|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 10, 2006 19:13:39 GMT -5
Umm, nowhere does it say "Satan tempted Eve". It says A serpent did.
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Jun 10, 2006 19:52:31 GMT -5
It does not explain how humans got here. Show me one iota of fact that proves that man came from apes. Even if you could, where did the very first life form come from? Where did your answer to that question come from? You paint yourself into a corner. Man didn't come from apes. Man and apes share a common ancestor.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 10, 2006 20:31:56 GMT -5
that serpent was satan
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jun 10, 2006 20:40:27 GMT -5
Amen Evan!
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 10, 2006 20:54:48 GMT -5
Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca01 on Jun 10, 2006 20:59:09 GMT -5
ABB, Are you reading your bible???
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 10, 2006 21:04:44 GMT -5
I've already read it =P.
But on a serious note, there is no mention of satan anywhere in genesis for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 10, 2006 23:03:07 GMT -5
Exactly, I am not interested in speculation, but truth. You argument may be sound, but soundness does not in any way consitute truth. Again, logic 101, if an arguement is sound and its premises are true, then the conclusions wrought by said arguement are also true. God did indeed create everything perfect, but man disobeyed and caused creation to fall. ... your qrgument loses all weight and becomes absurd because God did indeed create everything perfect. Again, man disobeyed and rebelled against God and consequently God punsihed man for the rebellion. It was mans fault, not God's. Granted, your logic is sound if the truth is neglected. But the truth is, your argument is false as God's creation was perfect, man screwed it up. So, your conclusion may be right in the context of your fictional world, but in the real world, where God created everything perfect, and man rebelled and broke His command, your conlusion has no bearing whatsoever in anything pertaning to the Bible or the one true God. Well, again I repeat myself. Free will is one aspect of perfection. satan and all demons and angels have free will just as man does. satan rebelled and wanted "to exalt himself above God" so God cast Him from His presence. So consequently satan went and tempted man because misery loves company. Man has free will as well, so when adam and eve ate the fruit and broke God' only command at the time, they were simpy exercising their free will. God does not want robots to worship Him because they have to. He want you to choose to worship Him. I feel like we went over this before. You can't blame our current imperfect world on Adam, Eve, the serpent or Satan. According to your own mythology, God created Adam, Eve, the serpent, Satan and everything else. If any of the above are imperfect, it is the result of god's imperfect creation. Now, you did introduce a new wrinkle, the notion of free will. You say God created a perfect world with free will, and Eve's free will caused the fall despite God's perfect creation. Unfortunately, that still plays into my arguement, because you are now implying that God cannot create human beings with free will who are not tempted by sin. So, once again, either god is semi-potent (because he can't create human beings with free will that do not sin) ... or he is cruel (because he can create human beings with free will who do not sin, but he chooses not to). You are still stuck with an ugly truth. You either worship a semi-potent God or a cruel god. Which one do you think it is?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 10, 2006 23:21:47 GMT -5
If I do say so myself, I think he's cruel ={. Why else would he make everyone suffer for adam and eves mistake?
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 10, 2006 23:23:03 GMT -5
A tangent
I've actually been thinking about this arguement of mine for a long time. Long before I joined this forum. As a sidebar, I'd like to relate my 'syllogism' arguement to Salman Rushdie's _Satanic Verses_.
In general, the Abrahamic-world view espoused by Jews, Christians and Muslims supposes that we have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God ... with a semi-potent and cruel rival named Satan. Well, suppose we got the signals crossed. Suppose the reality is that we have two supernatural beings: one being who is semi-potent, uniscient and unipresent but omnibenevolent, then a second being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent but cruel. Wouldn't that make more sense? If we really had an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god ... wouldn't he eliminate the semipotent and cruel Satan? Isn't it obvious that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent but cruel entity could trick us into believing that a semipotent, uniscient and unipresent but omnibenevolent entity was our enemy?
Salman Rushdie's book _The Satanic Verses_ explored the possiblity that some of the Koran verse Muhammed recieved during the recitation were actually messages from Satan (ha, ha I know you evangeletards think all the verses of the Koran were inspired by Satan ... we get it). Has anyone ever considered that the verses of the bible may have been inspired by Satan? Did you hitch yourselves to the wrong wagon? Just a thought.
