Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/10/11 06:53 AM, Zendra wrote:

At 3/9/11 08:23 PM, Gario wrote: Being hypocritical is a better word for it. If a religious person walks up to you and starts giving you shit then it's fair game, but if you purposefully aggravate them when their minding their own business then you're just being an asshole. Most religious people aren't ready for a full on religious debate in the middle of their routine day (no more than most non-Christians are ready for a full explanation for their reasoning behind their non-belief), so you're not accomplishing anything more than pushing the stereotype that atheists hate religious folk.

Don't change the context here. You're creating scenarios, scenarios that I never kick-started. I find the reasoning of the Greek philosopher a good one - that's personal, because I can relate to certain questions.

Try saying this to religious people:

Everyone else kick-started the scenarios, and you came in the middle of one with that statement. The thread deviated from antagonizing zealots to religious in general, so I assumed you were coming from that angle.

So, quit the drama, you're bringing in scenarios, while I was just saying that if you happen to walk into one and no matter what happens and you happen to discuss the never-ending discussion, that I find the reasoning specified above a very good one and most likely will bring up.

I didn't catch you saying that the first time, but that's fine. A paragraph isn't really that dramatic, but to each his own.

Now put on your diaper and poop somewhere else.

I don't need no diaper to poop - my pants work just fine.

At 3/11/11 01:33 AM, Gario wrote: Everyone else kick-started the scenarios, and you came in the middle of one with that statement. The thread deviated from antagonizing zealots to religious in general, so I assumed you were coming from that angle.

Oh. So you assumed. Thus making your waving finger and me and cast me in to the oblivion with the rest - if you're that much of principals, you should have judged my argument more objectively.

I didn't catch you saying that the first time, but that's fine. A paragraph isn't really that dramatic, but to each his own.

Seems fair. Though you did a good job making your own stereotype assumptions to begin with. ;)

I don't need no diaper to poop - my pants work just fine.

Ai... Too much details. ;)

At 3/9/11 06:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Isn't it. Ancient Greek philosophers believed so.

Ancient greek philosophers are dead :(

so is jesus, if you believe all the crap the christians spout about him.
SInce not one historian who was alive at the time, ever wrote anything about jesus, but did record others like John , the baptist...I'll side with the proof of actual historical documetation, while spotty , at least one report of jesus's "Miracles should have survived.

But htey are only mentioned in Christian religious documtes, from around the 3rd century AFTER jesus supposedly died !

I rarely have many real life converstions about religion. Although there are one or two which stick out above the rest.

(This is a paraphrase and not direct quotations).

Person: "Do you believe in God?"

Me: Which one?"

Person: "What?"

Me: "There are lots of Gods, thousands. You're going to have to be specific"

Person: "The Christian God"

Me: "Which one?"

Person: "Just answer the question there's only one God of the Bible"

Me: "Actually there are about 30-odd thousand denominations all with varying beliefs about their God. The only similarity between one God to the next is that it's a highly powerful conscious entity which we've yet to detect. To say that each one is identical is like saying I'm absolutely identical to Charlie Sheen but even an idiot who doesn't know anything about either of us can find a solid list of differences".

Person: "forget I asked".

I find it amusing how some deeply religious people don't realise their in an ocean with other religions.

At 3/13/11 10:31 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/9/11 06:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Isn't it. Ancient Greek philosophers believed so.

Ancient greek philosophers are dead :(

so is jesus, if you believe all the crap the christians spout about him.

Christian crap spouts, lol

SInce not one historian who was alive at the time, ever wrote anything about jesus, but did record others like John , the baptist...

If you wanna defend a theory that assumes three, and only three, facets of God, go right ahead. Don't expect me to smell your shit and act like it's rosy.

If you've got more of a problem with my response than the text you'd quoted, lemme know.

I'll side with the proof of actual historical documetation, while spotty , at least one report of jesus's "Miracles should have survived.

Name one report that has survived from that era. . . or do oral traditions go against your own heathen beliefs?

But htey are only mentioned in Christian religious documtes, from around the 3rd century AFTER jesus supposedly died !

Dinosaurs are from 65 million years ago.

At 3/9/11 03:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/9/11 12:23 PM, Zendra wrote: It's not to be snotty or anything like that. That's just the way you experience that; I can't do much about that.

