Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Here's an interesting article on homosexuality and biblical scholarship


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#121 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,828 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:44 PM

Sinning is in our DNA as in our bodies are corrupt. Everything about us, our thinking and how we treat each other, is simply not how God created us to operate. Our DNA is information of our makeup. We are essentially copies of our parents in a way, and if one believe in the literal Genesis, our information ultimately goes back to Adam and Eve. When they fell, it was like a virus entered in, a disease that began to tear at their bodies. We inherited this disease, just like sickle cell traits are passed down. That is why we can't be good, or you can say be perfect, because our makeup can no longer do what it could in the day of creation.

What is absolute good? Pretty much perfection. Having no evil. Yet we can just leave it at absolute good. We see good in relative ways, that's why people change over times, views change. Yet if there was an absolute good, if there was a level that did not change, that kind of good condemns us.


What is the physical process of this corruption you speak of? I am not certain I want to continue this dialogue under the assumption that a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is anywhere close to possible or accurate.

What is this perfection? What is the state of having no evil in an absolute sense? It seems to me that evil is relative to what the society a human is born into thinks and is not innate to the human evidenced by the many regular cultural practices of humans throughout history that our society would label as evil.

#122 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:51 PM

What is the physical process of this corruption you speak of? I am not certain I want to continue this dialogue under the assumption that a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis is anywhere close to possible or accurate.

What is this perfection? What is the state of having no evil in an absolute sense? It seems to me that evil is relative to what the society a human is born into thinks and is not innate to the human evidenced by the many regular cultural practices of humans throughout history that our society would label as evil.



I've stated sin only exists if the literal Genesis is true. Of course if it's not true, there is no such thing as sin, except (from what I'm told) in it's usage of archery.

We see good and evil in relative terms, but the feeling of good and evil is a universal thing from birth. Of course I haven't done any scientific research into that kind of thing, but maybe one day I will.

#123 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,828 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:54 PM

We see good and evil in relative terms, but the feeling of good and evil is a universal thing from birth. Of course I haven't done any scientific research into that kind of thing, but maybe one day I will.


I wonder if this has already been studied. I actually doubt there is any such universal feeling though I think morality and the ideas of good and evil are very interesting.

Also what would make you think that there was this universal feeling? I suspect many other people may believe that there is such and would like to consider your perspective.

#124 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:05 PM

I wonder if this has already been studied. I actually doubt there is any such universal feeling though I think morality and the ideas of good and evil are very interesting.

Also what would make you think that there was this universal feeling? I suspect many other people may believe that there is such and would like to consider your perspective.


Yep, I'm sure it's been studied before and will continue to be studied. Yet even if there was a universal sense of good and evil from birth, by itself it would just be another interesting fact concerning who we are.

As a Christian and would-be scientist, I could hypothesize from Scripture we would have a sense of good and evil from birth. This would go back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course there would have to be a lot more dot connecting before I could prove that is where we got our sense of good and evil from. It's my dream to study out the book of Genesis, and truly experiment to prove the account true or false.

#125 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,828 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:16 PM

Yep, I'm sure it's been studied before and will continue to be studied. Yet even if there was a universal sense of good and evil from birth, by itself it would just be another interesting fact concerning who we are.

As a Christian and would-be scientist, I could hypothesize from Scripture we would have a sense of good and evil from birth. This would go back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course there would have to be a lot more dot connecting before I could prove that is where we got our sense of good and evil from. It's my dream to study out the book of Genesis, and truly experiment to prove the account true or false.


Alright this one has stumped me for a long time then.

Who is Cain's wife?

This seems to me to be a tough question that weakens the possibility of Genesis being accurate simply from the perspective of a reader.

#126 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:26 PM

Alright this one has stumped me for a long time then.

Who is Cain's wife?

This seems to me to be a tough question that weakens the possibility of Genesis being accurate simply from the perspective of a reader.



This is a question that requires reading between the lines. Yet even when we do that, we can't bring what we know today, and seeing the same circumstances into what theoretically took place back then. The answer is Cain's sister. It's clear that all men descend from Adam and Eve, so the only possible answer is Cain's sister.

