend eternity physically living in either Heaven or Hell. So, the distinction is not physical death and life, but spiritual death and life. This is what was lost at the Fall, this is what Christ came to give us back, and this is what will determine our existence for eternity.

Did you not know that in Greek times, the phrase "to sleep" was used as synonymous with death? It was a euphamism, like we say "passed away" or "went to be with the Lord", rather than say "he died".

Now, I don't understand a single point you are making in your second paragraph. There are a lot of theories regarding the nature of Adam and Eve's mortality before the Fall, but there is no doubt that after the Fall, they were in a condition of BOTH spiritual death (out of communion with God), and would eventually physically die. The point is that their act of sin caused them spiritual death, not physical death, for all the reasons stated (and not yet refuted).

 

[herev]

And might I point out that it is blantantly against scripture to attribute pain and suffering to God.

Well, blatant is a strong word, you'll have to show me. from Job 2:
Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

Not only did Job attribute bad things as coming from God, he was not sinning in what he said.

It is blantantly against scripture to attribute death to God.

again, blatantly is a strong word

This is exactly what theistic evolutionists do when they say that physical death was part of creation before the fall, created by God. You laid the road of pain and suffering to originate at God's feet, instead of man and sin's feet.

Yes--as the evidence in God's created universe demonstrates, but if we are correct in our translation--then would you question God's authority to have created this way?

Man did not die that day. But man did start dying that day.

Could you show me scripturally, from the plain reading of the text (I am growing fond of using that term--it could mean anything), where you get this. How did your translation go from "on that day you will surely die" to "on that day you will surely begin to die"? Since I know you are not a fan of adding to or taking away from or even interpreting scripture over and above what is actually written--how do you come by this knowledge?

When we are born, we begin to die.

Physically? Not exactly, no--parts of us begin to die, but the cells are replaced--the brain itself begins to die around 3 months of age without replacing those cells. But now if you mean spiritually, I agree 100%

So you believe God created man and the moment after man was created (before the fall), God intended for man to start dying.

I think it logical to deduce this even if just looking at the tree of life--if our bodies weren't intended to die, what is the possible use for that tree?

I have yet to read in Genesis where Adam and Eve were thrown into the lake of fire.

Me neither, but they did lose their daily walk with God in the Garden--they did lose their innocence with Him. They did become ashamed before Him--all at the moment of sin--though they did not physically die at that moment, did they?

There are only two types of death, physical and spiritual.

Agreed.

Explain for all of us creationists why, if physical death is part of God's creation before the fall of man, that Jesus Christ speaks of a physical resurrection, as does Paul and John?

because--having been thrown from the Garden, we no longer have access to the Tree of Life-thus our bodies--as created--will suffer and die, but in the age to come, in the time of the resurrection, our bodies will be different--we will live forever with Him with new bodies--perfect bodies.

I thought we were suppose to die and be physically dead, not cheat death and rise from the dead, by God's Power.

you lost me here?

If we die, but are ressurected, did we truly die, or were just asleep as Jesus Christ taught?

and here

If you teach differently then you teach against Christ.

If you already know the answer, why ask the question? It doesn't take you long to get back to the old tricks, does it. " those who disagree with me are against Chist..." is still the rallying cry of the creationists--sad, really sad

 

[Alchemist]

Provide the scriptures that physical death at the fall goes against. Not your interpretation of the scriptures but the scriptures themselves.

Hey GodSaves,

I think that the 'death' referred to in Genesis was spiritual, because of the following. In Genesis 2:16-17, God places man in Eden and commands the man not to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
- Genesis 2:16-17
​

However, we see that Adam lives past this day he ate of the fruit:

3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth;
- Genesis 3:5
​

This is why believe the death talked of it Genesis was spiritual. As we read, the serpent says to Eve that she 'shall surely not die' (Genesis 3:4, referring to the commandment in Genesis 2:17). As far as physical death, Adam and Eve did continue to live past the day they took of the fruit, but they 'died' spiritually, becoming isolated from (although not abandoned by) God.

Hope this clears this up.

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[Vance]

Meaning that Satan both told her the truth and lied to her at the same time. Just like the sneaky so-and-so! :0)

 

[GodSaves]

Thank you for you post Alchemist. Do you think that physical death was apart of that fall as well, since Adam and Eve could now not eat of the tree of life?

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

I believe each tree is a different type of death. Adam was created without sin, and in perfect righteousness. Therefore if Adam ate of the tree of knowledge he would lose that, which he did. If Adam ate of the tree of life then he would live forever without sin and in perfect righteousness. I would believe that even if Adam ate of the tree of life and then of the tree knowledge that the same thing would happen as it did.