[P.S. I know that semipotent, uniscient and unipresent are not real words ... but you know what I mean when I use them.]
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 10, 2006 23:27:50 GMT -5
Agreeed.
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Jun 11, 2006 8:53:56 GMT -5
You say God created a perfect world with free will, and Eve's free will caused the fall despite God's perfect creation. Unfortunately, that still plays into my arguement, because you are now implying that God cannot create human beings with free will who are not tempted by sin. So, once again, either god is semi-potent (because he can't create human beings with free will that do not sin) ... or he is cruel (because he can create human beings with free will who do not sin, but he chooses not to). How can a person truly have free will if they can't suffer for that free will? Having free will to ONLY choose good things isn't free will.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 11, 2006 9:08:44 GMT -5
shangxin,
I nituced your quote from Gandhi. Are you a Christian or a Hindu? And what happens when YOU meet a Christian that is like Christ?
LarryFlint,
Your premises are true in a unrealistic world. They are true, but God does not meet those qualities, you prove that a false God is cruel, but the one true God does not fit your faulty argument. I am done ebating this with you, you expect me to be open to what you say but if I talk your pride kicks in and you think you have to lecture me. YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE THE ONE TRUE GOD'S CREATION WAS PERFECT AND MAN SREWED IT UP.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 11, 2006 9:38:17 GMT -5
How can a person truly have free will if they can't suffer for that free will? Having free will to ONLY choose good things isn't free will. Semantically, you could argue that an entity does not truly have free will unless it can choose to sin. I would disagree. I suppose this ultimately becomes the omnipotence paradox (e.g. could God create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it? Could God create a Euclidian triangle whose interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees? etc.). However, the more important side of that arguement in my mind is whether or not God could create an entity with free will who would not choose sin. Again, if God cannot, then he is not omnipotent; if God can, but he chooses not to, then he is cruel. If you're still bothered by the apparent paradox of creating an entity with free will that cannot be tempted into sin, consider this: according to their mythology, God gave us all our abilities and God defines which actions constitute sin. Suppose God is greatly offended if a pen!s gets inserted into a mouth or an anu$. Well, God could have easily avoided this problem by giving us larger pen!ses which do not fit into mouths or anu$es. Suppose God is greatly offended by lies, then God could have given us lower IQ's so we weren't smart enough to lie. You see, if you get too hung up on the nature of free will, pretty soon you come around to the conclusion that God is cruel. If you are an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, then what would motivate you create humans who have so much free will that they will inevitably choose to sin ... when you know you will punish those humans if they do choose to sin? If you were the ultimate enlightened being, what would drive you to entrap your own creations in such a cruel game? Doesn't that sound like something a sadistic eight year old would do while playing SimCity? If God has a morbid curiosity to create humans with the ability to sin, just to see if they will choose not to sin, then God is cruel.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 11, 2006 9:51:11 GMT -5
LarryFlint, Your premises are true in a unrealistic world. They are true, but God does not meet those qualities, you prove that a false God is cruel, but the one true God does not fit your faulty argument. I am done ebating this with you, you expect me to be open to what you say but if I talk your pride kicks in and you think you have to lecture me. YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK BECAUSE THE ONE TRUE GOD'S CREATION WAS PERFECT AND MAN SREWED IT UP. You are not done because I am too proud. You are done because you lost and you cannot win. You are done because you need to put your fingers in your ears and shout, "lalalalalalalalalal .... I CAN'T HEAR YOU ... lalalalalala", just to avoid thinking about the logical conclusion that you worship a semipotent or cruel god. There is nothing unrealistic about the "world" in which I set up my premises. According to your own bible, God created an imperfect Eve who was tempted into sin by an imperfect serpent, then she lead an imperfect Adam to follow her in her folley. God created those imperfections. Read my reply to Shangxin. If God cannot create humans with free will that do not choose sin, then he is not omnipotent. If God can create such humans but he chooses not to, then God is unneccessarily cruel. Your only arguement against me now is an informal fallacy called, "special pleading". You're claiming that because your god is special, the premises and conclusions of my arguement cannot be held against him. That is wrong. An entity is either omnipotent or not omnipotent, cruel or not cruel. Of course, you're not going to read this, right? . I suppose I will call that a strikeout. Thow up a K for me, baby. Who's next? Batter up!
