Does immunity disprove the fall?

Perhaps someone can help me understand something that has been bothering me for quite some time. From what I understand, disease and death are part of the punishment that god has meted out to mankind as a result of the fall and Adam's disobedience. Why then do we have immune systems that protect us from disease? Adam and Eve most probably didn't have immune systems, at least not initially, since they would have had no use for them. So why would god curse mankind with with disease and then give us a very complex and effective immune system to fight those very diseases? I realize that I am asking to understand the mind of god on this issue and that 'that is beyond our abilities' is a valid response, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this.I am also curious about peoples thoughts concerning modern medicines ability to ameliorate disease and extend the human life span, more than doubling it in the last 200 years. Does this thwart god's purpose in inflicting us with disease? Or does the fact that most of that medical intervention, such as vaccinations, involves boosting the immune system, which god has already given us, mean that it is okay and not 'an abomination in the sight of the lord'?I quess this would go in the 'Faith and Belief' forum.Regards, AnInGe

What you say here is quite true, as it must be since you are just quoting from the bible. But I have noticed that several posters on this forum, people like Faith and Randman who are really not bible literalists per se but are more like bible interjectionists, strongly feel from their study of genesis that disease and death did not exist before the fall, but were invented at that time as part of the punishment. So, I am accepting that as a premise for my query.

This concept lends strong support to the belief that when god created Adam and Eve with free will, he knew that the fall was inevitable, that he in fact planned for it. I have recently been leaning towards this belief as the most reasonable, although I don't know if human reasoning has any significance in these matters. But, it always irks me, as I'm sure it does you, when people talk of the gift of free will as though god were some jerk down the street tinkering in his garage without any clue as to the consequences of his actions. He must certainly have known, form even before the creation, exactly how things would play out in the garden. Given this as being true, we then have the scenario: creation of world, man, and free will; inevitable, pre-ordained fall of man; man cursed to toil, hardship, disease, and death; redemption and salvation of man, who now expresses limitless gratitude. If this is the true pre-planned scenario, we now have a basis to understand what life is all about.

But this is the whole story of creation told (twice) in less than a page. Just because details are in short supply, are we to understand that there were no details to provide? The exact path that A & E used to exit the garden is not named or described. Are we to understand that they just floated out? Exactly what foods Adam was to farm and what implements he was to use are not described or named. Are we to understand that...I just don't know what to understand if the absence of a detail means that the detail was truly absent. I could list hundreds of details that are not explicitly described in the text but that we know must have been in evidence at the time. Also, we know that man, after death, does not return to 'dust'; maggot feces perhaps, but not actual dust. So we know that we are expected to use our rational minds to fill in the blanks. That's all I'm trying to do.

Maybe because some people believe that's the only asshole they have (well, other than their actual asshole, and worshipping that looks a little freaky.)Can we please get back on topic as to what the existance of our immune system implies about the interpretation of gensis.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

Thank you for those kind words. I was just trying to point out how easy it is to interpret the bible to say or mean any damn thing you want it to, an enterprise that you and I enjoy in equal measure. Its that 'lack of embellishment' thing. Opens the door to all sorts of follow-up 'embellishment'.As to my nom de plume, in as much as my main goal in life is to avoid getting beat up, I intend hostility towards no one. (Well maybe Buzzsaw a tiny, tiny bit, but he started it.)Regards, AnInGe

But he is also omnipotent so that he is able to make himself forget something for a short (short by god's standard) period of time and thus be surprised by man's perfidy. He just has to be careful to not make himself forget that he's omnipotent and can later make himself remember what he had made himself forget. For example, if god wants to do a crossword puzzle, he just makes himself forget that he already knows the answers and has a jolly good time of it (unless its a New York Times crossword puzzle, which even god can't complete). He then makes himself remember and checks his answers. Also, being all-knowing, he knows he can remember anything he doesn't know any time he wants to, as long as he hasn't used his powers to make himself permanently forget what he made himself temporarily forget to remember. Being god is really neat. I'd still rather be Captain Midnight. But that's just me.Regards, AnInGeABE, have we gotten off the topic of immunity, or is just my imagination? Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : Because the voices told me to!Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

A necessary contradiction in terms! If having free will enables man to make those decisions that will render him flawed, than a man with free will cannot be perfect. If god created man perfect he created him unable to initiate actions that would render him flawed! No wheedle words you might propose can escape this absolute fact. When god gave man free will, rendering him imperfect, he has to have known the inevitable outcome. God is not some mad scientist pouring a bunch of whatever into a test tube without any notion of what might emerge. He is god. He knows with complete certainty the totality of the consequences of all his actions. To suggest otherwise is to deny and reject the supremacy of god over the universe of his creation. Faith, you are dancing very close to the precipice of blasphemy that could cast you into the darkness of eternal retribution. I fear greatly for you soul.To AdminPD: Sorry. I saw you warning only after I hit the 'Submit' button. I will try to stay on topic (my topic, actually) for the rest of the thread. My flawed.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

I'm just wondering. When a thread gets a dense series of 'Off Topic" warnings as this one has, maybe it indicates that we've exhausted all that can reasonably said on said topic, or that a more interesting and immediate subject has arisen. Would it really be all that bad if we let the thread make a small diversion, or even jump onto a new track, it that suits the participants (all under the guidance of the mod, of course?)

Well, I sure have been enjoying reading the posts in this thread I started, particularly the debate between gasby and ringo, which reminds of a discussion I once heard between two youngsters. They were trying to decide whether the buttons on Micky Mouses pants were decorative or functional. The fact that both these children fully realized that Micky Mouse is a mythical character did not in the least deter them from the vehemence of their positions.Perhaps it is time for me to interject another thought. Our immune system is our greatest afflicter and killer. We are all aware of the many chronic diseases caused by our immune system: arthritis, lupus, MS, etc. But our immune system has also been responsible (the proximate cause, as the lawyers would say) for the majority of human deaths over our history. Take tuberculosis for example. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection does harm the lungs it infects and could in time impede breathing, but it is the immune systems reaction to the infection in trying to flush the tenacious bacteria out of the lungs that slowly drowns the sufferer. One of the greatest killers of children in sub-Sahara Africa is dysentery, a collection of microbial diseases that infect the gut. It is again the reaction of the immune system in drawing fluids from all the other parts of the body to flush out the infection that causes the diarrhea, desiccates the brain causing shock, and eventually killing the victim. A great many of the drugs we are given when we contract a disease don't actually fight the disease itself but attenuate the potentially deadly fever and inflammation caused by our immune systems.Given this, perhaps the immune system was the agent of god's punishment that brings suffering and death. The times when the immune system actually ameliorates disease is just a statistical fluke, because if you don't die this time, something else is sure to come along. It is interesting, but outside the scope of this thread, that this over-reactivity of the immune system, even with its propensity to often kill the individual, is completely compatible with the theory of evolution and the 'survival of the fittest'.

Suppose I want to shoot and kill someone, but I first give them a kevlar vest so that the bullet won't really hurt them. Isn't that an illogical action?I will be rude and answer your question with a question: Why did Iasu heal so few? Was he just grandstanding?Regards, AnInGe

RR, can you give me three examples from the bible of jesus healing anybody? I will be away from the internet for the next several days (now that's a miracle), but will respond to your response when I return.Regards, AnInGe