So the argument would be we would have died off a long time ago if we are ultimately the product of incest. Yet no, things were different back then, Cain was closer to the original perfection God created us as. As time went on, creation increasingly decayed to where we are today. Back then, I imagine Cain and his sister had the diversity of genes the equivalent of a population of people.

#127 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,828 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:31 PM

This is a question that requires reading between the lines. Yet even when we do that, we can't bring what we know today, and seeing the same circumstances into what theoretically took place back then. The answer is Cain's sister. It's clear that all men descend from Adam and Eve, so the only possible answer is Cain's sister.

So the next question (perhaps) would be we would have died off a long time ago if we are ultimately the product of incest. Yet no, things were different back then, Cain was closer to the original perfection God created us as. As time went on, creation increasingly decayed to where we are today. Back then, I imagine Cain and his sister had the diversity of genes the equivalent of a population of people.


What exactly do you mean diversity of genes the equivalent of a population of people? I am not certain that is possible.

As far as I understand what I know of the evidence we have so far it is shown that we are definitely not a product of incest as we understand it but from population of several thousand individuals.

Also does Abraham's god not specifically forbid incest if so why would an unchanging god allow it in this instance?

Additionally do you think that a literal Genesis necessarily requires the Earth and/or universe to be only roughly 6,000 years old as do the YEC?

#128 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:47 PM

What exactly do you mean diversity of genes the equivalent of a population of people? I am not certain that is possible.

As far as I understand what I know of the evidence we have so far it is shown that we are definitely not a product of incest as we understand it but from population of several thousand individuals.

Additionally do you think that a literal Genesis necessarily requires the Earth and/or universe to be only roughly 6,000 years old as do the YEC?


Actually, I'm still studying these things out, so I can't give you a literal explanation right now. Yet we know things operated differently back then. (From what is written in Genesis) People were able to live 900+ years, and from that we can say there were less diseases and less harmful mutation. If Adam lived 900+ years and had children with Eve (who must have also lived a long time), he could have had 60-100 children. Again going back to their bodies being unique from ours, those 60-100 children could have possessed very unique sets of DNA. (Adam and Eve being the first humans, I'm sure God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits from skin tone, to eye color, and so on) Then Cain also lived a long time and had many children.

In essence, guys like Adam and Cain and their wives, were like small populations within themselves. So I'm still studying up on this. The key thing here is that things were much different back then. They were closer to the original perfection.

And yes, a literal Genesis requires the earth to be around 6,000-7,000 years old. The universe would also be that old technically. Yet I'm still studying these things as well. We may find a special law one day that would explain the universe appearing to be old due to distance and starlight, but could actually be young. We still don't know every law that governs the universe.

#129 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,828 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 11:03 PM

Actually, I'm still studying these things out, so I can't give you a literal explanation right now. Yet we know things operated differently back then. (From what is written in Genesis) People were able to live 900+ years, and from that we can say there were less diseases and less harmful mutation. If Adam lived 900+ years and had children with Eve (who must have also lived a long time), he could have had 60-100 children. Again going back to their bodies being unique from ours, those 60-100 children could have possessed very unique sets of DNA. (Adam and Eve being the first humans, I'm sure God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits from skin tone, to eye color, and so on) Then Cain also lived a long time and had many children.

In essence, guys like Adam and Cain and their wives, were like small populations within themselves. So I'm still studying up on this. The key thing here is that things were much different back then. They were closer to the original perfection.

And yes, a literal Genesis requires the earth to be around 6,000-7,000 years old. The universe would also be that old technically. Yet I'm still studying these things as well. We may find a special law one day that would explain the universe appearing to be old due to distance and starlight, but could actually be young. We still don't know every law that governs the universe.


The main thing that is bothering me about what you are saying in regards to early humans was that they "were like small popluations within themselves" and "God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits." It seems to me that all of our evidence that I know of so far suggests that this is just not possible. Can clarify this in such a way as to explain how this special DNA worked in regards to holding extra traits?

