To Monotheists: Why Does Evil Happen?

[SnakeLord]

God decides what the nature of God is, not Snakelord.

Yeah, now you're repeating yourself. Why is that?

Didn't this same god imbue me with the ability to discern good from evil, right from wrong - to recognise actions for what they are? Oh wait, he actually didn't lol - that was the snake. In saying, I understand right from wrong, good from evil. Allowing the (apparently) nastiest entity in all existence to have his way with your children is evil - absolute.

Actually I went through, point by point, and explained each passage to you. If you call this avoidance, so be it.

Not really, no - you dismissed the statements in the bible as bad translations etc. That's a pointless argument.

Comparing this to a pedophilic act is a strange comparison.

Not in the slightest. A paedophile is the most evil entity I know of. They're a direct comparison - most evil entity there is.

Perhaps I should compare you to a tree frog, next?

If perhaps you think idiocy is a worthwhile approach.

Is it real evil to allow one's "children" to be exposed to potentially harmful ideas, and then to allow them to make an informed decision?

No - as I say, I wouldn't stop my daughter from riding a bike incase she falls off. What I, and no real loving individual would do, is put her in front of a lake and put a man right behind her that likes pushing kids in lakes. Furthermore, when she does fall off the bike I wouldn't curse her for it nor all her descendants. No sir, I'd pick her up, rub her knee better and let her try again.

Finally, you have no position with which to use the word "informed". These people didn't understand good or evil - how could they be informed?

:"Don't eat the fruit"-God "He just doesn't want you to be like him, that's why he doesn't want you to eat the fruit"-satan "Yummy, fruit, here have some Adam."-

How exactly, without knowledge of good or evil, could they tell which they should listen to and which was lying? Furthermore, as we know, the snake wasn't lying.

I'm saying that some of the bible, in particular Genesis, is, at best, an explanation of VERY advanced concepts to prehistoric man, at worst, a collection of morality-based stories told for entertainment to young children of the time.

When you make up your mind, get back to me.

To me, anyway, arguing about what happened in the creation story is very similar to arguing about Hansel and Gretel.

So the bible is a work of fiction? I'm glad we agree. Guess we can leave it right here.

 

[Nasor]

No - as I say, I wouldn't stop my daughter from riding a bike incase she falls off. What I, and no real loving individual would do, is put her in front of a lake and put a man right behind her that likes pushing kids in lakes.

Actually I think I better analogy would be a parent who

1. Creates a horrible pedophile
2. Has some children who they "love"
3. Sends the children off to play in the park with the pedophile, but warns them to stay away from him
and then, best of all
4. Punishes the children when the pedophile tricks them. After all, it's the stupid kids' own fault they were molested, right? The parent TOLD them not to go near the guy, after all!

Yeah, that's a really "loving" god you've got there. Truly an example of virtue that everyone should aspire to

 

[SnakeLord]

Oh, perhaps handy to the poll:

Ecclesiastes 7:13 Consider gods creation: who, for instance, can straighten what god has bent? When things are going well, enjoy yourself, and when they are going badly, consider this: god has designed the one no less than the other so that we should take nothing for granted.

Seems from this that numbers 2 and 4 in the poll would be most accurate.

Actually I think I better analogy would be a parent who

Aye, I'd already used the paedophile scenario

Yeah, that's a really "loving" god you've got there. Truly an example of virtue that everyone should aspire to

Well, he tries occasionally. You know, there was one time when he - being a loving father - set out to kill satan, to kill the most evil of all evils the universe had ever known. It's true, although not many people know about it. And so god set out once and for all to do away with this evil, to protect his loved children from any future harm that might come to them.

He used a flood to do it. The only problem was that the flood unfortunately killed everything but this evil of all evils. Oopsie.

It's weird that, isn't it? Theists happily declare that the flood victims deserved it because they were naughty, because they were bad, because they were evil. And yet the naughtiest, baddest, evilest of them all didn't get so much as a scratch on the nose. Perhaps he was just a good swimmer.

Theists unfortunately live a life of double standards. When god kills his own kids because they act in an evil manner it's because he loves them, when he doesn't annihilate true evil that's corrupting his kids its because he doesn't feel it right to intervene. Euch.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Oh, perhaps handy to the poll:

Ecclesiastes 7:13 Consider gods creation: who, for instance, can straighten what god has bent? When things are going well, enjoy yourself, and when they are going badly, consider this: god has designed the one no less than the other so that we should take nothing for granted.

