Why Eve sinned (WT 8/2013) (page 3)

braincleaned

You say " I don't think that Adam and Eve were necessarily "perfect" in the physical sense. "

Fair enough, you are just inventing things up I'm afraid.
You choose to ignore the 'perfection' of Jesus being a requirement related to Adam's loss of perfection.

I can't debate a personal hypothesis if you have no references to support it — or that you ignore the references you claim to trust (Bible)...

For the third time; are you willing to reconsider your very personal hypothesis, or is this actually a conviction set in stone?
Please... I want to know if I'm wasting my time here.

braincleaned

There is a fact: Evolution.
There is a belief: God and creation.

I have no time for rationalizations that grasp at the straws of empty references and self-conviction.

This feels like a bad tailor asking the customer to walk crooked so that the suit fits elegantly.

Sorry... have a good one.

cofty

I have rarely heard an idea more in need of some attention from Occam's razor.

QC

Eden: [Eve] was to become just like the other human beings outside Eden that had evolved over millions of years...not created directly by God.

Now that you believe in everything, Evolution and the Bible, etc., you’re a certifiable kook from the land of Lars.

Your comments hence forth has this hanging cloud.

Serious damage!

Good lesson for x-dubs.

EdenOne

braincleaned: I ask you if you are willing to reconsider your convictions on this

I've been a young earth creationist all my life until a couple of years ago. I've reconsidered. Is that proof enough for you than I am able to reconsider my convictions if I find it absolutely imperative? However, I don't change my convictions on-demand. If that's not good enough for you to keep a frank discussion going, then I wish you a good one as well.

braincleaned: Fair enough, you are just inventing things up I'm afraid. (...) your very personal hypothesis, or is this actually a conviction set in stone?

Like I said, this is just an hypothesis. I'm not proposing a theology, just an attempt at a viable conciliation between the Bible and what science has established so far. It's therefore not set in stone. Does it have problems? Sure it has. Can my elaborate hypothesis be readjusted as it tries to reach a better explanation, address and overcome valid criticisms? Sure. Does that become "inventing things"? I disagree.

QC: Now that you believe in everything, Evolution and the Bible, etc., you’re a certifiable kook from the land of Lars.

I knew that sort of ad hominem was coming sooner or later. Fortunately I'm not out there to please you or anyone else, evolutionist or JW. I stand by my own beliefs and opinions. And I share them if anyone wants to listen or discuss them or contribute to better them or disprove them. I don't believe in "everything". I do believe however that there are valid truths on both sides of this story, and I'm attempting a viable explanation of it.

For the third time ...

you may ask pretty please ten times; I will only answer when I have time for it. I've working today - since 4 am - as I am every day, btw.

Eden

snare&racket

Pride doesnt work... if she knew it was a lie then how would it reward her pride knowing it would not pay off?

They are trying to avoid the difficulty of blaming Eve despite her thinking she was doing a reasonable thing.

Looking back at the myth of adam and eve now, much to the pleasure of theists, I side with satan.

"Hey guys, just cos this dick says you HAVE to do as he says and demands you worship him, doesnt mean you should. Taste freedom, taste deciding right and wrong for yourself, for moral and conscientious reasons not because of his illogical commands.... 'Durrr I was ere first and made you, so do as I say or ill kill ya!...painfully!' ...Screw that baby, eat the fruit and die, die free!"

*CHOMP*

braincleaned

"you may ask pretty please ten times; I will only answer when I have time for it. I've working today - since 4 am - as I am every day, btw."

You did take time to answer — just not to that. It was a yes or no answer.

"just an attempt at a viable conciliation between the Bible and what science has established so far."

That was my issue. You are trying to paste it all together — but "viable" it is not.

It's okay to disagree. It's okay to offer a hypothesis.
Just do so based on more than a hunch... offer some reference.
Thats all I was saying.

cofty

So let me see if I've got this right.

You start with theistic evolution until Homo sapiens finally appear. God sits and watches 200 000 years of suffering even though these early humans had all the potential for anguish, despair and for learning that we have. After a couple of hundred millennia god grows to like these plucky humans and decides to make a new pair of them from scratch.

Complete with highly evolved brains these two shiney new humans tell god to go f### himself and use their god-given curiosity to investigate the world. God smites them and they go off and breed with the prototype humans resulting in all of us.

Remind me please what was the point of all this?

QC

Eden,

Just curious, give me your custom version of an Evolution truth?

Then, how does the ape/man fit in with the messianic theme of the Bible? Where is the ape/man cut off point for salvation?

Seriously.

EdenOne

QC: Then, how does the ape/man fit in with the messianic theme of the Bible? Where is the ape/man cut off point for salvation?

In this scenario, salvation becomes a necessity only after Adam and Eve receive sonship from God and susequently lose it for themselves and for all their descendants. Before Adam and Eve, no human being was "son of God", and therefore, no "salvation" was necessary. There simply was no hope, for there was nothing being offered.

Eden

Why Eve sinned (WT 8/2013)

Share this