Arrogancy

How is it, by definition, "unjust," if there is no such thing as universal "justice," which there isn't?

Philosoft

Because it's a definition, dude. If "just" can also mean "punishing innocents for the crimes of others," then we cannot have a conversation about "justice" because "justice" is self-contradictory. Geez.

Jack the Bodiless

There is nothing mysterious about mammoths freezing to death. Note that there are no warm-climate creatures found preserved like this.
You have heard of plate tectonics, right?
They died standing up when trapped in mud. Is there some sort of point that you're working towards?
This is complete fiction. Where are you getting this?

Each pair of animals will have only FOUR genes for each position in the genome.

Scientists can measure current mutation rates, and also the degree of genetic variance between existing species. The results correlate closely with the evolutionary "Tree of Life" already plotted by paleontologists. It's this sort of calculation that places the human/chimp separation in the 5-8 million year region, for instance.

The number of different species in each "kind" is only half of the problem. There is also the genetic variation within each species: the sheer number of genes in circulation. This requires 75,000 years of evolution in the case of humans, much longer for most other species (as humans are relatively recent).

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, if you believe there is ANY contradiction between the fossil record and evolution, then why not start a thread in the Evolution/Creation forum?

Arrogancy

We're talking about "philisophical justice" here, obviously. You can't jump into a semantic game whenever you feel like it. There are no "innocents" in the Bible, so that obviously doesn't apply, and as established much earlier in this thread, it all goes down to what you "feel" is just because there are no universal standards.

Arrogancy

I'll take this there soon.

Break over. Be back eventually.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Individual human life is a pretty objective standard of justice.

If 'sin' is inherited, it is more akin to a 'disease' or a 'genetic defect', than to a 'crime'.

Punishing people for having a disease is not just, period.

Keith.

Philosoft

Philosophical justice? Who's playing semantic games?
Please do not engage in further obfuscation. Neither I nor anyone else but Adam and Eve committed the crimes, in mind or body, that Adam and Eve are said to have committed. God's decision to make A & E's descendents bear the guilt is, therefore, unjust. If you are privy to a definition of "justice" that applies to God's decision, now would be the time to share it.

Arrogancy

You are. It was already defined that justice was subjective - you then jump back to an objective justice whenever it becomes useful to your argument.

This has already been covered, and you're just retreading ground and going in circles. Unless you can find someone that says that they have never Biblically sinned, you have no argument, as each person carries their own guilt because of it, which they die for inevitably.

Justice being subjective, I have no problem with this logic personally. The main reason is because experiences die with death - once someone dies, their suffering and internal experiences turn into non existance - nothing that they "felt" matters - it fades into nonexistance. Thus, not letting Adam and Eve have kids and letting them have kids equals the same thing in the end! The only difference being, this way, intelligent creation would be able to see that God's rule is superior to self rule, an issue that would not be settled otherwise. The people that DID suffer and die that chose to live under God would be resurrected back to Biblically perfect conditions - and I doubt that any of them would complain about what they experienced after living in that way for some time. That would be like me whining about stubbing my toe once when I was 2.

So what's your problem with that?

Side note, I'm back because I forgot to uncheck this email notification box at the bottom and got spammed with email messages. Is there a way to make this default to unchecked in the options?

Biff the unclean

Okay, I'm just off the phone with my friend Rabbi Dr Howard Rosenberg of Brooklyn New York. Howi unfortunately refuses to come on line here. When asked if the context of the Hebrew bible said that God wasn't the one who hardened Pharaoh's heart his reply was. "Of course God hardened Pharaoh's heart He makes a big deal out of the fact so that you can't possibly miss it." He went on to offer his opinion of Christian Apologists which I will refrain from posting, as it isn't flattering

Yes, that's the King James Version. I use it because most Xians who post on line insist on using it.

But of course I'm not "interpreting" it. All I did was to bold the words you claim aren't there. It is you who claim to have a secret translation of exactly what God said. It is you who claim that the standard Bible in use is erroneous.

So prove it.