Seems from this that numbers 2 and 4 in the poll would be most accurate.



Aye, I'd already used the paedophile scenario



Well, he tries occasionally. You know, there was one time when he - being a loving father - set out to kill satan, to kill the most evil of all evils the universe had ever known. It's true, although not many people know about it. And so god set out once and for all to do away with this evil, to protect his loved children from any future harm that might come to them.

He used a flood to do it. The only problem was that the flood unfortunately killed everything but this evil of all evils. Oopsie.

It's weird that, isn't it? Theists happily declare that the flood victims deserved it because they were naughty, because they were bad, because they were evil. And yet the naughtiest, baddest, evilest of them all didn't get so much as a scratch on the nose. Perhaps he was just a good swimmer.

Theists unfortunately live a life of double standards. When god kills his own kids because they act in an evil manner it's because he loves them, when he doesn't annihilate true evil that's corrupting his kids its because he doesn't feel it right to intervene. Euch.

How entertaining. You dismiss my explanations because I mention the subject of translation. You just skim my posts, don't you? But let's keep this horse on the path here.

Let's return to the creation story, you seem so fond of it. I hope you'll get some new, entertaining comparisons out of this. I would hate to deprive you of your wit. Adam and Eve were told not to do something. They did it. Was it the fruit that gave them the knowledge of good and evil? Or was it their choice to act against God that gave them the knowledge of good and evil? An interesting question to be sure. How did God curse them? Increased pain in childbirth, cast out of the Garden, enmity with the serpent, meaning Satan the deceiver, not snakes as such. What else. I forget just now. Oh! Deprival from eating from the tree of eternal life. All for disobeying God. No pedophilia, or pushing children into lakes. Adam was no more God's child than a daffodil was. To use your analogy, A pedophile was in the area that the daffodil was. ?? Makes little sense to me.

Make no mistake. God is a black and white kind of God. You obey, good. You disobey, not good. So we'll come to Noah now. There's this bunch of people all over the place. They are disobedient to God. There is one guy and his family that try to do God's will. God is upset by all the disobedient, and doesn't think there is any returning them to his will. Thus, he destroys his creation, but keeps a lifeboat of basic genetic material to repopulate the Earth. Wait. God. upset. God has never struck me as the emotional type. You is his or you isn't his. No somewhat kinda sorta. Add to this that he is omniscient, and he already knew that this would happen. That he would have to destroy the world in a Great Flood. Are you starting to get the picture here? Adam and Eve=Don't disobey God, you'll make life harder for yourself. Noah=Obey God and when everything else is going to hell in a handbasket, God will save you. Killing an (at least) ethereal being by drowning is not the reason for the Flood. Not even in the story. God is not stupid.

The moral of the story is that Genesis is a big book of stories of morality, and God's basic nature. If you read too much into it, you will find only falsehood.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Oh! sorry, one last thing. God doesn't kill his own kids. God had one kid, and humans killed him. God didn't intervene, because he knew that the sacrifice was necessary to allow all those damned(literally) people a chance to come into his will. We say that we are God's children because we want to have that relationship with God. Jesus said, "No one gets to the Father except through me." I, personally take that to mean that my relationship with God will always be once-removed. I can talk to Jesus directly and ask him to speak to God, when I get to heaven. Somehow I doubt that God is terribly concerned with the semantics of it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Adam and Eve were told not to do something. They did it.

Ok. Without being able to distinguish between good and evil, what possible difference would it make to them?

Was it the fruit that gave them the knowledge of good and evil? Or was it their choice to act against God that gave them the knowledge of good and evil?

Does it really matter? In either case we can ascertain that they didn't have it before the choice - hence, whichever choice they make is neither here nor there to them. Answer me this: Why should they listen to god and not the snake?

How did God curse them? Increased pain in childbirth, cast out of the Garden, enmity with the serpent, meaning Satan the deceiver, not snakes as such. What else. I forget just now. Oh! Deprival from eating from the tree of eternal life. All for disobeying God. No pedophilia, or pushing children into lakes.

Clearly you missed the point of the paedophile and the lake.

