This is my biggest hang up with Christianity; there’s a lot of 100% evidence proving things existed long before people and fossils exist older than humankind, so obviously things still died before people, but that invalidates Christianity from its root (that we only die because of take fall)
Also why would Christ conquer death but instead of making people immortal by just undoing the fall, still have people die?
OP IS A FAGGOT
Oh sorry, my phone lagged and wound up making a shitload of these, just delete all but one please
In those contexts, at least as far as I know, it's talking about the second death mentioned in Revelations. Christ defeated the death, thus allowing the bodies of those who died to be resurrected at the Second Coming. Humanity was immortal in the Garden of Eden(which was not the entire planet, mind you. Some Christians believe that it wasn't even totally physical), but was cast out because of the sin of disobeying God. Another reason is that they gained knowledge of good and evil, which gave them no excuse before God for any evil actions they may have committed. I realize that this video is almost an hour and a half long, but if you really want a highly detailed explanation of this subject, it's exactly what you're looking for.
Is that video really that good? This is I think the third time I've seen it posted
He has a lot of good lectures. There's a transcript of a bunch of them, mainly on history, titled "Orthodox Worldview", that was fantastic reading.
At least make-up your mind, troll
>mfw Zig Forums says "Flood detected; Post discarded." but didn't detect OP's flooding of the board
Or is this … couldn't be … is that you, six-day-creation-flat-earth-dude?
It did, but it said flood detected the first time I made the thread. When I opened the board on another tab, it didn’t show the thread had been made, so I continued trying to send until it didn’t say flood detected
Christianity says that humans only die because of the fall. Not animals. Animals don't have immortal souls. Their deaths aren't a penalty for anything.
If I remember correctly, animal husbandry is mentioned in early genesis implying the passing and generations of livestock. This implies biological death. I recommend reading some Church Fathers on the subject, and I’ll do the same.
On the contrary.
Various myths have the same theme as "the fall" Process of species dyin g out rather than evolving makes more sense since none of us has ever seen a new species develop, only die out.
There is 0 direct proof of evolution since you cannot prove it all you can do is to spout "muh billions of years, muh mutations".
Every time has its myths, this myth is a very recent one, has been accepted as truth although it cannot be proven yet it contradicts basics of universe: Universe tends to go from order to chaos, not the other way around. "entropy" does not decrease by itself.
Evolution is a myth that claims everything grew out of chaos. Every other myth, Christian or not, before muh evolution described a precisely different direction.
Call me "anti-scientist" all you want but you won't be able to prove muh evolution is correct in your lifetime, not even in 1000 years you won't prove it. People see what they want in the "evidence" and then they choose their stance. In the end you choose to believe without hard evidence, it does not atter if your on the side of muh evolution or the fall.
...
Species die out, new ones are evolving, thats normal. Evolution is a long process, not something which happens in one day. Muh billions of years and mutations are backed by evidence. There is no "order" or "chaos", these are only terms relative to human understanding.
I dont need to prove evolution in my lifetime, cause it already is proven.
yep, thats you
by what? speculation?
Unless you create an entire organism on a petri dish you cannot prove the whole theory.
Claiming that random mutations eventually create a whole new organism is a thesis you cannot prove. A theory to be proven right should be repeatable. How can you do that for the evolution? I am curious
Yeah sure. What do you think Logos is?
whatever.
They would die and then would ressusrect immediately instead of waiting for the general resurrection.
But man sinned so death was a punishment until our Lord came. The death and resurrection of Jesus are an example of what would happen to us, and so the assumption of Mary.
Not that I completely agree with evolution at least in the case of humans, both in a religious and scientific basis, but man your understanding of the theory no offense meant but its completely wrong.
Do they teach you that in school?
Maybe Adam and Eve were promoted to become immortal (according to Orthodox Christianity they were animals destined to become Gods) but failed, thus death returned into the system (paradise) and the plan was set on hold and prolonged.
what?
humans are not just animals btw
I have not wrote here that much about my understanding of the theory itself because I do not want to post long paragraphs. I merely mentioned an outline of a broader picture.
