This thread is locked
PLEASE NOTE: This thread has been locked by the moderators. You cannot reply to it.
MrCuddowls wrote:
Please explain why this is invalid, you are bashing it but arent giving any justification on why you are doing so
Toshabi has given plenty of justification for it. You're either too stupid to understand it or just ignoring it.
I even stuck up for you a few times because I thought people were bashing you unnecessarily much, but I realize now that they have good reason for bashing you all the time. You just don't stop writing ****ing ********. I've had it with you. You're like a more stupid version of Canoas.
"He cooked cake." - MrCuddowls
"Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with canoes" - MrCuddowls
"Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with canoes" - MrCuddowls
If you would like a detailed explanation about why everything you said in your original post is naive (I don't consider this word an insult. If I wanted to be insulting I would say "stupid."), I'll give you one. If you're looking to start an argument, consider this the conclusion. Or perhaps you could try and learn something.
If Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of life, the would have never died, which would have defeated the purpose of eating.
You immediately assume that every Christian interprets Genesis 1-3 in a strictly literal sense, which is not the case. Even if this argument is directly solely at a literalist interpretation, you also assume that "the purpose of eating" is to stave off an impending mortal conclusion - death. I see no reason to believe that an immortal human shouldn't be able to eat. In fact, even if eating were essential to life (or life eternal), it wouldn't negate the fact that no one would need die if you're living in a garden full of food.
There are a number of answers to this question, but I'll give you my perspective. This assumption comes from a very narrow of the mechanics of time. You assume that God, like a human, must have planned out creation before he created with the intention of a perfect, sinless world, until we darned humans ruined his perfect plans unexpectedly. To put it simply, I could easily argue that God prepared for a sinful world because he knew such designs would be necessary.
There's also a typical scientific assumption that reality has always existed in its present state without any supernatural intervention. Since this is a pretty deeply rooted assumption in most non-religious people, I won't bother to go into it.
It seems as if all of life is based off the concept of sin. Because as I said before, if people never sin, they never die, which would defeat the purpose of eating.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this first sentence. I would say that life is based off of God's act of creation, that free will is based off of God's desire, and that sin is a result of free will. Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of resisting the temptation of sin. I don't know what else to say about this since I'm not sure what your point is other than the second sentence, which is an argument you already gave earlier.
Why did god make it so easy to eat from the tree?
Couldn't he have thrown the tree on top of an unclimbable mountain and made the fruits stink of ****. Why did he place the tree in the center of the garden of Eden, made it short, and make the fruit pleasant to the smell. It's as if he wanted them to eat from it.
This was already answered by Toshabi I believe, but in case you missed it, I'll reiterate. The answer is quite simple if you have even read the book a bit carefully, whether you believe anything in it or not. The point of the two trees is to represent a choice. In a literal sense, it would represent a physical temptation to sin (the sight, smell and taste of the fruit) while in a metaphorical sense it's just the manifestation of free will in action. There is no free will without something to choose between. If God wanted to force Adam and Eve to stay away from the Tree of Knowledge, he could easily have made it unpleasant, stuck it far away, posted guards or even not created it at all. This would defeat the purpose of free will and would leave us with a race of humans with really no choice at all.
MrCuddowls wrote:
If Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of life, the would have never died, which would have defeated the purpose of eating.
You immediately assume that every Christian interprets Genesis 1-3 in a strictly literal sense, which is not the case. Even if this argument is directly solely at a literalist interpretation, you also assume that "the purpose of eating" is to stave off an impending mortal conclusion - death. I see no reason to believe that an immortal human shouldn't be able to eat. In fact, even if eating were essential to life (or life eternal), it wouldn't negate the fact that no one would need die if you're living in a garden full of food.
MrCuddowls wrote:
Why would god give dinosaurs Razer sharp teeth if they didn't need to rip apart flesh?
There are a number of answers to this question, but I'll give you my perspective. This assumption comes from a very narrow of the mechanics of time. You assume that God, like a human, must have planned out creation before he created with the intention of a perfect, sinless world, until we darned humans ruined his perfect plans unexpectedly. To put it simply, I could easily argue that God prepared for a sinful world because he knew such designs would be necessary.
There's also a typical scientific assumption that reality has always existed in its present state without any supernatural intervention. Since this is a pretty deeply rooted assumption in most non-religious people, I won't bother to go into it.
MrCuddowls wrote:
It seems as if all of life is based off the concept of sin. Because as I said before, if people never sin, they never die, which would defeat the purpose of eating.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this first sentence. I would say that life is based off of God's act of creation, that free will is based off of God's desire, and that sin is a result of free will. Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of resisting the temptation of sin. I don't know what else to say about this since I'm not sure what your point is other than the second sentence, which is an argument you already gave earlier.
MrCuddowls wrote:
Why did god make it so easy to eat from the tree?
Couldn't he have thrown the tree on top of an unclimbable mountain and made the fruits stink of ****. Why did he place the tree in the center of the garden of Eden, made it short, and make the fruit pleasant to the smell. It's as if he wanted them to eat from it.
This was already answered by Toshabi I believe, but in case you missed it, I'll reiterate. The answer is quite simple if you have even read the book a bit carefully, whether you believe anything in it or not. The point of the two trees is to represent a choice. In a literal sense, it would represent a physical temptation to sin (the sight, smell and taste of the fruit) while in a metaphorical sense it's just the manifestation of free will in action. There is no free will without something to choose between. If God wanted to force Adam and Eve to stay away from the Tree of Knowledge, he could easily have made it unpleasant, stuck it far away, posted guards or even not created it at all. This would defeat the purpose of free will and would leave us with a race of humans with really no choice at all.
I gave evidence as to why religion is stupid and for some reason you are finding irony in it.
What do traits (traits like the ability to sense pain, or the immune system, or the digestive system) have to do with irony
All i said was that it was the fact that animals have these traits that disproves religion.