The paedophile represents the snake, for a few reasons: 1) Paedophiles are I think what most of us would consider the nastiest beings. If you or someone else doesn't, that's fine - I do hence why I used them. 2) Paedophiles corrupt innocence. 3) They often come in the guise of a friend, of someone you can trust, (priests for example).

I think one can draw a very similar comparison between the paedophile and the snake. Is this someone you would want near your children? Of course not. Is this someone that you would allow near your children because you wouldn't want to interfere in their 'free will', regardless to how ignorant they are? Of course not. Would you intervene when they were corrupting your children? Of course you would. Would you kill the paedophile and comfort your children? Of course you would. Would you curse your children? Of course you wouldn't.

Now, you know and are more than well aware that everything this god did is the exact opposite of what any loving person would ever do. You know and are more than well aware that if anyone acted in that manner you would consider them as equally evil. Yet you admire it, condone it, support it and applaud it when this god does it - not because you think it's right but, as you told me, because this god is bigger than you are. It's seemingly a case of might makes right - even though you know it's wrong with every bone in your body. And so to admire it, condone it, support it and applaud it you, the theist, has to completely abandon his own understanding of morality.

Adam was no more God's child than a daffodil was

I see. What was he then?

God is a black and white kind of God. You obey, good. You disobey, not good.

I assume you mean until people decide to no longer listen? It's been a while I think since anyone listened to his order for you to stone naughty children, prostitutes and witches to death. It's been a while I assume since anyone has impregnated their dead brothers wife?

There's this bunch of people all over the place. They are disobedient to God. There is one guy and his family that try to do God's will. God is upset by all the disobedient, and doesn't think there is any returning them to his will. Thus, he destroys his creation

Ok. god is upset by disobedience and people not doing god's will. He destroys them. So why didn't he destroy satan? Was satan being obedient and doing god's will then? Well?

Wait. God. upset. God has never struck me as the emotional type.

I take it you neglected to read the bible?

Killing an (at least) ethereal being by drowning is not the reason for the Flood. Not even in the story.

I know, I think you missed the subtle reason I wrote it that way.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Snakelord-I see.You feel you have found a point to hammer at God with, and like a Bulldog, you won't let go of it. Fine. You teach me. Using scripture, let's agree upon New King James Version, for simplicity, teach me why, according to the creation story, God is bad. If you need me to find and post the pertinent scriptures from an online source, I will. I've got my bible right here if you would like. I'll temporarily suspend my personal belief that Genesis is a morality story, not to be taken literally, for your sake. I would not want to take away your stumping point.

 

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord-I see.You feel you have found a point to hammer at God with, and like a Bulldog, you won't let go of it.

Hammer at god? No my friend, I don't believe in any of them. Hammer at those that do to see if they can offer any worthwhile answers? Certainly. It's just amusing to see how quickly theists dismiss their own bible as a work of fiction without even realising the serious damage that such a view poses.

For the sake of discussion with theists, it would be considered extremely bad mannered and dishonest of me to go into a discussion and dismiss anything they quote from the bible as fictional. And yet that's all they can ever do in return. I find it highly amusing, equally pathetic, and a very good indication of the major underlying problems of theists.

You teach me. Using scripture, let's agree upon New King James Version, for simplicity, teach me why, according to the creation story, God is bad.

As most should be aware by now, such a thing is impossible given that you do not have an understanding of "bad". It's not an objective absolute. If, for instance, we agreed that cannibalising friends and family is objectively, absolutely "bad" you would agree for the moment. When I then point out scripture where god indeed says he has made or will make people do it*, you'll instantly abandon that moral absolute and say it's ok.

How can I argue that an action is bad when you don't even have a concrete, unchanging understanding of good or bad?

* I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives - Jeremiah 19

I'll temporarily suspend my personal belief that Genesis is a morality story, not to be taken literally

Without it being true, without it being fact, christianity has no basis. No fall of man, no origin of sin, no need for sacrifice, no need for jesus, no christianity.

You will probably argue that there was a fall of man somewhere once upon a time but that instead of telling you about that true fall of man, they felt like telling you about a fictional one. If this is the case I will have a few minutes chuckle and go on my way.

You decide I guess.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Hammer at god? No my friend, I don't believe in any of them. Hammer at those that do to see if they can offer any worthwhile answers? Certainly.

So, what you are saying is that there is, in your eyes, a worthwhile answer to any question you pose about any Theism?

