Why Creationism

"Then how can a wrong action taken under such circumstances even be called sin?If I do something that, in the moment, seems like the good thing to do, and later, due to knowledge I could not have had access to, turns out to have been a bad choice, where's the evil?"Now i know why youre confused. a bad descion necesarily is not a sin.
You sin when you go against gods orders like lying to your wife or something like that. Lets say your child has been in a comma for about a year(just an example) and the doctor gives you two choices. the first one is to continue waiting for the child to come back leaving all the medical equipment on him. the second one is to take all the machines off and let hm die . How do you choose? if i were the parent i would first ask god in prayer for guidance, then ill read my bible looking for advice , i come across a verese which talks about faith and about how to ask god for things, then i come acrross another one which talks about Gods will for everybody. one day im working and my pastor comes to me and tells me "when i was sleeping last night God told me to let the kid go. if you let him come back hell return with lots of illneses and his whole life will be very painful. You should let him go to heaven in peace" I get really angry and insult the pastor saying "how can you say that you unsensible piece of crap im gonna wait for his return". Then six months later the kid returns but the doctor says hell never leave the bed only to remember what god said through my pastor. I would have to see him everyday of my life in pain because of a wrong desicion but i never sinned.get the point.

"Sin is a catch-22. Either our knowledge is equal to God's, making God's definition of sin up for debate, or our knowledge is insufficient to choose right or wrong. If God wants us to have free will, why doesn't he give us all the knowledge we need, so we can make informed decisions?"Because this information is something that we get from him. we can make well informed desicions by serving him. he will not force you to serve him but the need in your spirit for a god will not go away and that need wil be the one that will take you either to the information your looking (god) or too other human(not divine)interpretations of the origin of life(evolution the choice of what to accept is up to us

quote:

---

My quick interpretation of the opening message, is that the New Testiment is the important part of the Bible, and that details of the Old Testiment, including the creation, are not worth getting bent out of shape over.

​

I encourage all to look back at the beginning of the topic, a make an honest attempt to follow up on the intended theme.

​

I'll not do a "cooling-off period" topic closing yet, but I suspect one is just down the road.

---

My impression is that this topic had a lot of potential - It's in an area that doesn't seem to have been beat to death in other topics. I may be wrong.LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC!Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

justa few more posts and ill be done i promise. im just not finished. im not mad with anybody. ill be glad to go out with mr carroll for some buffallo wings and a cold one and continue debating our ideas.

And in cases where prayer reveals the wrong answer?I'm sure you'll agree there are many cases where, depending on which pastor you ask, they will claim that God wants you to keep the kid alive no matter what, even if he's in pain.Similarly, there are cases where God will simply not answer prayer. Even if we work under the assumption that God answers prayers at all, I'm sure you'll agree it's not like flipping on a light switch. You don't sit down with your hands together, and get a direct line to the big guy. What is a person to do in such a situation?As to straightforward sin... all this does is return us to the original question. If unforseen consequences are at issue in bad choices, but not sin, then we have to ask again, "why God's definition and not our own?"For instance... the relationship I have with my girlfriend is defined as sinful by the Bible. (And therefore, presumably, by God as well.) According to me, there is nothing sinful about our relationship whatsoever.If I am just as able to know what is right and what is wrong as God is, (as Genesis says I am) then why am I not able to say, "Hang on a second God. If you think there's something evil about my relationship, you'd better be prepared to back it up with reasoning, or shut up." That's certainly what I would say to anyone of equal knowledge on Earth who said my relationship was something evil.Now, in the interest of moose appeasement, I will condense responses into single posts:

quote:

---

Because he is the creator. Is the same as why is the goverment the one who decides law.

---

Except that the government (ideally) decides law according to the collective will of the people, via elections. There is no one of inherently greater wisdom, so everyone gets a say.Why doesn't God operate under the same guidelines?

quote:

---

LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC!

---

Sorry. I was writing that last one while you were posting this.Jazzlover, shall we start up a new thread?[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 11-19-2003]

I have to agree with the administrator that this line is getting way off base and only a few have addressed the original questions. When answering lets all stop and think about what we are going to say. Does it make sense or have we "Parked our brains outside the church house door." as Reverend Gene Scott states.
Lets make a concerted effort to distinguish between what is fact and what is merely our opinion. Let us also avoid making unwarranted claims against one another such as assuming one is an atheist just because they have a different slant on Biblical text. What an indiiduals beliefs are is not relevant; the degree of validity of the statement made by that person is.
OK! If the administrator decides it is time for a new line here goes. The Old Testament prescribes the Hebrews to form a lock of hair on one side of their head, not boil a kid in its mothers milk (Exodus 23:16), and decrees that when a son insults his father or mother he shall be put to death, ect. Why in all of these dubious commands isn't there something useful for humans. Such as ; "Thou shalt boil the water before drinking thereof." "Take thou animal fat, wood ash and boil to make thee soap with which to cleanse thyself." Why did it take over 2,000 years for louis Pateur to come up with sanitation and the Romans to discover soap. Lets not get into why there are bacteria and viruses in the first place.

