Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Evolution & Creationism

1…34689…13

Comments

  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited June 2015
    God created us so that we may partake of His divinity, which makes us "above death".

    We disobeyed God, breaking communion from His divinity, and thus we became subject to death.

    God did not create us to die, but because we disobeyed, death is necessary so that we won't live in sin.  Just as God did not create us to feel pain, but in this life, pain is necessary so that we do not deform ourselves and avoid anything that may hurt us.  I actually explained that to you earlier, and I gave you the pain analogy to help you understand that.

    To say "death is a merciful thing" and "God created us to die" are two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other.  You are putting both them together, which is a wrong interpretation.  Do not equate one with the other.  Go back and read this whole thread again.
  • qawe
    minasoliman said:

    To say "death is a merciful thing" and "God created us to die" are two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other.  You are putting both them together, which is a wrong interpretation.  Do not equate one with the other.  Go back and read this whole thread again.
    Precisely.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited June 2015
    Here, this is where I answered your question that is being asked again, Zoxsasi:

    http://tasbeha.org/community/discussion/comment/172646/#Comment_172646

    Notice the first one I wrote AFTER THE DISOBEDIENCE.  In the second post, I also wrote God did not cause you to lose communion with Him.  I try my best to remain grammatically correct so that I do not miss anything that should avoid asking the same questions.
  • katanikhoroskatanikhoros
    Sorry to bring this back up again but a few people back here in Church are starting a violent opposition to evolution and I am trying to show that on a scientific basis it is tenable and on a theological basis it does not undermine our faith.
  • TITLTITL
    katanikhoros said:

    Sorry to bring this back up again but a few people back here in Church are starting a violent opposition to evolution and I am trying to show that on a scientific basis it is tenable and on a theological basis it does not undermine our faith.

    You can rent minasoliman to speak at your parish for an unbelievable price of only $19.99!


    Here are a few articles someone shared with me:

    http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/bible2_creation_e.htm

    http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm

    http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm

    You could also just copy/paste and print out selected posts from this thread :)

    Basically the Orthodox church doesn't accept or refute evolution. Some fathers accept it and some don't. Thinking either way won't make anyone less of a Christian :)
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    katanikhoros said:

    Sorry to bring this back up again but a few people back here in Church are starting a violent opposition to evolution and I am trying to show that on a scientific basis it is tenable and on a theological basis it does not undermine our faith.

    Well, you can blame it on me if it will get you in trouble. Some people have presuppositions that they don't want to admit is wrong.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Mina,

    I had a chat with my parents at the possibilty that God created us via an evolutionary process through the ape species. 

    It didnt go down well. They said it was impossible as God created us in HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS - not that of an Ape.

    They then said to me: "Is my bottom higher than my shoulders?" - There was a high chance that I could be a little cheeky monkey. 

    I told them what you told me, and it wasn't good.

    Could there be a way that other animals evolved but not us?? Could we be or have been an exception to this rule of evolution??



  • BeeKay
    I'm all too familiar with parental conversations not going too well.

    But perhaps Zoxsasi, "Image and Likeness" does not refer to our biological make-up, but more toward greater metaphysical truths, i.e. freedom, holiness, consciousness, creativity, etc.?

    "Could there be a way that other animals evolved but not us?? Could we be or have been an exception to this rule of evolution??"

    I think once we try to make exceptions for something we are not able to comprehend yet, we fall into the 'God of the Gaps' predicament - inserting God wherever we may find science lacking.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @Zoxsasi...why not not just have your parents watch Dr. Hany Mina's vids about this?
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Hi Beekay,

    Thanks for your response.

    Is evolution a fact? Did we, as humans, evolve from apes?? Yes or no?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Zoxsasi said:

    Hi Beekay,


    Thanks for your response.

    Is evolution a fact? Did we, as humans, evolve from apes?? Yes or no?
    Is five pages of comments not good enough for you to answer that question?!


  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited July 2015
    minatasgeel said:

    Zoxsasi said:

    Hi Beekay,


    Thanks for your response.

    Is evolution a fact? Did we, as humans, evolve from apes?? Yes or no?
    Is five pages of comments not good enough for you to answer that question?!


    LOL!!!

    Ya Zoxsasi, ya Habib el Maseeh, if I had difficulties with you, why would you expect to have an easy time discussing with your parents? ;)

    Are we made in the image of dust?

