Spirituality
12 May 05
14 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoung'Huh?' I say.
Does that mean that bums on the street are 'under' the rest of humanity? How about primitives in the Congo?
Did I say that?
If we could just stick to one point at a time dude, we might get somewhere. I was comparing the relative standing of animals and man; all of mankind are in the mankind kind. If you contend that animals and people are equals, just say so.
14 May 05
They would have gone on to truly practice their new found rebellion in ernest.
Damn. So close.
After A&E ate the fruit, after they had chosen to disobey;
If they did not have the knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree, how did they know that it was evil to disobey Yahweh? How could they have known that it was good to obey?
14 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Does that mean that bums on the street are 'under' the rest of humanity? How about primitives in the Congo?
No except for Colett's Elect, we are all equally vile, depraved and worthless and stay that way, unless we are redeemed by Christ! Cheers!!
14 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58I contend that there is no reason to judge animals as being less than or 'under' humans as a whole. Any definition of "under" will include some humans, unless you define "under" as being an animal. If you do, then you have a circular argument.
'Huh?' I say.
Did I say that?
If we could just stick to one point at a time dude, we might get somewhere. I was comparing the relative standing of animals and man; all of mankind are in the mankind kind. If you contend that animals and people are equals, just say so.
14 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58I don't think you can have someone be saved by Christ and not be of Coletti's elect.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Does that mean that bums on the street are 'under' the rest of humanity? How about primitives in the Congo?
No except for Colett's Elect, we are all equally vile, depraved and worthless and stay that way, unless we are redeemed by Christ! Cheers!!
14 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompThis sounds like humans were created to die, but there was a possibility that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Life, and become immortal.
what about this passage?:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
14 May 05
Originally posted by telerionGood question. I think that when they chose the fruit, they 'knew' that God had told them, warned them, not to. They chose to try life outside of God's revealed will.
[b]They would have gone on to truly practice their new found rebellion in ernest.
Damn. So close.
After A&E ate the fruit, after they had chosen to disobey;
If they did not have the knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree, how did they know that it was evil to disobey Yahweh? How could they have known that it was good to obey?
[/b]
But after they ate the fruit they truly knew what it was to be on the side of disobedience. Now they knew good and evil. Like a man only knows his wife after he knows her in the (classic) Biblical sense.
14 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58but before that ate the fruit they couldn't have known it was an evil.
Good question. I think that when they chose the fruit, they 'knew' that God had told them, warned them, not to. They chose to try life outside of God's revealed will.
But after they ate the fruit they truly [b]knew what it was to be on the side of disobedience. Now they knew good and evil. Like a man only knows his wife after he knows her in the (classic) Biblical sense.[/b]
15 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMaybe if they had made it clear that they would refuse to go for the bad fruit, they would have been invited then to eat from the tree of life.
This sounds like humans were created to die, but there was a possibility that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Life, and become immortal.
15 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompNo, perhaps they didn't know it was an 'evil'. Not being familiar personally with what that means (like I am), they couldn't have. But they found out, by exercising the right to disobey, to ignore, God's clear direction. (Not a good idea.)
but before that ate the fruit they couldn't have known it was an evil.
15 May 05
Originally posted by Colettithis is one of those questions i could dwell on for hours and still not know what i really think about it.
Why must all things die? What is the "natural" necessity for aging and death?
i think it's a true statement to say that man has consistently been upping his life expectancy (through advances in medicine and treatment, for example). in theory, i don't see any reason why death must be a necessity, except for (as Scribs pointed out) if no deaths occurred, then there would be a contradiction as soon as limited resources forced deaths to occur. in that sense, i think death must be a necessity if we assume that new births are unavoidable.
as an aside, i remember when i was in the 2nd grade, our teacher asked us all what we would wish for if we were granted only one wish. i remember that i answered that i would wish to live forever, and i thought that was a pretty clever answer. turns out that later i read a story in the bible (don't remeber where exactly in the bible) where god specifically remarks on how foolish this answer is, and that instead, a person should wish for great wisdom or something along those lines. lol...i guess i was pretty foolish at that age. what the heck would you do if you lived on earth forever, anyhow? how boring would that get?
15 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't know how circular it is, but I'm not afraid to admit the obvious. I think certain foundational assumptions are required befor any discussion can proceed. If we don't agree that people have something over animals then we wont ever agree on much beyond that (what I call obvious) point.
I contend that there is no reason to judge animals as being less than or 'under' humans as a whole. Any definition of "under" will include some humans, unless you define "under" as being an animal. If you do, then you have a circular argument.
As far as my view of the relative status, I'll lay it out here. I'm sure it will seem too simple for some, but I don't mind that at all.
I recognize that there exists in the world bodies, souls and spirits.
I know I have a body. Proof? Sometimes my wife says to me, "What a body!" or "Get that body off the couch and do something!" Furthermore, the more I age, the more my body talks to me!
I know I have a soul, and I define that as the compilation of mind, emotions and will. I'm pretty sure I have a mind, though some might say that's circular and thereby refute my claim. I have felt the emotions across the spectrum over the years. And my parents, my teachers, my bosses, wife and kids will all testify that I have a will. (Sometimes it is more moved by my mind or emotions, but my will works the best for me when I yield its control to God's Holy Spirit.)
I know I have a spirit simply because I can tell that there is more to me than the body, the mind, the emotions and the will. I wont attempt to prove it because it falls into the obvioius category. It's something we all know and would readily admit if it didn't somehow contadict a chosen worldview. If we didn't have to protect ourselves from this truth.
Now; I see plants as having a body only; Animals as having a body and a soul (we've all seen our dogs or cats exhibit a mind, emotions and wills); but every person has a body a soul and a spirit!
It is our spirits that are made in the image of God! And since animals and plants don't have that huge benefit, they simply live 'under' us.
15 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58That's a cop out ,, how could they have known it was not a "good idea" to "disobey" or "ignore" " without knowing what good was?
No, perhaps they didn't know it was an 'evil'. Not being familiar personally with what that means (like I am), they couldn't have. But they found out, by exercising the right to disobey, to ignore, God's clear direction. (Not a good idea.)
15 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompI'm saying they didn't fully 'know', until they did fully know!
That's a cop out ,, how could they have known it was not a "good idea" to "disobey" or "ignore" " without knowing what good was?
Like the first time your Mom said, 'don't touch that, it's hot'. You didn't know what she meant until the first time you ignored her instruction. Then, you 'knew' what hot meant! But, alas, you were already burned!
Imagine a world where kids listened to every piece of advice their wise parents gave them! No, they would never know a hangover or an STD, but what a great life they could live!
15 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58the thing is : it's not a rational act to punish someone for an act they had no idea i was wrong . And even less rational to punish you for something done many generations ago , or an act done by anyone else for that matter.
I'm saying they didn't fully 'know', until they did fully know!
Like the first time your Mom said, 'don't touch that, it's hot'. You didn't know what she meant until the first time you ignored her instruction. Then, you 'knew' what hot meant! But, alas, you were already burned!
Imagine a world where kids listened to every piece of advi ...[text shortened]... ve them! No, they would never know a hangover or an STD, but what a great life they could live!