"And in cases where prayer reveals the wrong answer?"That wont happen unless you make it up yourself. If the answer comes from God its the right one. ive had some situations were it is me the one who malinterpretates the answer for different reasons but mostly it is because i want the answer to be "yes" and i get a "no". this is hard to take many times but in the end its for your own good. The times ive disobeyed his answer ive payed for the consequences. i guess this is the only way we humans learn discipline-screwing things up."Similarly, there are cases where God will simply not answer prayer."This is very true. God gives the answers you need just when you need them. it could be while prying for it the first time or after praying for them about let say 5 years. he'll answer when the time is right through the mean of his choosing: pastor bible, dreams(revelation) prayer etc. Remember we dont always get the answer we want but we get the one we need."As to straightforward sin... all this does is return us to the original question. If unforseen consequences are at issue in bad choices, but not sin, then we have to ask again, "why God's definition and not our own?"Because he is the one that can see through time and has the wisdom you dont have to forsee the consequence of your actions. He wont force you to obey him but you should give it a try and see the difference between your interpretation and gods interpretation when the time comes to make a desicion about something important in your life."For instance... the relationship I have with my girlfriend is defined as sinful by the Bible. (And therefore, presumably, by God as well.) According to me, there is nothing sinful about our relationship whatsoever."I cant comment on that because i dont know what type of relationship youre having but if you mean sex then it is something god made for marriage. Sex is not evil and it is something beatiful that god created for a husband and a wife to enjoy. I think we all know prettywell the consequences of having sex with somebody youre not married to. a lot of hearts and feelings are badly hurt at the end of this process not to mention the guilt and shame it many times leaves behind."Except that the government (ideally) decides law according to the collective will of the people, via elections. There is no one of inherently greater wisdom, so everyone gets a say."This only happens in the US and EUrope and besides we have elections but that doesnt mean that the will of the people is obeyed. the mayority of you americans oppossed the war in irak but your president still did what he wanted. this will not sound good to you but gods will for someones life is not a democracy but it aint also a dictatorship. lets see if you understand this. god has a plan for your life that will bring you happiness and satisfaction and for that you have to strictly obey his advice. but still he wont take away your free will. if you choose too not obey he wont stop you but a life of emptyness and unhappiness will await you. you could be a rich man and have the money to buy anything you want but that void in your spirit will always remain leaving you with an intolerable feeling of loneliness.

Seriously, Jazz... we're off topic, and we've had quite a few warnings. If you want to take it to another thread, I'm game, but I don't think we should keep this up in this thread.

man are you in here all 24 hrs of the day. every time i post something you reply in a few minutes. i wish i had youre time.
Why cant we continue this here nobody saying anything about the topic

It maybe that no one is saying things about the topic right now but these things do get picked up at another time.New people come in all the time and it is easier for them to "catch up" if things are a little organized.(all that said, I'm not always on topic myself )

Sidelined. IM off for a long time soon, so I wont be able to reply. So make the most of what I say Does there have to be a verse that spells it out for you ?They could eat from the TREE OF LIFE anytime when they were in paradise, but not when ejected. They were PROHIBITED eating from the tree of life when they were ejected because if they did , they would be IMMORTAL. By Immortal I am referring to a fountain of youth. The Tree of life could be LIFE PROVIDING aslong as you eat from it. IE: a Fountain of Youth.Imagine a banana that prevents you from ageing OR reverses ageing. It allows you immortality AS LONG AS YOU CONTINUE EATING FROM IT. I just did. I am not talking about a 'eat once live forever' tree of life, think of it as 'Nivea anti-wrinkle cream', only it makes every bit of you young. Logical deduction. If you read any of my other posts, you would have realised that I did indeed oppose the notion that once you eat from the tree of life , you would be "unable to die". I'm merely saying that the tree of life could prolong life indefinitely.cheersIf you have difficulty with this, there is nothing more to discuss.

quote:

---

Does there have to be a verse that spells it out for you ?

---

This is typical dogmatic arrogance. The implication is that anyone who has not been taught to interpolate meaning the way you do is a godless heathen blinded by unbelief. Either that or they have a mental deficiency. Which implication were you going for?The fact is, if you argue for a literal interpretation of the book, it is quite reasonable to expect that everything be spelled out. Especially since there are so many parts of the story which are, in fact, spelled out in detail.

quote:

---

They could eat from the TREE OF LIFE anytime when they were in paradise, but not when ejected. They were PROHIBITED eating from the tree of life when they were ejected because if they did , they would be IMMORTAL. By Immortal I am referring to a fountain of youth.