    Beekay mentioned that we should avoid the logical fallacy of "God of the gaps". Do you remember me mentioning "God of the Gaps" how it is not much different from a deistic idea of God?
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    minatasgeel said:

    @Zoxsasi...why not not just have your parents watch Dr. Hany Mina's vids about this?

    He did make more videos about the subject in Arabic if I'm not mistaken.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Mina,


    minasoliman said:

    minatasgeel said:

    Zoxsasi said:

    Hi Beekay,


    Thanks for your response.

    Is evolution a fact? Did we, as humans, evolve from apes?? Yes or no?
    Is five pages of comments not good enough for you to answer that question?!


    LOL!!!

    Ya Zoxsasi, ya Habib el Maseeh, if I had difficulties with you, why would you expect to have an easy time discussing with your parents? ;)

    Are we made in the image of dust?

    Beekay mentioned that we should avoid the logical fallacy of "God of the gaps". Do you remember me mentioning "God of the Gaps" how it is not much different from a deistic idea of God?
    The whole point is this 5 pages. I just want straight answers. You kind of go on a bit, Mina.

    Well, I told my parents what you wrote anyway and they were shocked. They cannot accept that God used evolutionary processes to create humans. They believe that we were created in God's image and likeness.

    Why can't you just answer the question(s) simply without going on and on and on...?
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited July 2015
    Zoxsasi,

    I answered your questions.  You just don't seem to understand them.  I have been straightforward.  I did not beat around the bush with you.  I thought it best to answer certain questions in the best way possible for you.

    You didn't answer my question.  Are we made in the image of dust?
  • BeeKay
    lol forgive him Zoxsasi, it's impossible to answer a question of this magnitude without "going on and on..."

    To give your very direct question a very direct answer, I would say yes... there is a great deal of positive evidence to suggest that modern man was a product of evolution from apes and lesser species.

    I like to believe in a God who created a universe that is reflective of himself... creative. I garner a great deal more beauty and awe from a God who was able to conceive a self-creating universe rather than one who spoke everything to be, right then and there, with the pinnacle of this driving self-creating force being a creature that could share in the life of God, i.e. man.

    To give a very direct answer to the subsequent questions I can foresee:
    Were Adam and Eve literal? Likely not.
    Was there a literal fall?  Likely not.
    What then is corruption? An intrinsic act of man choosing to be in communion with the world rather than God.
    What is the cause of death? Intrinsic to the universe since the beginning of life. Death brings about life. (First law of thermodynamics lol)
    What then is literal and what is not? Read the fathers... as minasoliman likely posited earlier, the Bible is not the Quran, it's purpose was never to dictate historical/literal truths but to express deeper philosophical realities through Christ. Like the Lives of the Saints (synaxarium), some of it might have literally occured, but for the most part the writers used allegory to bring about a greater meaning. 
    What is the "image of God"? Through the evolution of consciousness (quite a mystery if there ever was one), we have become human: aware of ourselves and of each other. We can perceive truth, beauty, goodness, justice, etc. We can love and suffer. We can sacrifice... and to be human, is to be God. 

    Allow me to add this: In a day and age when we are learning faster than ever, generational gaps in mentality only grow larger. I don't see any issue with you accepting the evolutionary process while your parents believe in, say for example, 6 literal days of creation. As long as both you and your parents are growing into the likeness of God, nothing else matters... no matter how humanity came to be, we all agree we haven't lived up to the holiness to which we were called... which I believe was the thesis of this thread.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Zoxsasi,

    Given that we could be repeating questions.  You can continue this discussion with me or anyone else privately.  Unless you have NEW questions, I think it is best we continue through private messages.

    God bless.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Beekay,
    I have to disagree with your first answers.
    "Were Adam and Eve literal? Likely not.
    Was there a literal fall?  Likely not."

    I have a very hard time believe such an intellectual person like St Paul would mention Adam multiple times if Adam did not likely exist. The fathers are overall consistent that Adam was real and the fall of man occurred. Was there allegory in the story? Or should we understand allegorically instead of literally? Sure. But we can't deny the literal existence of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. I am of the opinion that the Adam and Eve story, as well as the Creation narrative, somehow fits into the theories of evolution but exactly how remains a mystery. 

