The digestive disproves the bible

[quote=Arcana3]Sigh.... REligon vrs Stupidty who will win? I think stupidty will, cause uh... Its cuddowls...[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi][quote=Arcana3] Sigh.... REligon vrs Stupidty who will win? I think stupidty will, cause uh... Its cuddowls... [/quote] (•ิ_•ิ)[/quote]

[quote=MrCuddowls]What I mean by saying "it seems as though life was based off the concept of sin" Is that sin is required for life to function the way it does. I will state this again, but in a different situation since you didn't get it with the digestive system Take into consideration the immune system. If Adam and Eve never ate from the tree, they would have lived forever, which would have defeated the purpose of an immune system. Disease couldn't kill them as they were eternal. [color=#ff0000][b]They were able to die because they sinned.[/b][/color] That means that the immune system came into use AFTER they ate from the tree. Why would god have given them such a thing as the immune system if they weren't going to die? The immune system is proof that things must die, so is the digestive system, and so is the ability to feel pain. In fact, anything that can be labeled as "life" must die, otherwise, it isn't life. The pleasure people feel in the process of reproduction, proves that life must end. The law that living things reproduce, proves that they must die. Why would god give all these things to all the other animals in the garden of Eden if those animals weren't subject to sin. Why did he give those to humans if they were going to live forever? You can't tell me that he knew they were going to eat from it, because in that case, the Garden of Eden was pointless, the entire concept of Adam and Eve would have been pointless. If he knew they were going to eat from it, than he wouldn't have replicated something that wasn't ever going to amuse him. There was absolutely no chance that they wouldn't because he knew that they would, and god is all knowing according to Christianity. A different reply would be: in case they ate from it Well if that was the situation than it contradicts what the bible said, that god is all knowing. If he doesn't know what they were going to do than he is not all knowing. Now on the matter of the tree I dont think you read what I said carefully, God deliberately made the tree desirable. He made the fruit pleasant to the smell and visually appealing, like gold. He made the tree very short as well, so the fruit can be easily picked and eaten. This isn't a test of temptation, he wanted them to eat it. if they didn't, every single living thing in the garden would have fucked until the earth was full of so many insects, animals and humans that they would literally created the layers on the earth. Non of them would have died, which in turn mean the would have kept reproducing until everywhere you walked the ground was literally made up of life that could not die. The concept is retarded, in every sense of the word. Its as if the old men who wrote this book didn't even [i]try[/i] to make their book fool proof.[/quote]

[quote=Meiyjhe]Must.... Resist.... Temptation.... To.... Keep... Arguing....[/quote]

[quote=MrCuddowls]Theres nothing to keep arguing about, if you understand what im saying than you also understand that you cant argue with this The tards who wrote the bible either didn't know anything about what I just said (which is reasonable since scientific advancement may not have made it this far by that time) OR they were idiots and didn't go to school.[/quote]

[quote=Meiyjhe]I do understand what you are saying, but I also understand what the Christians are saying. I will keep it at that.... I should stop commenting ;P[/quote]

[quote=Bioalchemist][quote=PsiGuard] 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. [quote=MrCuddowls] If Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of life, the would have never died, which would have defeated the purpose of eating. [/quote] 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. [quote=MrCuddowls]Why would god give dinosaurs Razer sharp teeth if they didn't need to rip apart flesh?[/quote] 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. [quote=MrCuddowls] 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. [/quote] 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. [quote=MrCuddowls] 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 shit. 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] These are all very sound and logical arguments...something you don't know how to do...you have not provided any reasonable counter arguments to these points...which is not surprising if your bio is correct. You are 15...and you think your high school biology class can answer all questions regarding religion (which by the way you have used in a very general sense since not every religion uses the bible for guidance)....to be honest I am not sure why you even think the bible is considered a scientific text...I don't know of anyone who really considers it to be so...also the comment of [quote]The concept is retarded, in every sense of the word. It's as if the old men who wrote this book didn't even try to make their book fool proof.[/quote] Who ever claimed they were trying to make it fool proof? is any text fool proof? if all science text is fool proof, what would be the point of doing any research at this point? When they wrote this text they had no concept of the immune system or the digestive tract...they were recounting stories passed on from their ancestors/scribes. I am writing this in an attempt to enlighten you...I will not write any more in your religious threads...they are ridiculous and go nowhere (like most religious discussions)....I will let Toshabi handle it :)[/quote]

[quote=MrCuddowls]I'm sorry who are you referring to? If you are referring to me than please answer the following questions They aren't very hard if you actually payed attention in school 1. True or False: All living things must die. 2. Why do living things have an Immune system? 3. What would happen to those things if they did not have the immune system? Once you have answered these questions, I will engage your argument further. Until then, you either can't read very well or don't understand basic things about life. Good day[/quote]

[quote=PsiGuard][quote=PsiGuard] If you're looking to start an argument, consider this the conclusion. Or perhaps you could try and learn something. [/quote] It appears I've failed. For one, my previous post already answered a lot of the "new" questions you brought up. Secondly, you decided to adopt an adversarial stance instead of engaging in a discussion. So, as I said, I won't be replying to you any further on the subject.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi]Shocker. It's as though Cuddowls didn't bother reading Psiguard's post and pretty much repeated his OP with a more wordy over explanation of it. I did NOT see that coming. [Img]http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/pino/sesame-street/32/Cookie-Monster-2-icon.png[/img][/quote]