Because only moral beings ever existed? And where are these immortal beings now if they existed. They are immoral so shouldn’t they be around to talk to?
The texts says they all died out by Abraham’s time, 20 generations and 2000 years after Adam.
At least half a dozen different cultures all, independent of one another, claimed in their writings that beings like this existed. All of them in this specific region. What explanation can you or anyone else postulate other than what I have to explain this?
How can an immortal being die out? Even comic book characters live forever. Spiderman didn’t die once Stan Lee died. Spiderman is immortal but his author and creator is not.
1 Like
Don’t let such a specific definition of the word “immortal” confuse things. The beings we’re talking about are specifically said to have lived centuries, then died.
That’s not immortal. Immortal is forever. That is why it is called fiction.
@Patrick, @Jeremy_Christian has very idiosyncratic definitions for many terms. This is just another one. Apparently immortal means mortal in conversation with him. 
1 Like
immortal -
-
living forever; never dying or decaying.
-
an immortal being, especially a god of ancient Greece or Rome.
We’re talking about the second definition.
Genesis 6:3 - Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
I’m using it in the same way it’s used in the text.
Oh, okay Zeus, Apollo, Hera and Aphrodites. I like those Gods, they were so human in their emotions. The Greek and Roman Gods were so much more likable than the tyrant God of the Old Testament.
120 years is a lot less than 900 years.
Which is why they’re described as “mortal” in comparison.
To use your quote… “you are reading the text wrong.”
Reading the God of the OT as a tyrant is an inaccurate reading.
The God of the OT I see in the text went well out of His way to give you the capability to dislike and disagree as you are here. That’s the gift we were given. Our own minds and views.
Not very tyrannical.
tyrannical - characteristic of tyranny; oppressive and controlling.
Quite the opposite, actually.
2 Likes
But, no, seriously, nicer?
Zeus shapeshifted into other men to have sex with their wives, cheating on his own wife in the process, the very definition of rape by deception.
Hera tried to kill all of her husband’s children out of jealousy.
Athena turned a woman into a medusa (a monster that turns anyone who looks her in the eye to stone) because she was raped by Poseidon on Athena’s althar.
Aphrodite tried to kill Psyche because she was more beautiful than her.
Artemis turned one of her maidens into a bear because she wasn’t a virgin anymore. Also because of Zeus’ trickery.
The only relatively nice ones were Hades and maybe Ares (He did love his daughters, the Amazons)
Edit: Persephone was a demi-goddess kidnapped by Hades, not sure why I mixed her up with Psyche.
5 Likes
Not nice, but definitely more human.
Greek gods lacked ability to control others, but strive to control them nonetheless.
The God we find in Jesus (and the OT) has total ability to control everyone, but chooses to restrain his power instead.
3 Likes
Careful, you’re getting dangerously close to agreeing with me on my views of free will.
That’s what you think now. That’ll change.
Yes, George, IF an evolved pool of pre-Adamite “humans” existed and A&E’s offspring married out into that pool, then yes, we agree, there is not going to be two “lines”. Oh, the potential for so much miscommunication if these words each need defining! But, yes, I see what you’re asking, and yes, if all your assumptions are correct we agree on the outcome… one big pool of extant humanity. AJ <— swimming in it now!
And, I don’t have a position on the “violence” issue either, but assume it occurred throughout history in all social animals even if rarely (as in dolphins referenced by Jeremy). I am merely asking for @Jeremy_Christian and @Guy_Coe to unpack their model with supporting evidence, because its both odd and new in my consideration. It is unclear to me why they are supporting or proposing these assertions about non-violent and violent lines of humanity. It seems that they are creating even more problems that need to be solved by such assertions.
And in response to @Guy_Coe saying the burden of proof is on me, I disagree. I’m not advocating an alternate assertion, I am merely asking them to unpack theirs. It seems any burden of proof is always on the one making a conclusion about the past if they are asserting it is different than observations available in the present. I’m not suggesting that violence isn’t increasing in magnitude, but that doesn’t mean necessarily that it is increasing in scope. Maybe, for example, 1 in 1,000 humans have always had violent tendencies, or all humans have violent tendencies under certain environmental/social conditions, and the frequency of those conditions is increasing. And if violence occurred, even rarely (even very rarely, as Jeremy asserted), in early hominids then what is the point that Jeremy and Guy are trying to advance? It is not at all clear to me.
2 Likes
@AJRoberts Not overly complicated.
The degree of moral propensity, and thus culpability for such, is all I’m pointing out. That’s all. Not by any means advocating for a sinless “imago Dei” humanity prior to Adam and Eve; Romans 5 doesn’t argue for such, either. What it does highlight is the aggression against God Himself, and His stated command, that led to a degree of moral depravity called “the knowledge of good and evil.”
1 Like