  • TITLTITL
    Remnkemi said:

    Beekay,

    I have to disagree with your first answers.
    "Were Adam and Eve literal? Likely not.
    Was there a literal fall?  Likely not."

    I have a very hard time believe such an intellectual person like St Paul would mention Adam multiple times if Adam did not likely exist. The fathers are overall consistent that Adam was real and the fall of man occurred. Was there allegory in the story? Or should we understand allegorically instead of literally? Sure. But we can't deny the literal existence of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. I am of the opinion that the Adam and Eve story, as well as the Creation narrative, somehow fits into the theories of evolution but exactly how remains a mystery. 

    Rem is right. St. John Chrysostom (and other early church fathers.. Not including Origen) emphasized that creation was not an allegory and Adam did indeed exist.

    I recommend reading his commentary on Genesis! It's beautiful :)

  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Well all this brings us right back to square one:

    Adam and Eve, if the Church says they truly existed and the story in Genesis isn't allegorical, it means that we cannot accept evolutionary theories that purpose that man evolved from lower primates as true for us.

    We cannot reconcile any proposition that we evolved from other species with our Christian faith. The reason is that if we evolved from other species: Adam & Eve didnt exist. 
  • BeeKay
    Remnkemi and TITL, I humbly disagree. 

    Great point - St. John Chrysostom, along with the likes of St. Basil and St. Gregory the Theologian posit the thought that Genesis should be read literally. But of course, when it comes to arguing with patristics, I can always quote those who held contrary opinions - Origen, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Augustine. We then end at at a standstill.

    As Zoxasi mentioned, it would be practically impossible to reconcile the literal figures of Adam and Eve with evolution... unless we'd like to believe in a God who inserted himself in somewhere between 2.5M-200K years ago, and I personally never found that thought coherent with how the universe appears to work. I think theology has the ability to evolve and encompass more and more of what we understand of the world... and all truth is God's truth.

    Nonetheless... who cares? Adam and Eve being literal or allegorical (or, both) does not change the liturgical life of the church in anyway. We can all go to sleep happy believing in what we believe :)
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    I posited in the thread that it is possible to consider the literality of Adam and Eve without contradicting evolution.  It's not possible to think they were the "first" or "alone", but perhaps the first to be given an imprint of the divine image, which then later all humanity inherited.
  • BeeKay
    edited July 2015
    An interesting thought. Although it seems at this point we may be trying to hold on to the historicity of these two individuals while denying the literalism of the remainder of the story... How/Why would the writer (i.e. Moses? lol) get everything else wrong (i.e. six days, order of speciation, etc.) but know that two individuals were imprinted with the stamp of God. Better said, with the understanding that the writer was not intending to give a scientific history, why would we be okay with the entire account as allegory except for a literal Adam and Eve?

    The only reason, I presume, one would want to hold on to the literal is to explain the "imprint of the divine image," which, I would argue, would be human consciousness? (I'd be interested in understanding your secular definition of "divine image," if one even exists). If this image is a particular consciousness that is ubiquitous among Homo Sapiens, don't you think this consciousness could be a product of evolution? (an evolutionary process "directed" by God, vis-a-vis the anthropic principle).

    Otherwise where are the descendants of all the humans that were not given this imprint? lol
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    edited July 2015
    BeeKay said:

    Remnkemi and TITL, I humbly disagree. 

    Great point - St. John Chrysostom, along with the likes of St. Basil and St. Gregory the Theologian posit the thought that Genesis should be read literally. But of course, when it comes to arguing with patristics, I can always quote those who held contrary opinions - Origen, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Augustine. We then end at at a standstill.


    As Zoxasi mentioned, it would be practically impossible to reconcile the literal figures of Adam and Eve with evolution... unless we'd like to believe in a God who inserted himself in somewhere between 2.5M-200K years ago, and I personally never found that thought coherent with how the universe appears to work. I think theology has the ability to evolve and encompass more and more of what we understand of the world... and all truth is God's truth.

    Nonetheless... who cares? Adam and Eve being literal or allegorical (or, both) does not change the liturgical life of the church in anyway. We can all go to sleep happy believing in what we believe :)
    Hi Beekay,

    Its actually my 1st time to see you here. Welcome! Where are you from friend? Nice to have you here and contributing!