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 11, 2006 10:06:29 GMT -5
Your Blind. You love your sin. You dont want to repent. You are a slave to sin. You need to repent. You need the blood of Christ. You need to be born again by the Spirit of God. I cannot convince you. I dont plan to. Your pride drips from your words, I am fearful for you. You have to stand before God. I hope you see the truth.
You did not win. You just cant see what I am saying because you are blind. If God would have created man without free will then they would not be perfect. They would have been robots not capable of anything. They could be properly equated with computers. So, you did not win. You lost and cannot admit that your precious logic is useless.
Is that simple enough.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 11, 2006 10:31:33 GMT -5
No, that is called a red herring. You changed the subject again to distract yourself from the fact that you cannot refute my arguement. So, now you're saying logic is not important? I thought you Christians believed in an objective reality where the inscrutible truth of God's word would stand up to any rigorous arguement? I guess I was wrong. So, I suppose you are ready to embrace relativism now? Or perhaps you need to create your own school of thought where the rules prevent arguements which refute the supposed nature of your imaginary god. May I suggest the name irrationalism?
Think about this. According to genesis, Adam and Eve were created innocent. They were walking around the garden of Eden naked as two jaybirds, without a sinful thought in their heads. This notion of innocence demonstrates that it is possible to have free will, yet not be tempted into specific sins (i.e. Adam and Eve had free will, but would not lie or have sex in their innocent state). But what did God warn them about? God forbade them from eating from the tree of life. The serpent tempted Eve, she relented and you have the fall. But why did God leave the tree of life in the garden? Why allow the serpent into the garden? If God was omnibenevolent, he wouldn't have placed Adam and Eve in the same garden with the tree of life and the serpent, because that is unneccessarily cruel. If god created the serpent perfectly, then the serpent wouldn't try to lure Adam and Eve into sin. If God was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent, he would have stopped the serpent before he spoke his evil temptations. No, God's creation was imperfect or cruel.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 11, 2006 10:48:21 GMT -5
Know, Logic is very useful. YOURS is useless because you have built it in sand and cannot admit that you were wrong. Like I said, Im through.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 11, 2006 11:24:54 GMT -5
Any one with the least bit of sense can see that you have not successfully refuted my arguement nor my premises. I'm not bulding my arguement on sand. You have built your Christian worldview in sand. The smart thing to do now would be to agree with me. Admit your god is cruel, then produce some bible verses to show me that you believed he was cruel all along. I suggest you start with "our god is a jealous god". Of, course, you're still not listening, right? P.S. Your English is terrible. Even if I ignore your complete disregard for logic, you don't present effective arguements because do not articulate your arguements very well. You can hardly consider yourself an efficient fisherman or harvester of souls if your presentation appeals only to the lowest common denominator. Just thought I'd thow out a little tip for you. Examples: Earlier (@ 11:06 am) you wrote "Your blind.", when you meant "You're blind." On your last reply you wrote, "Know, Logic is very useful.", when you probably meant, "No, logic is very useful." Unless you intended to use the imperative, "Know [that] logic is very useful.", but I doubt that.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 11, 2006 11:26:42 GMT -5
Know, Logic is very useful. YOURS is useless because you have built it in sand and cannot admit that you were wrong. Like I said, Im through. But he made QUITE a bit of sense, while you just disagreed. You gave no reason why he was wrong. If you're doing God's work you better give the reason why he is wrong or some uncertain sinner looking for the truth might read it and be led farther away from God. ;D Nice points larryflint
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 11, 2006 11:49:13 GMT -5
Again, my friend, I care not for your little lectures. The truth is, no matter what I say or how I say it, spell it, or anything of the nature, you wont care. You are lost in your sin and blinded by the devil. Let me demonstrate:
Have you ever lied? Have you eveer stolen? Have you ever looked with lust? Have you ever been drunk?
Then you are lost in your sin. You are on the waiting list for hell. You must turn from your sin. Your must trust in Jesus Christ. I am not out to conquer this world intellectually. The wisdom of this world is foolishness. Call me ignorant if you like, I really dont care. The fact is, you are a sinner. You are going to go to hell. Whether you believe in it or not. Jump off a building and say you dont believe in gravity. It doesnt matter of you dont believe. your belief or unbelief does not negate reality. No matter what arguments you propose against the Bible, how ever "logical" they may seem to your darkened understanding, they will not save you when EVEN YOUR KNEE BOWS on judgment morn'. But if you dont turn from your sin and trst in Jesus, you will rise from your knees to be cast into the lake of fire.
