Nature and the fall of man

Great. Provide the evidence, and I will gladly retract my statement. If it would take you time to look up references, then that must mean that you don't have anything readily available that would refute my statement. That hints that I am right, doesn't it. Here is part of what I wrote in Message 5
It still strikes me that way. Therefore there is nothing for me to retract.Isn't it interesting that we are now at post 104, and thus far nobody has provided any evidence that the particular YEC view - no meat eaters, no diseases and no natural disasters on earth - was accepted theology prior to the 20th century.

---

Impeach Bush

If evolution is true, there was no Fall. If there was no Fall, there is no explanation for the arbitrary suffering caused by nature. If evolution is not true, there is no explanation for life except God.That is what I've come up with.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-29-2005 12:27 PM

I'm not sure you unsderstand what i'm saying randman, what i mean is that oroginal sin is made up to explain something people couldn't answer because they believe god can't do things that would be considered evil, what about storms that kill ten thousand people? if you believe god causes storms, that would be considered evilplus i was saying that the jews had it right when it came to knowing that about godother wise you are saying god can't do something and still claim he can do anything, which is a contradiction

quote:

---

If evolution is true, there was no Fall.

---

OK, but there can still be a god.

quote:

---

If there was no Fall, there is no explanation for the arbitrary suffering caused by nature.

---

No explanation you like anyway. I'm not sure what you see as arbitrary suffering caused by nature. Can you give one simple example, that bothers you? Just one.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

One? There are a thousand. A while back on TV I saw a 10 year old girl(s) with 2 heads. It was horrifying.

This is something that goes wrong inside a woman's body. I don't think they have pinpointed anything specific, but there can be many things that alter fetal development. Bad gene combination, faulty genes, parents too closely related, etc.Is it arbitrary if a certain combination of situations always causes this problem?Do I take it that you also consider miscarriages to be an arbitrary attack of nature?I'm a bit confused by your personification of nature since there is no conscious thought behind the process from an evolutionary viewpoint.Anomalies happen. I don't see any evil intent behind them.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

What type of god are you expecting?
Omnibenevolent? Who are we to say that this girl's plight is not the best situation for that family and her at this time in their existance? This would make their situation "very good" (to quote one of the more famous Gods). I doubt that we have the perspective or knowledge to make that judgement.
At the risk of overusing an analogy, I will provide an example.
A parent, will not always give their child what they want because it is not always good for them. In fact, punshment or restrictions may be meted out in order to help the child grow up in the manner chosen by the parent. The parent typically sees these things as benevolent while the child many times does not.Perspective perhaps?

It strikes you as that way? And you think that is substantiation?Please. That's absurd. http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/...docs/webart/durer14-art-.htmlThe idea this was a late 20th century idea is absurd, as anyone familiar with this subject knows.I am editting to add something in your favor though. Although Augustine did make comments referring to peacefulness in nature, apparently some newer translations of works in Latin not translated before, shows he, at least at one point, questions some of that. He also advocated that the days should not be considered solar days, and that the literal translation of the scriptures did not indicate solar days.But all this is sort of besides the point, the very fact scholars from way back then were considering these same issues shows that none of these stances has anything at all to do with the 20th century. It strikes you one way because you have a totally false sense of the character of your critics, and fail to see the honesty in their approach and the dishonesty, imo, of your's in smearing them.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 05:13 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 12-29-2005 05:28 PM

I think robin is talking about God allowing this "evil", not arbitrary acts of nature.

Original sin was not made up though by Christians. It's right there in Genesis. Adam and Eve sinned resulting in the curse. Now, there have been big fights within Christianity especially in the 400s concerning the significance of that.And there are still questions on the significance of Original Sin, but there is no doubt Original Sin occurred if you accept the biblical text as true and that the falleness of the world and humanity is a result of it.

No, that is an eisegesis into Genesis. It is not inherent in Genesis at all. If it was, why didn't 3600 years of Jewish people notice it?It seems to have been an introduction by the either the Hellenised Jews, or the early Christians. (see the 'Wisdom of Solomon'), and got picked up and expanded by Paul and Saint Augustus.But, the mainstream Judiasm did pick up that concept.This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-29-2005 05:40 PM

They did. You just aren't educated sufficiently on the subject. Now, it is true that different groups, Jewish and Christian, have different concepts on the interpretations and significance of Original Sin, but those that accept the Genesis account of Adam and Eve all believe Adam and Eve committed this Original Sin and it led to the earth and mankind being in a more fallen state.Where there is confusion is the application of this idea. For some the idea of Original Sin means even the unsaved cannot be virtuous, which Augustine leaned towards. Other like Pelagus would say we are capable of good.But no one is saying we are in the pure state Adam and Eve were in.I believe in Original Sin but do not, for instance, think that babies are judged for having a sinful nature, if they die. I think the sin is not imputed.So it's really a matter of the use of the idea, not the idea itself.

Oh.
Show me a Jewish source that specifically shows that the Jewish religion belives in 'original sin'.NOt a 'messanic' jewish source. Not a source evangalising ot the jewish faith.. but a Jewish source.You made a claim about Jewish belief, NOw back it up.

From http://www.convert.org/differ.htm

quote:

---

FREE WILL AND ORIGINAL SIN

​

Judaism does not accept the notion of original sin, the idea that people are bad from birth and cannot remove sin by themselves but need an act of grace provided by the sacrificial death of Jesus as atonement for all of humanity's sins. For Christians, there are no other forms of salvation other than through Jesus.

​

In contrast, the Jewish view is that humans are not born naturally good or naturally bad. They have both a good and a bad inclination in them, but they have the free moral will to choose the good and this free moral will can be more powerful than the evil inclination. Indeed, Jewish ethics requires the idea that humans decide for themselves how to act. This is so because temptation, and with it the possibility of sin, allows people to choose good and thus have moral merit. The Jewish view is not that humans are helpless in the face of moral error.

---

Also SeeFrom http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq123.html
Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin(removed quotes to copyrighted material)and just put link there instead)This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-29-2005 06:05 PM

The Book of Genesis.What you fail to grasp is that the label "Original Sin" need not be used for Jewish groups to believe that Adam and Eve were real and commited the original human sin.