This next question is asked just from a literary viewpoint: Though Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I see no reason at all to interpret that as nothing at all existing before either. This beginning isn't necessarily the beginning of EVERYTHING. What do you think of this? Also can you consider that the language of the time did not allow for a proper explanation of multiple start systems and as such did not even attempt to describe a creation of the universe?

#130 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,482 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:35 AM

are you arguing that err there were multiple copies of genes within a single individual in that time, Matthias? I am trying to understand what you mean by "God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits."

#131 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,623 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:43 AM

Seriously, it all boils down to one very simple thing for me....



Evidence or GTFO.

#132 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,801 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 19 January 2013 - 07:52 AM

and theres where the merry go around goes. faith and evidence and the ying and yang of that and searching and not seeing everything laid out and spelled out enough for the evidence one might want. thus, faith comes into play.

#133 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,314 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:22 AM

The main thing that is bothering me about what you are saying in regards to early humans was that they "were like small popluations within themselves" and "God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits." It seems to me that all of our evidence that I know of so far suggests that this is just not possible. Can clarify this in such a way as to explain how this special DNA worked in regards to holding extra traits?

This next question is asked just from a literary viewpoint: Though Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I see no reason at all to interpret that as nothing at all existing before either. This beginning isn't necessarily the beginning of EVERYTHING. What do you think of this? Also can you consider that the language of the time did not allow for a proper explanation of multiple start systems and as such did not even attempt to describe a creation of the universe?


My comment of "populations within themselves" is a little misleading, by it I mean a man and a woman in those days had multiple children because their days were long on the earth. So let's do some math here. Say Adam and Eve had 100 children. (50 sons and 50 daughters). In essence Adam and Eve represents in this case 100 people, and that was part of my angle about them being small populations within themselves. Now let's say those hundred children paired up (50 pairs), and each pair produced another hundred. Now you have 5,102 people on the earth. This is just using a hundred children as a base. I would probably say that Adam had more than one hundred, and so forth.

The other part about my statement concerning Adam and Eve being populations within themselves, and this gets tricky and of course I have no evidence for it, is they were specially created as the first human beings. Common descent says that everything we are was passed down through our ancestors, going back to the first microbe life. Yet if God created us, and we evolved from Adam, God created all the information within Adam because he had no ancestor. Also we know Adam was created to live forever, so his DNA was godlike. Even after the fall, that DNA slowly began to decline. After the flood judgement, it rapidly declined to where now people are only living 70 to 80 years on average. If we had relations with very close relatives, the children won't survive after the second or third generation. So many will ask me what godlike DNA like, and what evidence suggests the things I'm saying? Well, I'm still studying these things out. Einstein didn't come up with his theories in a day did he, nor did the experimentation came about to help prove his theories the next day? It involved years of work, and his work was built upon generations of scientific study before him. (Not that I'm comparing myself to Einstein, just saying) I will say I'm coming along and along.

are you arguing that err there were multiple copies of genes within a single individual in that time, Matthias? I am trying to understand what you mean by "God stored within them all kinds of diverse traits."


Hopefully I answered your question in the post above. I'm still a work in progress. B)


Seriously, it all boils down to one very simple thing for me....



Evidence or GTFO.


Patience my good friend. Evidence like this needs to be unraveled. Even if the world was once perfect, how can I find evidence of it in a now imperfect world? Behold, everywhere I look I see corruption. So I have to bring this information out, whereas observational science looks on the surface.

and theres where the merry go around goes. faith and evidence and the ying and yang of that and searching and not seeing everything laid out and spelled out enough for the evidence one might want. thus, faith comes into play.


Faith isn't about believing in something you can't prove exist. Faith simply means trusting in something or someone you know exist. In the ability of that someone or something. Faith produces the evidence because you know the truth.

#134 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,669 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:38 AM

wow that is a metric fugton of speculation

#135 SZ James

SZ James

    herd it on routers

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,570 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:53 AM

did anyone honestly read any of page 9 because I sure as hell didn't


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.