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Jun 11, 2006 12:05:13 GMT -5
Dude, we know. You don't have to preach when we're having a discussion. *facepalm*
Why do you guys argue argumentum ad nauseam all the time? Do you know how to adapt to a new environment or argue on topic? Or formulate your own arguments rather than go to the Bible to do it?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jun 11, 2006 12:15:17 GMT -5
It is funny, I thought we were debating about the Bible? This is the last post I will make on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 11, 2006 12:30:52 GMT -5
[Edit:] Oops. I apologize, cervyy. I assumed you thought Evan was right and I was wrong. I re-read your post and saw that I had it backwards. Darn, pronouns are tricky.
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on Jun 11, 2006 12:46:28 GMT -5
It is funny, I thought we were debating about the Bible? This is the last post I will make on this thread. Yeah, we were debating. You don't need to keep telling people why they are sinners and why they need to repent. Because 1) that's not debating, and 2) if they haven't by now they aren't going to. Simply telling them they are sinners and they need to repent over and over (ad hominem) is NOT going to make them change their minds if they hear it enough. If they don't want to repent, stop making it your problem.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jun 11, 2006 12:46:54 GMT -5
Again, my friend, I care not for your little lectures. The truth is, no matter what I say or how I say it, spell it, or anything of the nature, you wont care. You are lost in your sin and blinded by the devil. Let me demonstrate: Have you ever lied? Have you eveer stolen? Have you ever looked with lust? Have you ever been drunk? Then you are lost in your sin. You are on the waiting list for hell. You must turn from your sin. Your must trust in Jesus Christ. I am not out to conquer this world intellectually. The wisdom of this world is foolishness. Call me ignorant if you like, I really dont care. The fact is, you are a sinner. You are going to go to hell. Whether you believe in it or not. Jump off a building and say you dont believe in gravity. It doesnt matter of you dont believe. your belief or unbelief does not negate reality. No matter what arguments you propose against the Bible, how ever "logical" they may seem to your darkened understanding, they will not save you when EVEN YOUR KNEE BOWS on judgment morn'. But if you dont turn from your sin and trst in Jesus, you will rise from your knees to be cast into the lake of fire. Still trying to change the subject, huh? You are actually the one who believes blindly. I am often man enough to admit when I am wrong. Of course, you haven't seen that yet, because you have never proven me wrong. You, OTOH, desparately cling to your beliefs no matter who shows you differently. Just admit it: God is not omnibenevolent. That's all you have to do. There is plenty of evidence in the bible showing that God is not omnibenevolent. I mean, the mere fact that you believe I have to repent shows that God is not omnibenevolent because God is not benevolent towards sinners. So, do the right thing and admit that I am correct. BTW, I have lied and I continue to lie. I enjoy it. I have stolen. It's a great adreneline rush. I have looked at women with lust. I have acted on those lusts in ways that would probably make you sick. I've been drunk. I used innumerable drugs. I especially recommend LSD, it forever altered the way I think and it allowed to me to later make certain insights that I may have previously ignored. I am undoubtedly a sinner, but so are you. You just kid yourself about it.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 11, 2006 22:58:50 GMT -5
[Edit:] Oops. I apologize, cervyy. I assumed you thought Evan was right and I was wrong. I re-read your post and saw that I had it backwards. Darn, pronouns are tricky. S'ok. It happens and I'm okay with that. Note, if these "Christians" were mistaken for "heathens" they'd prolly yell for God to smite you! *gasp*
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Jun 11, 2006 23:00:43 GMT -5
It is funny, I thought we were debating about the Bible? This is the last post I will make on this thread. You lied above. You said you were through THEN. Then you came back! LIAR!!
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 12, 2006 19:09:59 GMT -5
tsk, tsk, we all know christians are perfect, cervyy. heh.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Jun 13, 2006 19:06:15 GMT -5
tsk, tsk, we all know christians are perfect, cervyy. he
No, just better off. We know we have eternal life through the imputed righteousness of someone who was PERFECT and yet died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day because He loved us.
Do you know you have eternal life?
|
|