Do physical bodies die because of Adam's sin?

[Dizerner]

So, do we both agree on the fact that Adam´s sin is not the cause of the death of trilobites?

Obviously you didn't even read my post on it, it's not that long man.

No, we do not agree on that, it's absurd, unbiblical and insulting to God.

It minimizes the punishment of sin and calls an evil thing good.

 

[Dizerner]

No, I don't.
"Something conceivable better" can only be conceived within the realm of reality. Otherwise it is a fantasy.

I agree it can't entail a logical contradiction, but a state free of corruption is obviously not a logical contradiction.

A false preacher could claim that "something conceivable better" is a world where all men choose always the good and have no chance to make a bad decision. But that is a fantasy, because in such situation "man" would not be "man". It is intrinsic to man the ability to make moral choices.
What that preacher is saying is that in the ideal world men would not exist. That would be an entirely different debate.

Well, this is moving the goal posts, but I'll try to work with it. We cannot argue that something is corrupt cannot any longer be corrupt because then it would no longer be the same something, or because we just decide to define it as impossible ("fantasy").

We are arguing a hypothetical possibility. You are limiting God's ability and power. Do you disagree that God has the power to make everyone born good looking and healthy, because then that would be 'fantasy" and "no longer reality"?

This kind of argument that "something cannot be anything else hypothetically because then it is no longer that something" is just an appeal to naturalism, a God who cannot have done anything differently, the God who literally created it to begin with.

It makes literally no sense. You're defining omnipotence as "fantasy," you may as well continue and define God as "fantasy" and creation as "fantasy" and anything different than you can currently physically observe "fantasy," it's literally special pleading

In conclusion, I am not violating logic. You are resorting to fantasies to keep hanging from the thread of your theological understanding.
That thread will break.
However, God has a nice safety net for you.

The suffering of Jesus for my sin is my safety net, and I need no assurance from a deceived and lost soul, so keep them to yourself if you please.

You call the attributes of God a "fantasy."

I find that preposterous and unbelieving.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I agree it can't entail a logical contradiction, but a state free of corruption is obviously not a logical contradiction.

You're right: a state free of corruption is not a logical contradiction.
When we talk about the "corruption" of the State, we use the word "corruption" to mean moral wickedness.
Now, in a material sense, "corruption" is not even a term used in science!
Cells are not "corrupted". Corpses do not "corrupt". They change and get recycled.

So, what I think is happening to you in this debate, is that you are applying the moral sense of "corruption" to a different context: the context of natural physical processes.

I appreciate you do it because the Bible used the metaphor of a decomposing corpse to illustrate the concept of sin or evil.
"Death" is also used to illustrate a situation of unawareness of God's love or unawareness of our own situation.
But theses are all metaphors, my friend.

Jesus uses the planet Venus to represent Himself (Rev 22:16). Has Venus something spiritually good or holy versus, say, Mars?
The Bible uses continually the figures of sheep and wolves. Are sheep "better" than wolves, so that sheep can be used to represent a good thing, and wolves a bad thing? No! The metaphor just uses some characteristics that can be useful to illustrate a point.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The suffering of Jesus for my sin is my safety net, and I need no assurance from a deceived and lost soul, so keep them to yourself if you please.

I assure you that something good is awaiting you.
You assure me that something bad is awaiting me.

I assure you that the thing you're about to detach from is a theological understanding, and there is nothing to fear.
You assure me that the thing I'm about to detach from is God, and there is a lot to fear.

That's the difference between your assurances and my assurances.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Obviously you didn't even read my post on it, it's not that long man.

You're right.
I'm sorry, my friend.
I should have read it carefully and entirely. Now I have read it.
You make a very interesting approach to the matter, that I had never heard before.
I will digest your proposal over the weekend.