It most definitely comes off that way.

It's more being critic and rational - asking yourself questions what does seem to make sense and what not. But it has come to my understanding that religious people are extremely defensive and any other word than theirs is considered as hostile and unpleasant.

The worst thing to say to a person who is questioning why you don't ardantly believe what they do, is to turn around and directly attack their beliefs. That's just pouring gasoline on the fire.

I realize this has probably occured to you before, but there are some people in my experience who
seem to think that saying you don't believe what they do by itself is a direct attack on their beliefs.
Sometimes I can't stop myself from telling them something like: "Hey, you asked me what I believe in."

Moreover I take it these direct attacks you're reffering to are when someone follows that up by beginning to prove their beliefs wrong, making them feel stupid for their beliefs in the process?
Just an observation: More often than not, if you're talking to someone, and you start to feel stupid in front of them, it's partially to do with the way you view yourself in front of them, to a certain extent.
From what I can see, most religions that have to do with the belief in God don't seem to have any viable proof to back up their claims. Whereas, some people I've met who believe otherwise are always finding proof for their claims.
That being said, maybe the first observation applies to this as well. When we talk to a religious person about a belief that doesn't involve any God, we often can't help but prove their beliefs wrong,
whether we want to or not, since they often can't back up their claims.
So I can see how they would get the impression that we are constantly attaking their beliefs.

At 3/13/11 12:07 PM, The-universe wrote: I rarely have many real life converstions about religion. Although there are one or two which stick out above the rest.

(This is a paraphrase and not direct quotations).

Person: "Do you believe in God?"

Me: Which one?"

Person: "What?"

Me: "There are lots of Gods, thousands. You're going to have to be specific"

Person: "The Christian God"

Me: "Which one?"

Person: "Just answer the question there's only one God of the Bible"

Me: "Actually there are about 30-odd thousand denominations all with varying beliefs about their God. The only similarity between one God to the next is that it's a highly powerful conscious entity which we've yet to detect. To say that each one is identical is like saying I'm absolutely identical to Charlie Sheen but even an idiot who doesn't know anything about either of us can find a solid list of differences".

Person: "forget I asked".

I find it amusing how some deeply religious people don't realise their in an ocean with other religions.

The problem with your view is that it takes in consideration divisions in the belief of christianity. The fact of the matter is there is only one christian system. The bible gives strict instruction on what to do in every aspect of life. People simply chose to take pieces of it. That is where factions comes in. It does not diminish the religion as being just one with one God. I have personally heard many people who do not believe state their reasons because of flaws of the practicioners. This is a silly notion.

At 3/13/11 03:41 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Dinosaurs are from 65 million years ago.

or even further back...& WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT.
We have no factual evidence of Jesus, ever being born.
We have no actual records of miracles, & Rome was a meticulous record keeping state.
What we do have is evidence that The Emperor Constantine somewhere around 335 AD tha tthe BIshops get their fucking shit together & get rid of all the confusion, controversy & contention in the so called 'Christian faith'

http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-N icea.html

Readit & go weep for the fact Christianity was invented at that time from the mass of confusing that had come before it & was why Constantine ordered it !

At 3/9/11 12:23 PM, Zendra wrote:

At 3/9/11 10:35 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from?

Not God.

That doesn't make sense, since he can, right?

Are we talking about the popular Christian idea of God? Even so, God isn't omnipotent... all though Jesus says things like "all things are possible with God", God himself states that there are some thing he cannot do. For example, God cannot lie, nor can he deny his own existence. God cannot contradict himself.

God gave man free will... that means that man has the ability to do whatever man wants to do. So if man wants to murder and rape, man can murder and rape. Since God can't contradict himself, how could he stop such things? He can't give you both free will and control your actions... that's a contradiction.

The truth is, God doesn't let people starve... man does... when man refuses to share his food. God doesn't create guns, go to war, or punch house wives... man does. God doesn't microwave babies... man does. The wrongs of the world are created by mans free will and their innate ability to sin... which wasn't how God created us. We where perfect at one point... that is, until Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. At that moment we learned of sin. God didn't create murderers... we became murderers through temptation. Temptation that God told us to avoid... he told Adam and Eve to leave the Tree of Knowledge alone, but they didn't. And since Adam and Eve had free will, God couldn't stop them from doing so.

