The body while it is a vessel for the soul, is separate from what you said, as the actual person.
So again, will the body continue to survive without being inhabited by a soul? If so, how would these people differ from those with souls?
We would never understand the severity of disobedience if there were no consequences
I have to disagree and tried to explain why earlier. The consequence is that god kills himself and I am instantly forgiven. I don't personally consider that severe, to be honest it just makes it easier to be nasty.
Finally we agree. Do notice that you said
need, not want.
Could God have just said 'you're forgiven?' I say no. We wouldn't have understood.
Here you are downplaying gods supposed omnipotence, indeed you're almost claiming him to be incompetent. We can happily understand without the need for anything to die if he so chooses. One click of the fingers and we all understand perfectly. What you are left with are countless needless deaths - of animals, (which you seemingly do not care about), humans, (which die continuously because of gods demands - no, you cannot offer anything to say that religious killers are not getting their commands from god), to god himself.
You said you had kids. Can you just say "It's ok" everytime? They will never understand the severity of the crime right.
Well I've never had to kill myself. In honesty my kids do not misbehave. They are only like this because I talk to them - I have
never punished them. For me talking seems to work perfectly well
every single time. Why can your omnipotent god not do what I can accomplish rather easily?
Animals do not have a soul. They have no understanding of morality and will not live after this world.
1) What supports the claim that they have no soul? (other than science which would show nothing has a soul).
2) Many animals
do indeed display moral behaviour.
3) How are you more special or worthy of a second life, a third life etc than any animal?
we kill animals to eat them and there is no problem. If we kill a human to eat them we go to prison.
The majority of animals do not eat their own kind. Some do certainly, (and generally the young get eaten when they would end up a territorial rival). Of course this is very similar to humans who have been killing others over territory for eons, (even their own kids in some cases).
The Son, Jesus, took the wrath of the Father. More like wacking his Son. Oh so now I am saying that I am polytheistic. No I believe in three persons one God.
If you believe in "one god" then god killed himself to appease himself. There's no way of arguing against that. The minute you turn that "one" into three and try and make out that one appeases his anger by killing the other, the minute you no longer believe in "one" god.
I am saying that the body functions because of the soul. So life depends on the soul.
Kinda like an mp3 player.. It has the ability to play music, but without the batteries it doesn't do sweet bugger all. However, the mp3 player is nothing without the batteries - ergo completely dead, not alive.
If they had no knowledge then how did they make a decision?
What would you decide if you had no idea of whether smoking was good or bad? You wouldn't say no to the cigarette because of it's harm to your health and you wouldn't say yes because you thought it looked good. A decision can be reached, even if you choose to roll a dice to decide, but that decision is not an educated one - it's heads or tails.. Neither is of consequence to anything.
Unless you knew what was good was the list of rules, or in this case obedience to God right?
So you have this magical list of what is and isn't good. Without any knowledge of good or evil what that list says is of no consequence to anything. Is it a good or bad thing to pay attention to the list?
Eve responded to Satan saying that God said not to. When Satan said not to she obviously saw something wrong with it.
The last sentence is wrong. To repeat something you've been told does not imply that you see anything wrong or right in it. Do note than when she repeated what god had said she didn't even know she was naked. Her bits were out for all to see and yet she was none the wiser. Like a child, running round with it's bits on show completely unawares of it or that sticking its fingers in a plug socket is a seriously bad move. That same child can still repeat things it's parents say. Why, my young nephew says "fuck" and "shit" and all manner of swear words without understanding what they mean, that they are considered rude and wrong or anything else. He still says them happily while his little peewee dangles in the breeze.
I am saying if they weren't disobeying then they were obeying.
They weren't doing either through knowledge of what they were doing.
Where does it say they had no understanding of death or what a bad thing was.
As god attests to in Genesis, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil
until they had eaten the fruit. In saying so they clearly had no concept of death being a bad thing. Furthermore, it is oft said that there was no death in the garden of eden, (although I personally disagree on the basis that many animals require the death of others in order to survive themselves - unless we were to claim that all T-rex's were veggies). If there was no death, Adam and Eve would have no knowledge of what death was. You could explain it and say: "well, your soul, (which is you), leaves your body and you float off somewhere".. Of course it could then be argued that death doesn't mean death because you're still technically alive, just in different form - and perhaps a better form considering you no longer need to eat or defecate or sleep etc etc - and so perhaps death in itself would be quite good. However, they still could not make an educated decision on whether being dead was good or bad.
If I say He is God then that would give Him the title.
I'm sorry, I don't follow..
God said the punishment for disobedience was death.
That hardly justifies it. I knew a slave that disobeyed the commands of his keeper and escaped from his confines. The punishment according to the keeper was death - and when caught the man was summarily executed. The act is not justified purely because someone has said what he will do.
but your not concerned with feelings so why should I care about yours?
Oh I do show my care for feelings at times, but most certainly not in a discussion regarding what is or isn't true. "Feelings" should not be a part of that discussion.
Again unnecessary because you got my point.
Actually no, I didn't. You said we needed a sacrifice, I disagree.. We don't. You personally might but that is of no consequence to what anyone else "needs".
A. It isn't worthless. I am trying to show how it is actually worth something but the only way for you to get that would be to see God in a whole new way which I am also trying to do.
Can't I just imagine a god that doesn't see a point in killing cows? Ok, they "moo" too much for my liking, but killing them for the mere sake of it? Not my style - and there's no way I could ever personally consider it of any value to anything, especially when commanded by an omnipotent, omniscient all loving being that could think of a gazillion better ways of getting the job done.