It's just amusing to see how quickly theists dismiss their own bible as a work of fiction without even realising the serious damage that such a view poses.

Seems I've said this somewhere else. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings. Some historical, some philosophical. I suppose you think that Psalms, Ecclesiasties, Job, and Song of Solomon should all be taken literally? If I go to a library and there I find a work of fiction, should I assume the entire library is fiction?

For the sake of discussion with theists, it would be considered extremely bad mannered and dishonest of me to go into a discussion and dismiss anything they quote from the bible as fictional. And yet that's all they can ever do in return. I find it highly amusing, equally pathetic, and a very good indication of the major underlying problems of theists.

There he goes, folks. Snakelord-"Look how much better I am compared to you simpleminded theists." The amazing expanding ego.

As most should be aware by now, such a thing is impossible given that you do not have an understanding of "bad".

What gives you that idea?

It's not an objective absolute. If, for instance, we agreed that cannibalising friends and family is objectively, absolutely "bad" you would agree for the moment.

I will agree for more than the moment.

When I then point out scripture where god indeed says he has made or will make people do it*, you'll instantly abandon that moral absolute and say it's ok.

No, I won't. Oh no. Is there a scripture in the bible that mentions this?

How can I argue that an action is bad when you don't even have a concrete, unchanging understanding of good or bad?

* I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives - Jeremiah 19:9

Not quite the verse, but the meat is there. Yep. God told Jeremiah that this was part of his punishment against Jerusalem forpracticing Human sacrifice and worship of things "not God". Punishments are usually bad. It seems bad to the murderer that he rots in prison. It seems that God caused something Awful to happen in retribution. Who said God was always good in our eyes? I refer you to Deut 4:24-31 It's a bit long to post here, but I will if you would like.


Without it being true, without it being fact, christianity has no basis. No fall of man, no origin of sin, no need for sacrifice, no need for jesus, no christianity.

wait. So you're saying that if the bible is not literally true, then there is no basis for christianity, right? I wish I knew what you thought contained nothing but facts. Perhaps a math textbook? I would swear there were theorems in math. But, I could be mistaken.

You will probably argue that there was a fall of man somewhere once upon a time but that instead of telling you about that true fall of man, they felt like telling you about a fictional one. If this is the case I will have a few minutes chuckle and go on my way.

Sigh. I suppose that because Hansel and Gretel is a fictional story, there is no useful meaning to it. "Fall of man". I've always wondered at this phrase. First there was ignorance of God. Then there was man's search for God. Then God revealed himself to someone. God had to explain some concepts to them. He gave them examples of what happens when you disobey God. This person had no way of knowing if the story was fact or fiction. They passed it down as fact for several generations orally. During the oral progression, it changed a bit, here and there. After a bunch of generations, along came this dude, Moses. It's thought by some that it was either he or Aaron that penned the first 5 books of the old testament.


You decide I guess.

So I can expect you to chuckle now and go on your way? Decide what? Decide who is right or wrong on this topic? Fine. You are patently wrong. You have the faintest knowledge of the Bible, and you apply requirements to religion that you do not apply to other things. I don't think you are intellectually dishonest by any means. I think you sincerely believe that you are making perfect sense. Run along, before you realize otherwise. Deflating egos are so embarrassing.

 

[Cellar_Door]

What was the point of Jesus sacrificing himself? To suffer for our sins and therefore absolve them? Well we're still being berated for Eve eating an apple, so what did he really achieve in the end?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What was the point of Jesus sacrificing himself? To suffer for our sins and therefore absolve them? Well we're still being berated for Eve eating an apple, so what did he really achieve in the end?

*************
M*W: Nothing was served, because it was all mythical anyway. Let's just assume for minute that god doesn't exist, and Jesus didn't exist, therefore, he wasn't born, lived or crucified. We are always responsible for our own doings. We were born, we are or have lived, and we make the best or worst of it. Then we die. It's simple really.

PS - Adam and Eve were also mythical, so that whole lie about Eve, the apple and the Serpent, is meaningless.

 

[Cellar_Door]

M*W: Nothing was served, because it was all mythical anyway. Let's just assume for minute that god doesn't exist, and Jesus didn't exist, therefore, he wasn't born, lived or crucified. We are always responsible for our own doings. We were born, we are or have lived, and we make the best or worst of it. Then we die. It's simple really.