---

Zealot, explain this to me: why does God say that they need to be ejected from the garden, lest they also eat of the tree of life, and live forever? First of all, this strongly implies that they had not eaten of that tree yet. Second, what good is the tree of life if one must continuously eat of its fruit? The tree was clearly mortal and must have entered that state by the time the supposed fall occurred (unless you can tell us where it is located today), so their best hope at that time would have been a temporary delay in mortality if, as you insist, one bite did not have a permanent effect. However, I find it more appropriate to the narrative structure (and the only interpretation requiring an ejection from the garden) that the fruit of the tree of life was held by the author and early readers to possess the same quality as its counterpart - a one-time, full-effect, irreversible dose, regardless of quantity.To recap: the ejection was unnecessary, and the symmetry of the scenario destroyed, if continual consumption was required. Thus, from both a logical standpoint and from a poetic view of the story, it is a poor conclusion.

When you choose not to believe something because it doesn't explicity state it in your preferred terms, then should I take pity ? God mentiones NOTHING about abortion in the bible, so it is ok! Closing yourself to the obvious does not deserve empathy. You can also argue that pre-marital sex is not wrong. Afterall it does not state that it explicitly in the Bible does it ? You can ignore every other verse thrown at you if you're only going to accept "sex before marriage is sin". They have just eaten from the Tree of Knowlege. Their eating of the tree of knowlege AND the Tree of Life is problematic. Not their eating from the tree of Life, which they were allowed to eat from ."also of the tree of life" : "also" is used as it it refers back to their eating from the tree of knowlege. Tree of Knowlege and ALSO Tree of Life.Can you tell me then. Why did they then not eat from the tree of life, if they were allowed to eat from any tree in Pariadise BUT the tree of knowlege ?

quote:

---

When you choose not to believe something because it doesn't explicity state it in your preferred terms, then should I take pity ? God mentiones NOTHING about abortion in the bible, so it is ok! Closing yourself to the obvious does not deserve empathy.

---

The point is that it is not obvious. I am open to any reasonable interpretation of the text, if it can be supported by logic. I don't need pity, but I do ask for respect.Abortion is a completely different issue. But, even as an aside, it can be used to illustrate that your concept of my approach to the text is wrong. If you believe a fetus is human at some point, then the prohibition of murder is obvious. If you don't believe it's human, it's irrelevant. I can accept this as a good inference from the text, and it is a scientific and/or philosophical question of defining humanity from there on.

quote:

---

You can also argue that pre-marital sex is not wrong. Afterall it does not state that it explicitly in the Bible does it ? You can ignore every other verse thrown at you if you're only going to accept "sex before marriage is sin".

---

Who said anything about ignoring verses? I am pointing out that the Bible, which is held to be an infallible historical document as well as a complete guide to life and everything, should be expected to tell us, explicitly, everything we are expected to take from it. Human interpretation CAN NOT be trusted to infer the proper meaning. Yet those who go to the extremes of literalism simply deny that their interpretation is even a factor.Premarital sex is another separate issue, by the way. I'll leave it alone.

quote:

---

They have just eaten from the Tree of Knowlege. Their eating of the tree of knowlege AND the Tree of Life is problematic. Not their eating from the tree of Life, which they were allowed to eat from.

---

The question is whether they had, not whether they could.

quote:

---

"also of the tree of life" : "also" is used as it it refers back to their eating from the tree of knowlege. Tree of Knowlege and ALSO Tree of Life.

---

This is nothing new. I say they had not yet eaten from the tree, you say they had. What I asked was why God said he must prevent them from "also" eating that fruit if they already had. In your scenario, you say its benefit was only temporary. But it is obvious the tree is no longer there, and was therefore mortal. So they would not have lived forever under ANY circumstances, even if they had been left in the garden, if the fruit did not have a permanent effect. I consider the only reasonable conclusion to be this: they had not yet eaten the fruit. That, and that alone, was my point in this area.

quote:

---

Can you tell me then. Why did they then not eat from the tree of life, if they were allowed to eat from any tree in Pariadise BUT the tree of knowlege ?

---

Don't ask me. By the narrative, it sounds like they had only been around a little while. Maybe they just hadn't bothered. Maybe, like so many unwritten details that are implied (or at least assumed by today's Christians), the same prohibition existed but is not in the text. Maybe the tree of knowledge gave them a new ability to recognize the tree of life. All speculation, all irrelevant. Your assumption that they had already eaten the tree is no better than these speculations, because nothing in the text backs it up.