    How can you say that whether Adam & Eve being allegorical or metaphorical doesn't change anything in the liturgical life? How? Why do we call Christ the 2nd Adam? Why do we call St Mary the 2nd Eve?? 

    Is everyone aware of the implications of what you are stipulating?

    And please please stop acting or suggesting that its just me with a difficult problem in assimilating this stuff as a Christian, as if you are all on the same boat and I'm just slow. As a Coptic Christian who has lived most of his life in the Church and grown up in the Church, I can firmly assure you that many many Copts will not accept that we evolved from apes, based on the fact that their faith is solidified with the notion that we came from dust ==> Adam & Eve ==> Humanity.

    If we were to have evolved from Apes, it means that Adam & Eve didnt exist. It changes a lot!! How can you say, my friend, that it changes nothing?? 

    If we evolved from apes, it means that God designed us to die (assuming God is the Intelligent Designer behind everything): It means that our liturgy makes no sense : we believe, contrary to many heresies, that God did NOT design us to die physically or spiritually. 

    We inherit a corrupt nature from Adam & Eve. If they never sinned, then our theology is wrong: i.e. we cannot say that we have a fallen nature that we inherited from them: it was a nature that was already destined to die (as per God's design plan).

    Our theology makes ZERO sense with evolution.

    Now, Mina- [ censored by admin -- let's consider what we say to others please ]  but after reading all these posts, I'm confused as to how you, as a Coptic Doctor, can understand soteriology and reconcile this with your belief that we evolved from apes.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited July 2015
    BeeKay said:

    An interesting thought. Although it seems at this point we may be trying to hold on to the historicity of these two individuals while denying the literalism of the remainder of the story... How/Why would the writer (i.e. Moses? lol) get everything else wrong (i.e. six days, order of speciation, etc.) but know that two individuals were imprinted with the stamp of God. Better said, with the understanding that the writer was not intending to give a scientific history, why would we be okay with the entire account as allegory except for a literal Adam and Eve?


    The only reason, I presume, one would want to hold on to the literal is to explain the "imprint of the divine image," which, I would argue, would be human consciousness? (I'd be interested in understanding your secular definition of "divine image," if one even exists). If this image is a particular consciousness that is ubiquitous among Homo Sapiens, don't you think this consciousness could be a product of evolution? (an evolutionary process "directed" by God, vis-a-vis the anthropic principle).

    Otherwise where are the descendants of all the humans that were not given this imprint? lol
    Hi beekay!

    Well, there a few reasons why I adhere to their historicity.  First off, it seems Moses (or whoever else may have aided Moses in writing the Torah) kept some sort of a genealogy.  I do not say that the genealogy may be 100% accurate, but it seems fair enough that there was some sort of a tradition among Hebrew and Semitic people for tracing their lineage in some way.  Secondly, there are instances of "miraculous" occurrences that contradict science completely.  We dogmatically hold on to the virgin birth of Christ.  That alone is necessary, and people have "scientifically" accepted from the very beginning of humanity's record keeping, that a woman conceiving a child of any gender virginally is impossible.  Therefore, is it "possible" that Adam and Eve existed, and that maybe we can extend this possibility to the formation of Eve from the side of Adam?  I think so.  It's a matter of faith, imo.  I thought long and hard, and like you, I also wondered if it is "necessary" to believe in the literality of Adam and Eve and the literality of Eve's formation out of Adam's side.  My response is as I mentioned in the thread, "I don't know".  But for those who struggle with the thought, I do not see "why not".  AT THE SAME TIME, we shouldn't take these events merely literally, but should strive to understand why, and the answer is the recapitulative soteriology of Christ and the Theotokos, as well as the Church.  And I think that is the most important take-home point in the Genesis stories, which I would assume at the very least, you and I agree.

    I explained earlier that God is like a stamp, and our physical nature received an imprint.  When we die, God in His mercy allowed us to continue to have consciousness, and I think that would be considered the "rational soul."  The proof is that we pray for the departed and we ask the departed and the saints in turn to pray for us.  It is however an abnormal state of humanity that we would have our consciousness devoid of the human flesh.  Therefore, I disagree with turning human nature into a dichotomy, but only that the dichotomy exists because of necessity and mercy by God for our continued existence, not because of an idea that we are "made that way".  That is why souls cannot "repent" after death.  Repentance only happens when you have the flesh with you.

