H
hopesprings
Guest
I'm starting to think some of you are small children ...
funny I was thinking the same thing
I'm starting to think some of you are small children ...
I don't think insults will get us anywhere, people.![]()
If you don't even understand the distinction between right and wrong itself, how can you possibly understand it? Only at the point of eating the fruit did Adam and Eve even have knowledge of good and evil - of right and wrong.
Tintin said:Evolution is most evidently a religion.
I've never understood the rational of people who make this claim. I am sure you've seen a dictionary definition of religion.
The Oxford Dictionary of English (religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.)
When I think of religion this is immediately what comes to mind. Clearly you must mean something very different. Would you call astronomy or physics a religion? Astronomy explains how planets and stars originate without supernatural intervention and physics is beginning to account for how the universe formed without a god. Yet you want to centre out the field of evolution and call it a religion? I just don't get it.
Evolution says nothing about how life originated on Earth. The Bible of course speaks to that. So evolution and Christianity don't have that in common. There are no gods I pray to or that I think exist. Now there are people who accept evolution as truth and who have a personal God, but they call themselves Christians. The thing is people who accept evolution often belong to a number of different religions, but others -- namely atheists -- don't worship any gods at all.
Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between right and wrong before they ate the fruit.
But they did know what an intimate relationship with God was like, and the knew how much He loved them and cared for them. They trusted Him. Their not knowing it was wrong to disobey Him( as someone said) doesn't matter because they knew how much He loved them and that alone could have compelled them to obey regardless of knowing what was right or wrong.
Seriously...I'm starting to think some of you have never dealt with small children.
Sure they did.
If you think that God loved and cared for them, don't you think He instructed them concerning right and wrong, blessings and curses?
Or do you think He just left them alone and hoped things would work out alright for them?
What do you think He did on the seventh day?
I dont think God just "left them alone". I think that Adam and Eve had a relationship with God the way God originally intended....an intimate, trusting, loving, caring relationship. If u completely trust someone, than u are very likely to listen to them if they caution u against something. They would have had no doubt that God wanted what was best for them. No doubt...until the devil came along with his sales pitch of "can God really be trusted?"
I dont think knowing the difference between right and wrong had anything to do with it. It was about trust. It was about believing God for who they had experienced him to be.
As as for what I think God did on the seventh day...I think he rested. Why...what it is you think he did?
Again, telling someone who has no knowledge of good and evil that one thing is good and another is evil, and someone who has no idea what death is that they will die, would not mean anything to them. And again, when the serpent told them something contrary to what they had been told by God, they had no possible way to discern that what the snake said was not true. They had no knowledge of the difference between truth and lies because they didn't have any knowledge of good and evil. In a mind where there is no distinction between right and wrong, everything is just the same, the snake telling them that they could eat from the tree would be just the same to them. How could they have possibly known any different if they didn't know right from wrong. For them to not have believed the serpent, they would have had to be thinking "He is wrong, I shouldn't do what he says." That would be immpossible because they had not yet eaten the fruit that gave them the knowledge of right vs. wrong.Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 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.
Adam and Eve were clearly shown right and wrong and were made aware of the penalty.
Again, telling someone who has no knowledge of good and evil that one thing is good and another is evil, and someone who has no idea what death is that they will die, would not mean anything to them. And again, when the serpent told them something contrary to what they had been told by God, they had no possible way to discern that what the snake said was not true. They had no knowledge of the difference between truth and lies because they didn't have any knowledge of good and evil. In a mind where there is no distinction between right and wrong, everything is just the same, the snake telling them that they could eat from the tree would be just the same to them. How could they have possibly known any different if they didn't know right from wrong. For them to not have believed the serpent, they would have had to be thinking "He is wrong, I shouldn't do what he says." That would be immpossible because they had not yet eaten the fruit that gave them the knowledge of right vs. wrong.
"The evidence is every experience I have even had in which I knew I had more than one option..."The evidence is every experience I have even had in which I knew I had more than one option, and I made a decision. Evidence is absolutely what you shoudl be concerned with. It is the ultimate thing you should be concerned with in regards to deciding what is most likely true or not. I disagree with you that there is strong evidence that you vcan't have free will. We disagree on our conclusion. That does not equate to me believing in a feeling instead of analyzing evidence.