See, my god allows people to be human without feeling the need to drown them, demand sacrifice or kill himself. Mozzies are still stoning people to death and flying planes into buildings because they don't want to disobey their god, the jews are still slicing a bit of their penis off, (without asking consent of that person), because they don't want to disobey their god. Not because of love, but because of downright fear of what happens if they disobey. Fear is not the way to run a system.. my god knows that, seemingly yours does not.
Out of interest you'll find a good couple of hundred times when god says he wants man to fear him, and very very few where he even mentions a want for man to love him.
2. The sacrifice of an animal was symbolic. It was set up for us to show our faith.
My god, being omniscient, already knows the answer. He also has issue with people having to believe with no knowledge.. it's a pathetic endeavour that should not be expected from a species that naturally requires evidence. Believing for the mere sake of it is somewhat of a letdown to my god. He wants people to choose to love him because they "know" him, not because they "guess" what he might be like.
D. Pathetic? Your opinion again.
Certainly.
You still didn't answer the question. How do you know your wife loves you or anyone for that matter.
I did answer.. I said I assume she does. She might not, such is life.. 2 out of every 3 marriages fail - the majority due to a partner bonking someone else. All the while that person was sitting there thinking the partner loved them. It is so easy for man to be deceived.. by other humans let alone anything else. If you think people should love and worship a god with no knowledge of that god, who is to say you are not in the middle of the grandest deception? You couldn't begin to tell me anything about this being. You rely on the word of shepherds to claim what this being is like - and yet what if he intends to burn you all because he's a nasty omnipotent bugger? The only way forward is to get actual knowledge of this being - and yet if it refuses and continues to state that you must believe it merely on faith? What has it got to hide? (Note that right about now most theists, [I didn't say 'you'], would state that to show itself would be to remove free will. That's simple nonsense because knowledge of somethings existence doesn't mean you cannot choose to hate it, pretend it doesn't exist [theists do that rather well with evolution] etc etc).
What if he's actually just testing to see who would be silly enough to believe something for the sake of it, or worse because they're afraid of burning? You could never say he isn't because you'll never have that knowledge until you're dead and it's too late.
It is our need to show our love for God.
Can these things not just be said, or felt? He's omnisicient. Just think "i love you dearly" and he'd know about it. Killing a cow, holding poisonous snakes, spearing yourself with metal rods etc seems kinda pointless. Would he love you more if you killed a cow for him?
How would you feel if your children did not love you.
Dare I say that my emotional
needs would suffer? If I didn't
need to be loved it would be utterly inconsequential. Alas I am just a faulty human and cannot help having those needs.
So then would you please be kind to tell me then how you would react to a grown man if he was to crap on the floor and then proceed to throw that crap at you.
Surely you must have heard of people putting crap in a plastic bag, setting fire to it and throwing it through your postbox or perhaps putting it on the doorstep and then ringing the bell? While I find the humour of the whole thing a tad 'off', everyone gets their jollies in different ways - including chimps. Man you can see the smile on the chimps face when it pees on you at the zoo.
Seriously though, I have heard of worse things.. Theres people that poke spears through themselves, staple their testicles to desks, stick bottles up their [censored], or if that's not good enough spend some time watching jackass. And yet for some reason you think a chimp throwing a piece of shit is justification to say that humans are better than them? Do me a lemon.
You already said you would fight a guy for not doing a job correctly. I am scared to know your reaction.
I personally wouldn't be too impressed if a man threw poo at me
or if a chimp through poo at me. Neither is an indication that humans are better than chimps.
Don't you every time you consume meat?
Not really, no.
Let's talk fox hunting.. 50 hounds, 50 people, 50 horses, some smoke bombs, some guns, a nice blowy horn thingy and 50 shiny red coats vs 1 fox. On occasion the fox still outwits those 50 hounds, 50 people, 50 horses, smoke bombs and guns.
Most of the time however the fox does get whacked...
only because of the 50 hounds, 50 horses, smoke bombs and guns. The 50 people are smegging useless and would be hard pressed to catch a cockroach let alone anything else.
You are trying to put the blame on God saying they can not be punished because they did not know.
The blame would always fall on the creator - seeings as man did not create himself and thus is not responsible for having the urge to choose wrong - but that is inconsequential here given that in this instance it is clear, and attested to by god, that they had no knowledge of good or evil before eating the fruit and thus cannot be held liable for eating the fruit.
no but obviously they had some idea of what not to do.
But they didn't. "Obviously" is not a valid argument. The bible says they didn't, god says they didnt. That's all there is to it.
You left that out of the analogy.
One step at a time.
You are first saying Adam and Eve but now you are saying a baby when there is a clear difference. Please make up your mind.
Actually it's quite common for people to label Adam and Eve as "like children", (Visitor does it regularly). The similarity between Adam and a child is closer than Adam and an adult. For starters adults, (unless retarded), are aware that they are naked, babies are not. Babies also have no knowledge of good or evil and thus make the analogy pertinent.
They had an IDEA of something wrong. Something other than obedience. Obviously.
You keep saying "obviously" but refuse to support it. How did they have an idea of something wrong without the required knowledge to allow them to have such ideas?
Well…not God directly…God through his emissaries….who were….men, speaking on God’s behalf….by writing a book…and who were ….holy and ”good’ and…spoke the ….”truth”…whatever that means, because mommy said so….and daddy believes this also…..and all my retard friends, who are just like me, also believe in the same thing.