The role of the Tree of Life

[hannodb]

Similarly, a man has a bad day at the office, comes home and argues with his wife, who in turn scolds their son for no reason, who in turn kicks the dog.

Misery loves company, and grief tends to roll downhill.

Except that's a human weakness, and not something we'd expect from a God of justice. Did the animals do anything to deserve the Fall? Are they meant to suffer for man's sin? Does Jesus' promise of salvation extend to them as well as to us?

On the other hand, look back to my idea of a "system." the cycle of nature hums along, with God in charge and ourselves as the caretakers. But we require a relationship with God in order for us to properly do the task He has set for us. Our sinful nature blocks our relationship, so we cannot do our job (stewards of God's creation), and so nature, flawed but still functional, rolls along like a Chevrolet in need of a tune-up.

As I said, God does not really provide the details, but I trust His judgement on this matter. Though, it does makes sence that if we, who are the crown on creation falls, the rest of creation will fall with us. As for what the animals did to deserve it, I can only offer the rational of the election in Romans 8-9.

Of course. Lucifer was the first to sin. Is our fate linked to his?.

No, but the creation was placed under our care. We were not placed under Lucifer's care. In fact, Lucifer fell before we were even created.

God promises eternal life, but doesn't offer details as to exactly how it's meant to happen. If my physical body were to be reborn over and over again, but my spiritualself were to remain the same, then the promise of the pre-fall world is fulfilled: A world without spiritual death.

I don't necessarily think it'll be like that...I'm just exploring possibilities.

No, that doesn't make sense. Why would there then be a ressurection - which is unnatural - if our souls could just wait to be born again on the new Earth? Remember, our minds are limited to what we know. God can do what we can't even concieve.

Certainly a possibility, but we're forgetting that God's creation expands far beyond this one globe... no need for him to sterilize us just because we fill up the first of a possibly infinite supply of worlds.

I can't deny the possibility.

As a child I always thought that the new earth will be eternaly flat. In other words, you could make off in one dirrection, and keep on discovering for ever.
Now that I'm all grown up, my imagination has been limited by science. >Ugh<

 

[shernren]

The Bible is very clear that Death (physical), pain and hardhip was not part of God's original plan, nor will it be part of the New Earth.

I don't find that the Bible is very clear on that at all. What in the Bible convinces you that it is very clear?

 

[hannodb]

I don't find that the Bible is very clear on that at all. What in the Bible convinces you that it is very clear?

Gen 2 : 16 - 17
Rom 8 : 19 - 23
1 Kor 15 : 21 - 22
1 Kor 15 : 52 - 56 (ASPECIALLY 56)
Rom 5 : 12 - 21
Rev 21 : 4 - 5

To name just a few. A complete list will go on and on. The link between sin and death is clear from Genesis to Revelation. And on occations, it is also made clear that not only mankind, but all of nature is suffering decay due to sin. God did not intent for His creation to suffer. All forms of suffering is the result of the presence of sin.

 

[shernren]

Gen 2 : 16 - 17
Rom 8 : 19 - 23
1 Kor 15 : 21 - 22
1 Kor 15 : 52 - 56 (ASPECIALLY 56)
Rom 5 : 12 - 21
Rev 21 : 4 - 5

None of these show that before the Fall animals would not have died, and therefore they are not sufficient objections against theistic evolution.

 

[random_guy]

Though I don't want to open a can of worms here, I will say this. ID to me is no less, and no more scientific than the theory of the big bang. Design can be proven without the need to identify the designer or the method of construction. If ID is not science due to these questions, then the Big Bang is not science based on the very same questions. The Big Bang requires a cause, but since there is no time prior to the Big Bang, no one can say what that cause is. We just know that some reality exists beyond this universe, which caused its birth. Similarly, ID can not identify the Designer. Why is it scientific to assume a reality beyond this universe, but unscientific to assume that that reality contains intelligence? Particularly when both assumptions are based on the data, after excluding all other possibilities?
No, I have yet to hear a good reason why ID is not science. All of the people whom I've heard to express oposition to ID, confused it with creationism.

I know you didn't want to open a can of worms, but I just wanted to correct some misconceptions. BB is a theory about the expansion of time and space. It says nothing about before the BB and nothing about how that stuff got there. It doesn't matter if God created the energy or if aliens created the initial energy, BB is still valid. We can see evidence of this from the redshift of the light and the cosmic microwave background. That's why it's a valid theory because it predicted that we would find CMB, and eventually, we did find it. Aguing that BB doesn't explain where it the initial energy came from means the BB is invalid as arguing that Germ Theory doesn't explain the origin of germs so it is flawed., or that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. That's to answer the first part of why the BB is scientific.

Now to ID. The problem with ID is it's unfalisifiable. If you assume ID, can you show an object that isn't designed? How and what did the Designer use? What was the motive of the designer? None of these questions are falsifiable. One possible answer is the designer could've used evolution to build some parts, designed others. How do you falsify this statement? I hope this makes sense. If not, feel free to create a new thread about ID as science and I'll try to more give better responses.