At 5/6/11 11:04 AM, newave wrote: ...The fact of the matter is there is only one christian system. The bible gives strict instruction on what to do in every aspect of life. People simply chose to take pieces of it... I have personally heard many people who do not believe state their reasons because of flaws of the practicioners. This is a silly notion.

would this be an example of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy or just some good ol'fashion prejudice?

At 5/6/11 12:42 PM, CacheHelper wrote: innate

God given?

God couldn't stop them from doing so.

Circumstance does not preclude 'free will' unless you mean to argue that 'free will' only exists free of any other circumstance (which is something you can't possibly be arguing for).

At 5/6/11 05:19 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5/6/11 12:42 PM, CacheHelper wrote: innate

God given?

No... now I'm no expert, but I as I understand it sin was created by temptation. Adam and Eve were perfect and free from sin. They did not wrong and they lived in paradise. They had free will so they could do as they please, but they didn't sin because they didn't know how or know of temptation. That's where the snake comes in... he told them to eat from the tree of knowledge and learn of temptation. And when they did, they became imperfect and began to sin. God did not make sinners... Gods creations became sinners when they ate from the tree. Why didn't God stop them from eating from the tree? Because he couldn't... he can't contradict himself and since Adam and Eve had free will, they could do as they please. He could only tell them not to, but the choice was ultimatly theres.

Why did God give people free will? Because he didn't want pupets.

At 5/7/11 02:39 PM, CacheHelper wrote: No... now I'm no expert, but I as I understand it sin was created by temptation. Adam and Eve were perfect and free from sin.

So then how is the ability to sin innate?

And how can something be innate (existing from birth/not learned through experience) but not God given?

Are you saying the ability to sin is innate for all of us who followed Adam and Eve?

They did not wrong and they lived in paradise. They had free will so they could do as they please, but they didn't sin because they didn't know how or know of temptation. That's where the snake comes in... he told them to eat from the tree of knowledge and learn of temptation. And when they did, they became imperfect and began to sin. God did not make sinners... Gods creations became sinners when they ate from the tree. Why didn't God stop them from eating from the tree? Because he couldn't... he can't contradict himself and since Adam and Eve had free will, they could do as they please. He could only tell them not to, but the choice was ultimatly theres.

Why did God give people free will? Because he didn't want pupets.

If God stopped them from eating from the tree then they would no longer have free will?

Would you say Adam and Eve left the garden upon their own volition?

At 5/8/11 10:29 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Are you saying the ability to sin is innate for all of us who followed Adam and Eve?

Once again, I'm no expert...

It wasn't that Adam and Eve couldn't sin... it's that they wouldn't because... well... they just never thought about it. They were free from such notions. However, they did still have free will and they did still have the physical traits necessary to commit such acts. When Eve ate from the tree the only thing that changed was they way they thought about and viewed the world.

Think of it like a baby.... a baby won't commit murder because a baby doesn't know anything about murder. It's not that the baby can't physically murder you or that if he tried, some unexplainable godly force would stop it... no, it's just a simple case of the baby never even considering the idea that it should kill you on purpose. Feed that baby from the tree of knowledge and 13 years later it might shoot up a high school.

Adam and Eve had this same type of blissful innocence to them...

Would you say Adam and Eve left the garden upon their own volition?

Yes and No... they made the choice to eat from the tree but the serpent was the one that told them to do so. In the end they made the choice to listen to the serpent over God but had the serpent not told them to do it, they probably never would have done it.

If I tell a 3 year old kid to throw a rock at a car and he does it... who's fault is it? He threw the rock... but I'm the one that knows better and shouldn't have lead him to believe that such actions were OK or harmless. In this scenario, I'm the serpent and the small child is Eve. Place blame where you will.

At 5/9/11 02:02 PM, CacheHelper wrote: It wasn't that Adam and Eve couldn't sin... it's that they wouldn't because... well... they just never thought about it. They were free from such notions. However, they did still have free will and they did still have the physical traits necessary to commit such acts.