PS - Adam and Eve were also mythical, so that whole lie about Eve, the apple and the Serpent, is meaningless.

Point missed. My post was questioning the logic of a story millions of people follow and believe.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Point missed. My post was questioning the logic of a story millions of people follow and believe.

*************
M*W: No, I got your point. I have also questioned the same thing and also question what makes people continue to believe these ancient myths thousands of years after they were written?

 

[SnakeLord]

So, what you are saying is that there is, in your eyes, a worthwhile answer to any question you pose about any Theism?

One wouldn't know unless one asks. Right? If this is you saying you cannot provide such answers then that is fine - kindly leave it to someone that can. If nobody can then let the question sit here unanswered or, in a not-to-be-expected miracle, have the theists happily state that it is beyond them.

Seems I've said this somewhere else. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings. Some historical, some philosophical. I suppose you think that Psalms, Ecclesiasties, Job, and Song of Solomon should all be taken literally? If I go to a library and there I find a work of fiction, should I assume the entire library is fiction?

I'm sorry, who decides? To many, Genesis is a literal account. The fact that you can't consider it so is neither here nor there really. St Francis certainly did and he was a saint, so why would I listen to you over the saint? No really, do explain it to me.

There he goes, folks. Snakelord-"Look how much better I am compared to you simpleminded theists." The amazing expanding ego.

Not quite. It was a statement at the hypocricy of theists.

Not quite the verse, but the meat is there. Yep. God told Jeremiah that this was part of his punishment against Jerusalem forpracticing Human sacrifice and worship of things "not God". Punishments are usually bad. It seems bad to the murderer that he rots in prison. It seems that God caused something Awful to happen in retribution. Who said God was always good in our eyes? I refer you to Deut 4:24-31 It's a bit long to post here, but I will if you would like.

There's my point. You claimed to think that canniblising ones friends and family was just plain objectively absolutely wrong. The very second a god states that he will make you do it, it's all well and good and you defend that god by saying such pointless lines as "punishments are usually bad, nobody likes them", which completely sidesteps the point and is merely an indication that you actually condone that which a moment ago you thought was absolutely horrendous - objectively, absolutely so.

wait. So you're saying that if the bible is not literally true, then there is no basis for christianity, right?

Ok, I'll explain once again for the hard of hearing: If the fall of man is not literal, is not factual then christianity has no basis, (the need for a saviour because of the fall of man). You can claim that there was a fall of man but that the biblical authors decided to give you a fictional account instead of the factual account. That's very silly.

Sigh. I suppose that because Hansel and Gretel is a fictional story, there is no useful meaning to it.

Seriously, try harder.

Run along, before you realize otherwise. Deflating egos are so embarrassing.

And this is the culmination of the theists effort. When they can't debate the issue, they debate the person and then end on a quick, immature insult.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

“ Originally Posted by SnakeLord
Hammer at god? No my friend, I don't believe in any of them. Hammer at those that do to see if they can offer any worthwhile answers? Certainly.

So, what you are saying is that there is, in your eyes, a worthwhile answer to any question you pose about any Theism?

One wouldn't know unless one asks. Right? If this is you saying you cannot provide such answers then that is fine - kindly leave it to someone that can. If nobody can then let the question sit here unanswered or, in a not-to-be-expected miracle, have the theists happily state that it is beyond them.

Not at all. I simply doubt that any answer given by a theist will be dismissed by you because they are a theist.

It's just amusing to see how quickly theists dismiss their own bible as a work of fiction without even realising the serious damage that such a view poses

.

Seems I've said this somewhere else. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings. Some historical, some philosophical. I suppose you think that Psalms, Ecclesiasties, Job, and Song of Solomon should all be taken literally? If I go to a library and there I find a work of fiction, should I assume the entire library is fiction?

I'm sorry, who decides? To many, Genesis is a literal account. The fact that you can't consider it so is neither here nor there really. St Francis certainly did and he was a saint, so why would I listen to you over the saint? No really, do explain it to me.

I made a comparison, you seem to have failed to notice it. Things have changed since St. Francis day. Knowledge and communication have increased. And, really, if one gets right down to it, nothing PREVENTS the Bible from being literally true. It requires a bit of covering up your eyes and denying proposed scientific theories. I am not a "fundamentalist" christian. I tend to give a lot of credit to scientific theories. Perhaps that is a weakness on my part. I am certainly not the theologian that St. Francis was. If you would choose to believe St. Francis interpretation of the bible, Good for you.