Personally, I can see the relevance to today. The tree of life is Jesus Christ. He said eat this bread as it is my body. Drink this wine as it is my blood.
The tree of knowledge is refusing to believe and follow Jesus Christ. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, and they did. Everyone of us is still this rebellious today.

The fall of man is about falling from God's Grace. Physical death, because man could not eat of the tree of life, and Spiritual death because of eating of the tree of knowledge were outcomes due to the fall. The fall is not about which death, but all death, for we would have been sustained by God the Father physically and spiritually if man had choosen to listen and obey God. Man did not, and just like a parent with children - although parents today do not believe in discipline - God disciplined man and woman. Discipline is not to be mean, but comes out of love.

Proverbs 3
11 My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline
and do not resent his rebuke,
12 because the LORD disciplines those he loves,
as a father [1] the son he delights in.

I believe we would have been sustained physically and spiritually because of the ressurection of our bodies Jesus and Paul talk about as does Revelations.

Revelations 20
The Dead Are Judged

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

I believe all death is from sin. I think other choose to believe only spiritual death is from sin and physical death is from God so that they can keep consistent with the evolutionary theory.

On a side note, has any scientists talked about how a chemical produces life? From chemistry you are taught that chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. Has this been refuted, and if so where?

 

[Vance]

" I believe all death is from sin. I think other choose to believe only spiritual death is from sin and physical death is from God so that they can keep consistent with the evolutionary theory. "

Whether some might believe this proposition for this reason is really somewhat irrelevent since the reason someone might choose a belief has no bearing on whether belief is actually true. It must be dealt with on its own merits. The bottom line is that you have been shown that we all believe this concept for reasons OTHER than because it conforms to evolutionary theory. Not to mention all those who believed this approach before evolutionary theory was even thought about.

 

[seebs]

TRhat was in the CREATION forum. We talk about creation theroy there. If it offends you feel free to debate it here.

But if, as you correctly state, petty name-calling doesn't do any good, why do it even there?

If anything, I would think it would be even more important to be charitable and kind in the creationist forum, lest people draw conclusions about creationism from the behavior of the creationists...

 

[United]

Explain for all of us creationists why, if physical death is part of God's creation before the fall of man, that Jesus Christ speaks of a physical resurrection, as does Paul and John? I thought we were suppose to die and be physically dead, not cheat death and rise from the dead, by God's Power. If we die, but are ressurected, did we truly die, or were just asleep as Jesus Christ taught? If you teach differently then you teach against Christ.

If you already know the answer, why ask the question? It doesn't take you long to get back to the old tricks, does it. " those who disagree with me are against Chist..." is still the rallying cry of the creationists--sad, really sad

Hi Godsaves,

I have read a number of your previous posts - and although I don't always agree, I have a great respect for the way you approach others. Based on that, I don't think you are saying "those who disagree with me are against Christ..". However, I am not 100% sure of your argument in the above quote.

I gather you are saying that Jesus death has ment (in part) that we will be resurected & that adams original act and punishment will be reversed - so if Jesus corrected Adams original "death", the original "death" must have been both physical and spiritual. Is that what you were saying? Can you elaborate?

Thanks

 

[GodSaves]

Hello United. I wasn't trying to say that anyone who disagree's with me are against Christ. You are correct in that I believe Jesus Christ will bring back what was orginially intended by God. That being no physical death and no spiritual death. This also being after the judgement.

I have a hard time believing that we can attribute physical death to God rather than to sin. In God there is life, not death. Yes, we die physically here, but if we are ressurected then we didn't die, we were sleeping as the Jesus often put it. To be dead is to never come back to life. When you are dead, you don't come back. One judgement day when those who didn't choose Jesus Christ are thrown into the lake of fire, which is the second death, they don't come back. That is it, it is done. But those who were physically dead are ressurected.

Before the fall of man, God created everything to be how He wanted it in perfect righteousness. If physical death is part of God's perfect righteousness, then why does God undo death by the resurrection? Why did Jesus Christ raise the dead? Why was Jesus Christ moved in spirit because of those who died, even when He knew He would raise them from the dead? I believe it is because death is not part of God's creation, but part of sin.

The part that really makes me think this is that death is thrown into the lake of fire. SO there will be no more death, there will be no more suffering or pain. And death does bring suffering and pain to those who are dying and to those who know the one who is dying.

I can be completely wrong. I do not know the mind of God. I do however have the Bible, which is the Word of God. Everything the Bible says is truth as far as I am concerned. WHo am I to question God and what He has said in His book.

 

[herev]

Everything the Bible says is truth as far as I am concerned. WHo am I to question God and what He has said in His book.

And here again, we agree