Well, I think that it depends on the situation. If the situation is someone colorblind being told that there are more colors than what they see, it would likely have come up because they made a claim that the person who could see more colors disagreed with. For example, they said two things were the same color, but someone else said it was a different color. I would say this would lead to looking into it more, asking questions, etc. Now, if I looked into it, and found that most people did think they were different colors, but they all said it was a different color, and there were also those who were just as adamant that they were the same color, then you would have to start looking at scientific evidence to determine what the truth is.
Not necessarily. Because in this case, I don't doubt that you feel something. What I doubt is the conclusion you come to about it. What you call a spirit is something that to me seems indistinguishable from normal human feelings. I just think some people call it different things. This is when I would have to start using the scientific method to determine what is most liekly true. And if I can't test it, I stay at my default position of "there's no reason for me to think this thing is true." Keep in mind that this isn't the same as me saying it is false. You may be right, I just have no reason to think that is the case.
You have not convinced me they are religions. The whole idea strikes me as somewhat nutty. Buddhism may be a non-theistic faith that in someways more resembles a philosophy of life than a religion, but it is called a religion because it has many religious qualities: a belief in the mystical and reincarnation, temples, monastaries, and monks. My Buddhist friend wouldn't go so far as call herself an atheist. She has a lot of mystical notions tied to her Buddhist beliefs, some of which strike me as very weird. In the ranks of those who accept evolution are many Christians, Jews, and probably a good number of Buddhists. Evolution is strictly a science. It is evidence based. Nothing Buddhism is evidence based.If atheism and belief in evolution can escape being defined as a religion, then it makes it easier to proselytize these ideas in the public square without competition from competing ideas.
How do you know they didn't know the serpent? Maybe Eve didn't think twice about listening to the serpent because he'd perhaps chatted with her and Adam many times in the past. Look, not a single conversation between Adam and Eve is recorded. Do you think they never talked?The serpent telling them something and God telling them something would not be the same to them. They knew God....they didn't know the serpent.
Or physical evidence.The only thing that will convince Cycel is the Holy Spirit.
Kerry is right in the fact the Holy Spirit will do the work, all you have to do is believe/faith and prayer to Jesus, and repent ( turn away ) from sin, He will save you. It has to be something you want though, God doesn't push Himself on you, He doesn't break will.. All this evidence you want, you will never get, until you have Him, then He gives us evidence all the time.. Physically and Spiritually ..Or physical evidence.
The thing to keep in mind is that there was a time when I wanted very much to believe. Why didn't it happen then?
I have just thought of something else. Atheists often think of religion as being based, not on evidence, but on faith. Then some believers turn around and claim it takes more faith to be an atheist. We should ask why people lose their belief in God in the first place. The truth is it all comes down to a lack of evidence. Christians of course claim there is plenty of evidence, but at some point those of faith, who will in time become atheists, begin to doubt the legitimacy of the claims. I suppose this is the so-called slippery slope and explains why many conservative Christians are very reluctant to admit to any errors in the Bible. Once a person begins to doubt where does it stop? For some the answer is it doesn't. Such people sometimes become atheists. Others, perhaps the majority, end up simply as more liberal versions of themselves. But if, as you say, atheism is a religion, then it is a religion based upon a lack of true evidence for God. Faith, is the adherence to beliefs that cannot be substantiated through physical evidence, atheism is the final recognition that no reason remains to believe in God. Is this truly a religion? Is that truly faith?"Let's begin by asking what religion is...
Or physical evidence.
The thing to keep in mind is that there was a time when I wanted very much to believe. Why didn't it happen then?
That's because they fall back to the world, worldly thinking, and focusing on worldly things.. They loseI have just thought of something else. Atheists often think of religion as being based, not on evidence, but on faith. Then some believers turn around and claim it takes more faith to be an atheist. We should ask why people lose their belief in God in the first place. The truth is it all comes down to a lack of evidence. Christians of course claim there is plenty of evidence, but at some point those of faith, who will in time become atheists, begin to doubt the legitimacy of the claims. I suppose this is the so-called slippery slope and explains why many conservative Christians are very reluctant to admit to any errors in the Bible. Once a person begins to doubt where does it stop? For some the answer is it doesn't. Such people sometimes become atheists. Others, perhaps the majority, end up simply as more liberal versions of themselves. But if, as you say, atheism is a religion, then it is a religion based upon a lack of true evidence for God. Faith, is the adherence to beliefs that cannot be substantiated through physical evidence, atheism is the final recognition that no reason remains to believe in God. Is this truly a religion? Is that truly faith?
Do you accept the doctrine of predestination?