For the sake of discussion with theists, it would be considered extremely bad mannered and dishonest of me to go into a discussion and dismiss anything they quote from the bible as fictional. And yet that's all they can ever do in return. I find it highly amusing, equally pathetic, and a very good indication of the major underlying problems of theists.

There he goes, folks. Snakelord-"Look how much better I am compared to you simpleminded theists." The amazing expanding ego.

Not quite. It was a statement at the hypocricy of theists.

One where you ascribed certain things to theists that were derogatory, thus stroking your own ego. You fail to recognize that ignoring bits of another's posts one doesn't like, or doesn't care to try to respond to, is both dishonest and pathetic, perhaps one of your underlying problems.

As most should be aware by now, such a thing is impossible given that you do not have an understanding of "bad".

What gives you that idea?

It's not an objective absolute. If, for instance, we agreed that cannibalising friends and family is objectively, absolutely "bad" you would agree for the moment.

I will agree for more than the moment.

When I then point out scripture where god indeed says he has made or will make people do it*, you'll instantly abandon that moral absolute and say it's ok.

No, I won't. Oh no. Is there a scripture in the bible that mentions this?

How can I argue that an action is bad when you don't even have a concrete, unchanging understanding of good or bad?

I know the meanings of words and how to use them properly. I think our point of contention lies with your apparent inability to do the same.

* I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives - Jeremiah 19:9

Not quite the verse, but the meat is there. Yep. God told Jeremiah that this was part of his punishment against Jerusalem forpracticing Human sacrifice and worship of things "not God". Punishments are usually bad. It seems bad to the murderer that he rots in prison. It seems that God caused something Awful to happen in retribution. Who said God was always good in our eyes? I refer you to Deut 4:24-31 It's a bit long to post here, but I will if you would like.

There's my point. You claimed to think that canniblising ones friends and family was just plain objectively absolutely wrong. The very second a god states that he will make you do it, it's all well and good and you defend that god by saying such pointless lines as "punishments are usually bad, nobody likes them", which completely sidesteps the point and is merely an indication that you actually condone that which a moment ago you thought was absolutely horrendous - objectively, absolutely so.

Now you're being silly. I did not "sidestep" anything, although there have been a number of times throughout this discussion that you have. I think that you are giving evidence, once again, that any response made by a theist will not be good enough for you. If you are dissatisfied by my response, try asking in a simpler, more precise fashion. If I have to I will look up each individual word of your question in a dictionary and try to decipher what you are asking/stating. Be precise in your speech, and you will get better results.

Without it being true, without it being fact, christianity has no basis. No fall of man, no origin of sin, no need for sacrifice, no need for jesus, no christianity.

wait. So you're saying that if the bible is not literally true, then there is no basis for christianity, right? I wish I knew what you thought contained nothing but facts. Perhaps a math textbook? I would swear there were theorems in math. But, I could be mistaken.

Ok, I'll explain once again for the hard of hearing: If the fall of man is not literal, is not factual then christianity has no basis, (the need for a saviour because of the fall of man). You can claim that there was a fall of man but that the biblical authors decided to give you a fictional account instead of the factual account. That's very silly.

Once more. You are saying that Adam's sin=Christ's crucifixtion and resurrection. I say, no. Christ died because men are incapable of following God's will perfectly. I say that snakelord's sin=Christ's cruciftion and resurrection. More than that, Mankind's imperfection=Christ's crucifixtion and resurrection.

You will probably argue that there was a fall of man somewhere once upon a time but that instead of telling you about that true fall of man, they felt like telling you about a fictional one. If this is the case I will have a few minutes chuckle and go on my way.

Sigh. I suppose that because Hansel and Gretel is a fictional story, there is no useful meaning to it. "Fall of man". I've always wondered at this phrase. First there was ignorance of God. Then there was man's search for God. Then God revealed himself to someone. God had to explain some concepts to them. He gave them examples of what happens when you disobey God. This person had no way of knowing if the story was fact or fiction. They passed it down as fact for several generations orally. During the oral progression, it changed a bit, here and there. After a bunch of generations, along came this dude, Moses. It's thought by some that it was either he or Aaron that penned the first 5 books of the old testament.