We were taught evolution in school. First cell>>>mutations>>>new cells with different abilities>>>then organisms
I believed it all because I never considered other options and I thought it was "proven"
When I read few books about genetics I wondered how come Darwin postulated this theory before they even knew what DNA is. (see, they discovered the structure in 1950, 1953 I think, not sure) Furthermore when I read about mutations I wondered even more. I found out that in the case of most mutations (haemoglobin, etc) they are either silent - most cases. The protein works the same way, just a bit modified. In other words you will not find out there;s a utation because the cell behaves exactly the same. Or they are destructive- cancer, protein does not work>>>disease. A large part of your genome is not genes that create a protein but they amplify and modify the expression of those proteins. Let me translate the rest: The genetics do not have the exact model how your genome works because it is very very complex. Most people do not even have an idea of what mutation is when they talk about muh mutations. It's not as easy as cooking a soup or changing words in a sentence. Most people get the idea it is simple without digging deeper into it. And no. I did not study this because I cared for Evolution. I studied it because it interested me greatly. I am not an expert but I think I got the idea of how complex it is by reading several books.
Mutations do happen, most of them are bad, very few are good(in sense that theyimprove cell function). Now consider how big a chance it would be for one sensitive cell uyou have in your eye to be created. TONS of proteins, tons of regulation paths outside your DNA. and we're talking about just one cell, independently on the whole organism.
It's like saying you will win lottery each day of your life.
Consider the broader picture. Up until 50s nobody knew HOW genome looks.So obviously nobody knew how it works..except for monogenous heredity(very few traits are coded this way though). Therefore all talks about muh mutations was only a speculation because nobody knew what exactlhy changes in your cell. They just knew "something" happens. Well most people knw there is some string of DNA and something changes. But few people get the idea of how it looks, how it affects the cell and how a great a chance it would be to create one highly specialized cell, not even speaking of the most complex organism, a human specie.
70s/80s evolution was regarded as a possible theory, advances in genetics were made.
Now were aproaching 2020s, we have a basic idea about how genome looks, we know what genes we have. But we do not know how exactly they work together. But since 90s, evolution is taken as "a proven fact set in stone" if you have any reservations you're crazy/backwards/stupid.
Consider how this is used politically. Telling people they "come from ape for sure" they should not strive for anything greater than themselves, they should behave like animals, religion is useless because it talks about Adam and Eve, not about muh mutations.
I know a bit about how cells and organisms work and I think it is absurd to claim all species were created by trial/error mutations. That is what I call simply "order from chaos" which is what this claim basically is. I do think this is a valid argument against evolution. One says "chance created that for sure" the other can claim it is highly unlikely.
Who's right? Has the evolutionist proven his thesis by cultivating a cell to create new species in lab? No he has not because it would take a very long time.
Now ask yourself why one side tries to usurp the "truth" by shaming the other constantly.Yes there are valid points in Evolution which may be right. There are points that are rather unlikely. Just because some points seem logical that does not "prove the theory". Far from it.
Anyone claiming the theory has been definitely proven has to perform evolution in a lab…that is show how random mutations and adaptation to environment create different organisms. Until then it is a thesis, a possibility. Far from being the ultimate, proven truth it is presented today.
Does this suffice as an answer?
OP, good question, though I think you confuse immortal with invulnerable. I'm pretty sure they would have still been able to be rendered unable to physically function from stuff stuff falling from space, over-heating & -cooling, and other stuff that could normally destroy stuff regardless of if they are living or not. It's not like you could yeet a sheep at the sun and it'd just stand on the surface like there's nothing wrong with it's current situation. It would burn up, and go to heaven. The fall simply made sin harder to avoid by taking away the ability to avoid it automatically (Making unnatural death harder to avoid.), thus making heaven harder to achieve as sin is hard to avoid when you've lost the ability to just automatically avoid it.
Again good question, made me think for a bit.
We dont, you twat! Humans arent animals and never were, they were made in image and likeness of God from the beginning. winnie the pooh off and stop justifying your idiotic gn*stic heretical garbage in name of Orthodoxy!