    Therefore, consciousness can take two aspects:  our physical aspect and our spiritual aspect.  We are told we are like the angels and animals in one human nature, but are not really animals and we are not exactly like angels, since angels are not made in the image of God, as St. Athanasius teaches.  We are very unique, and very well-graced by God Himself, to the point that God became what we are so that we may partake of Him fully, divinely through His humanity.  This was the original purpose of man, which was then taken away when man disobeyed.  Whatever the disobedience is or the divine image exactly is still wrapped in a mystery I cannot truly fully answer to you since I cannot answer this to myself even.  But at the very least, I don't adhere to the idea that the divine image, in my opinion, is "evolved", but rather introduced once a particular "homo" species evolved enough to be ready to be stamped by the Holy Spirit and partake directly of the divine nature in a full and complete manner no other creation is able to have.
  • BeeKay
    Thank you for the welcome, Zoxsasi. I'm just a bored Coptic guy cruising the web.

    First off, allow me to apologize if I made it seem that this is not a difficult problem - this is likely the most difficult issue a free-thinking Copt will need to overcome in their life. It personally took me several years (many of them as a self-proclaimed athiest) to come to understand science and Orthodoxy as I do now - which may, of course, be completely wrong... who the hell knows?

    You ask some great questions... all I can say is that, yes, you're absolutely right, evolution does NOT make sense with mainstream Coptic theology. Our theology has been heavily influenced by Western Evangelical and Islamic thought, and I think until that mindset is reversed, evolution (along with A LOT of other issues) will never make any sense.

    I'll try to answer some of your questions to the best of my ability, I apologize if they don't do your questions justice...

    Why do we call Christ the 2nd Adam?
    We call Christ the second Adam because in Christ, God assumed and perfected the corrupted nature of humanity and raised it to divinity. Humanity needs God, there is an intrinsic thirst for that presence, and God became man so that we can partake of this divinity. Now, does it matter if there was a literal Adam? Or could "Adam" simply be a symbol for a humanity that needed God? St. Paul calling Christ a "second Adam" could allow the Jews to understand that as Adam represented the first of humanity, Christ represents the first of those who would be given allowance into the kingdom of heaven. 

    If we evolved from apes, it means that God designed us to die (assuming God is the Intelligent Designer behind everything): It means that our liturgy makes no sense : we believe, contrary to many heresies, that God did NOT design us to die physically or spiritually. 
    I'm interested to know where you got this idea that God did not design us to die physically. If I may ask you a few questions so I can better understand... Were Adam and Eve supposed to live eternally physically? So were they not supposed to age, while the remainder of the Earth did? Was the consequence of eating of the tree a physical death? If so, why did they not die immediately after they ate from the tree? More importantly, if Christ died on the cross to "pay the price" of this "original sin," why don't we live eternally physically now? 

    I'd love to understand your thoughts a bit further, and you mine, before we tackle the remaining questions.
  • BeeKay
    Hi minasoliman :)

    Thank you for the reply, although we may disagree in a few areas, I very much respect your opinion on the matter. Clearly a great deal of thought goes into your responses.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    edited July 2015
    BeeKay said:

    Thank you for the welcome, Zoxsasi. I'm just a bored Coptic guy cruising the web.


    First off, allow me to apologize if I made it seem that this is not a difficult problem - this is likely the most difficult issue a free-thinking Copt will need to overcome in their life. It personally took me several years (many of them as a self-proclaimed athiest) to come to understand science and Orthodoxy as I do now - which may, of course, be completely wrong... who the hell knows?

    You ask some great questions... all I can say is that, yes, you're absolutely right, evolution does NOT make sense with mainstream Coptic theology. Our theology has been heavily influenced by Western Evangelical and Islamic thought, and I think until that mindset is reversed, evolution (along with A LOT of other issues) will never make any sense.

    I'll try to answer some of your questions to the best of my ability, I apologize if they don't do your questions justice...

    Why do we call Christ the 2nd Adam?
    We call Christ the second Adam because in Christ, God assumed and perfected the corrupted nature of humanity and raised it to divinity. Humanity needs God, there is an intrinsic thirst for that presence, and God became man so that we can partake of this divinity. Now, does it matter if there was a literal Adam? Or could "Adam" simply be a symbol for a humanity that needed God? St. Paul calling Christ a "second Adam" could allow the Jews to understand that as Adam represented the first of humanity, Christ represents the first of those who would be given allowance into the kingdom of heaven. 