Seriously, try harder

Seriously, try reading and responding to the ENTIRE post.

You decide I guess. ”

So I can expect you to chuckle now and go on your way? Decide what? Decide who is right or wrong on this topic? Fine. You are patently wrong. You have the faintest knowledge of the Bible, and you apply requirements to religion that you do not apply to other things. I don't think you are intellectually dishonest by any means. I think you sincerely believe that you are making perfect sense. Run along, before you realize otherwise. Deflating egos are so embarrassing.

And this is the culmination of the theists effort. When they can't debate the issue, they debate the person and then end on a quick, immature insult.

LOL You poor thing. You don't even attempt to respond to the things I say, and then claim to be "debating". You are selectively regurgitating statements to try to prove how much smarter than theists you are. If you can't be honest and precise with me, at least be that way with yourself.

 

[SnakeLord]

So, what you are saying is that there is, in your eyes, a worthwhile answer to any question you pose about any Theism?

Wouldn't know unless I ask. If this is you saying you cannot provide such answers then that is fine - kindly leave it to someone that can. If nobody can then let the question sit here unanswered or, in a not-to-be-expected miracle, have the theists happily state that it is unanswerable.

Deja vu.

If I go to a library and there I find a work of fiction, should I assume the entire library is fiction?

Any answer is better than no answer. I am currently having the whole satan discussion on another forum - and the theists are certainly having serious problems with it. They do however at least try and when it all goes pear shaped for them they at least just admit that "I don't know". Of course they put "I just trust that whatever god does is ok and that's that" on the end which shows just how pathetic it is, but that's ok - it's something at least.

The thing is, I like to start at the beginning of a book. If there are problems on page 1, there is, to me at least, little reason to continue on to page 2. Now some, (apparently not you), espouse that the bible is god inspired, a factual account of history etc. I take it in that manner because if I am in agreement with theists that the bible is just a collection of man's beliefs and ideas, nothing important, then I find there's nothing to discuss - we both think it's nonsense.

Of course when I read books that are supposedly factual - in this case detailing the actions, thoughts and feelings of a certain god - I have to take them in such manner. So let's say I pick up a history book that is supposed to be factual. On page 1 I read that in 1927 a man named Adult Hipler started the second world war by launching an attack on Mexico using sun-dried banana peel, what attention do you think anything beyond page 1 would deserve - especially when the later parts of that same book depend upon the words on the first page? (no fall of man - no christianity).

Now, if you are unwilling to discuss it in depth we can leave it here. I have no qualm with you dismissing the bible as fictional and that's that. I really don't. But you must decide and let me know, at the moment you just seem more interested in talking about me as if you know me and have access to the inner workings of my personality.

Things have changed since St. Francis day.

The bible hasn't, people's belief in the bible hasn't, no theist that I am aware of can say there wasn't a garden of eden, a talking snake and an angry god. This seems to be a matter of personal choice. You think the bible is fictional nonsense. I agree - there's nothing more to talk about in that case.

If you would choose to believe St. Francis interpretation of the bible, Good for you.

I asked you why one would or should listen to you before a saint. This went unanswered.

You fail to recognize that ignoring bits of another's posts one doesn't like, or doesn't care to try to respond to, is both dishonest and pathetic, perhaps one of your underlying problems.

Oh really? What have I ignored? Oh and then have a look at my posts and then your posts after and you'll see that I am the one being ignored, you are the one doing the ignoring.

What gives you that idea?

It was explained in detail just under the part you quoted. Kindly do not make me repeat myself.

I will agree for more than the moment.

Deja vu again. Why are you repeating all this? We've already done it once.

I know the meanings of words and how to use them properly. I think our point of contention lies with your apparent inability to do the same.

Ad hom aside, my English is top grade. If of course this is going to be your line of attack then there's little to discuss. Try focusing on the argument: Explain, for starters, how you can consider something bad, (eating your own family), but consider it the exact opposite when a god makes you do it. What that means is that the action is not bad, the action is good - depending upon who does it. Therefore good and bad, (objective absolutes), become entirely meaningless.

If I have to I will look up each individual word of your question in a dictionary and try to decipher what you are asking/stating. Be precise in your speech, and you will get better results.

Once again I see. You've ignored the actual argument in entirety in preference of ad hom. We're done, I have no further wish to talk with you. Ciao.