Um, what about evolution claims the origin of life? Evolution theory is how life adapts over time.You can test that in a petri dish. You're thinking about about a whole separate set of theories like RNA world theory, or the Metabolism-first theory. Those, the criticism you've just given would be valid towards.
But humans are made of animal cells. Take a flake of skin off and look at it under a microscope, that's animal cell. What declassifies humans as animals, and are you purposing humans belong in a different taxonomic kingdom?
I am considering the origin. I am saying that if you claim random mutations in your DNA create a new species then you have to actually prove it in order for it to be proven.
Yes. It adapts on cellular level by mutations in genome, epigenetic information. And by an organism adjusting its behavior. This all has to be considered when talking about evolution. not just broadly speaking about "adaptation" but also HOW the organism adapts. You cannot claim something "happens" without showing how it happens and how it works.
So yes..RNA/metabolism/DNA should belong into any theory that tries to claim everyone came out of some cell in the ocean.
Ah, I see I misread "Unless you create an entire organism on a petri dish you cannot prove the whole theory." as saying that unless an organism can be made from scratch, then evolution (the theory presumably in question) cannot be fully proven.
Also yes, should have provided some form of citation in saying it's proven. Kinda makes the word "proven" void if you do not provide proof along with it.
lol.
I dont care about Linnaeus and taxonomy, I am talking about biblical definition. Humans are more than a body. We are neither merely material or immaterial, but both material and immaterial, as says John Damascene, or as Augustine would say, human being is not a separate body or separate soul but union of the body and soul.
Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
A time-honored interpretation in the Catholic Church at least, held e.g. by Aquinas, is that only humans received the special grace to be immortal, and other animals could die just as they do today.
Actually the Catholic Church has also permitted cats to enter heaven, whereas the Orthodog church has permitted dogs, which is another issue of contention and some say was the initial cause of schism.
I get it now, but the theory that species only die out is destroyed by evidence.
But I agree with you in something. Those fags are always claiming natural selection but they are saying that process is universal. How can they prove it? Never its impossible. Hell even Darwin didn't believe something as complex as the human eye could be produced by natural selection.
Kek
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent why is nature so completely winnie the poohed up? Animals suffer tremendously. Their very survival is a struggle, and they did nothing to deserve it, as they aren't even capable of discerning right from wrong. Does god know but doesn't care? Can't be onnibenevolent. Does God know and care, but can do nothing? Not omnipotent. Is God blind to their suffering? Not omniscient.
Nature as it currently exists is corrupted by the consequences of Man's Fall. Also while animals did nothing to deserve it, they did nothing to not deserve it either. Animals don't have souls and thus we can't really claim they deserve any sort of treatment, good or bad.
I'm going to disregard your ability to judge God's morality. If God wants to permit something to happen, I'll say that his choice was right. Who are you to judge an all-powerful being? God literally created morality, we should all be incredibly grateful that he hasn't tired of us and cast us into Hell.
Wow, so this is the might of western Christianity
He didn't even say that, lol.
They do, it's just not the same sort of reasoned suffering a human has, I imagine. Working with shelter animals definitely shows they suffer.
Are you telling me it isn't?
Orthos and their spiritual bullshit.
pick one lad
they were
1) created in a GARDEN
2) this is Milton's view, that they were being raised to a certain point in the heavenly hierarchy and the fall was premature event stifiling the potential for human growth until the redemption of Christ
...
How does it feel to be wrong?
"Muh feels" doesn't have to do anything with objective facts, sorry.
I hope you've been guided to look-up "Who is Mendel" on wikipedia by now.
pro-tip: Australian* Cathbro monk discovers genetics back between 1856 and 1863
* trolled yet, Austrians?
watch-out for him, everyone: psychopath-in-training
pro-tip: "torturing animals because animals have no feelings is okay" is psychopath-tier logic
Primatologists are nuts. Disregard.
I am Orthodox
Also, where did I say that, you diabolos? Animals wasn't even my point there, but the fact that millions of people starve to death and yet people care more for biological automatons that are not eternal than living and immortal icons of God.
Relax.