    If we evolved from apes, it means that God designed us to die (assuming God is the Intelligent Designer behind everything): It means that our liturgy makes no sense : we believe, contrary to many heresies, that God did NOT design us to die physically or spiritually. 
    I'm interested to know where you got this idea that God did not design us to die physically. If I may ask you a few questions so I can better understand... Were Adam and Eve supposed to live eternally physically? So were they not supposed to age, while the remainder of the Earth did? Was the consequence of eating of the tree a physical death? If so, why did they not die immediately after they ate from the tree? More importantly, if Christ died on the cross to "pay the price" of this "original sin," why don't we live eternally physically now? 

    I'd love to understand your thoughts a bit further, and you mine, before we tackle the remaining questions.
    Hi Beekay,

    Many thanks for your response above. 

    I will answer your questions you've given me and let's see where it takes us.

    1st off, Mina has been a great resource and help. I dont know why the admin removed my comment, but all I'm saying is that it is not fair to treat me as if I am the only one who is grappling with this issue!

    Anyways, here goes with your questions my friend:

    a) Where did I get the idea that God did not create us to die physically?

    - Well, firstly the part of :"if you eat from it, you will surely die".
    - secondly, and I believe Mina phrased this well, but unity with God cannot result in death because God is eternal. 
    - Adam & Eve were meant to be eternal - physically. 
    - When they ate from the tree they died immediately: physically and spiritually. Yes!
    Look: we are dying every day physically. Are we not? The difference between us and someone already dead is just time. That's all. 
    - Finally, from H.H. Pope Shenouda III: 
    And you can find this in his books on repentance:
    He said: that sin has 2 prices: a physical affect and a spiritual affect. He said that repentance only nullifies the SPIRITUAL repercussions of sin: i.e it unites you back with God, i.e. if you were heading towards eternal death, you are now saved from that, through repentance (and God's Grace & Forgiveness) - but it does NOT absolve you from the physical repercussions. If I were to smoke every day, its a sin: i'm ruining my lungs. I may stop smoking, and repent for this addiction, but my repentance does not mean my lung cancer will go away. 

    Then, H.H used the example of Adam & Eve to give his point: He said that they died. Repentance would have saved them, but no one apologised. Instead they put the fault on God for their situation - the one who had created them.

    This is standard Coptic teaching. My priest, as I mentioned, also told me that the price of sin was death (Physical AND spiritual). It means sincerely that evolution and coptic theology cannot mix. There is NO reconciliation. 

    b) Were they not supposed to age whilst the remainder of the Earth did?

    No. They were not supposed to age. That's my understanding. When God created Adam & Eve; at what age did He create them? In their 20's?? What mental capacity did He create them with?? If He just created 2 human beings, who never had any childhood, or any life as a baby, how would they reason? How would they communicate? 

    These things don't make any sense. My understanding is that they were not supposed to age. God created them eternally youthful - to never die. They brought death to themselves.

    It makes NO sense Dr Hani Mikhail's outlook on this: he says that death (physical death) is but a mercy from God so we don't spend too long in this sinful world. But that's nonsense because God didnt create the world with sin. God didnt create sin, nor did He make the world with any sin in it from the beginning. Everything God made was good, and even it says so. So don't tell me that dying is God's plan for us.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    finally:

    c) More importantly, if Christ died on the cross to "pay the price" of this "original sin," why don't we live eternally physically now? 

    The answer to this question would be in my answer b) above:

    we inherited a corrupt nature that is prone to death. Our nature doesn't change. 

    This is a consequence of sin. It doesn't mean that we deserve to die physically - its not something we are guilty of; but we inherit the consequence of Adam's sin. The same with my example with lung cancer: repentance cures us of the spiritual ramifications - not the physical.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    If any other person who read 5+ pages is able to see and understand my posts which already addressed and refuted your concerns, I think it would be a waste to continue this discussion with you publicly Zoxsasi. This is with all due respect. If many people are unable to understand my answers and are as confused as you, then I apologize for my posts, and I think it would be a waste of time to continue this discussion since I'm unable to explain myself with people like you. If other people have any new questions, I'm more than happy to try my best to answer these new questions.

    God bless.
This discussion has been closed.