Really now, for the sake of clarity... the above translates to 1) Adam and Eve did not have an innate ability to sin or, 2) Adam and Eve did have an innate ability to sin.

Would you say Adam and Eve left the garden upon their own volition?

Yes and No... [...] Place blame where you will.

My question wasn't about placing blame. It was about identifying will and its corresponding action. Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. At what point did they express a will to do so (directly)?

Here's the issue. You claim (I suppose any) means to prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit would contradict his giving them free will. Yet, you completely neglect the fact that, according to the story, Adam and Eve were banished by God from the Garden.

This goes back to what I said, which you seemed to have ignored: Circumstance does not preclude 'free will'.

At 5/9/11 09:18 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Really now, for the sake of clarity... the above translates to 1) Adam and Eve did not have an innate ability to sin or, 2) Adam and Eve did have an innate ability to sin.

I don't know, I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it. Once again, I'm no expert, but the way I understand the story is that Adam and Eve had all the physical traits of modern man with one exception... they were blissfully innocent. It's not that Adam didn't have the physical capability to punch Eve in the face because dinner was cold he just would never have done such a thing because he was so blissfully innocent that such a thought would have never crossed his mind.

Thoughts like that didn't occur to Adam or Eve until after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

At this point I'd like to stop and remind you that the word "innate" is just one word out of lots of words that I used and put together to form sentences and paragraphs that convey an overall general point. That point being that, contrary to popular belief, God cannot do everything.

Yet, you completely neglect the fact that, according to the story, Adam and Eve were banished by God from the Garden.

lol, it took me a while to figure out what you were trying to get at... why don't you just clarify your thoughts?

Did God force Adam and Eve from paradise, or did they walk out willingly? If they were forced out, it's a contradiction of free will. If they walked out, why didn't they just stay? They had free will... they didn't have to leave.

Once again, I'm no expert... but I assume they left willingly, probably in fear. It's the same reason a child goes to his room when you yell at him. You don't have to physically control the child, he'll just do what you say if you say it in a stern enough voice. Why didn't they just return to Eden later? They couldn't. Once they left God blocked the pathway back with a spinning sword made of fire that spun in all directions. There was nothing stopping man from trying to go back, he'd just never make it because the path was impossible to cross.

At 5/10/11 02:06 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I don't know, I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it.

Ok. We'll try something simpler. Does a baby have an innate ability to sin?

At this point I'd like to stop and remind you that the word "innate" is just one word out of lots of words that I used and put together to form sentences and paragraphs that convey an overall general point. That point being that, contrary to popular belief, God cannot do everything.

Like any greater point, lesser ones tend to be made to corroborate it. You know this, just like I know words go together to make sentences and paragraphs. If you can stop being patronizing and aversive, I can stop telling you things you already know.

And by the way, given the context, "God cannot do everything," is actually further from the point than "God doesn't let people starve... man does..."

Yet, you completely neglect the fact that, according to the story, Adam and Eve were banished by God from the Garden.

lol, it took me a while to figure out what you were trying to get at... why don't you just clarify your thoughts?

I gave you the punchline in my very first response to you. Adam and Eve's banishment is a case study. And while you may be content that your very long stretch of an interpretation explains away the double standard... 1) it does not address the dilemma for which the story is one instance, 2) nor is it in line with (as you had prefaced earlier) "popular Christian" sentiment.

Why didn't they just return to Eden later? They couldn't. [...] There was nothing stopping man from trying to go back

Do you distinguish between "trying" and "doing"?

At 5/10/11 11:54 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: And by the way, given the context, "God cannot do everything," is actually further from the point than "God doesn't let people starve... man does..."

Not in the context of the situation. The original post was, and I'm paraphrasing from memory so it's a rough translation at best, "Why would a God who can do anything allow bad things to happen?".

So I answered the question. It's all in the story of Adam and Eve. The answer is sort of a multi-step answer.
-1) God cannot do everything. (God cannot contradict himself)
-2) God gave man free will.
-3) God created man free from knowledge of evil and sin
-4) Man disobeyed God, ate from the tree, and learned of evil
-5) Man began to sin (murder, rape, etc...)
-6) God, although powerful enough to stop it, can't halt mans evil actions because it would be a contradiction of item 2 (free will). *See item 1.

So, when you look at the world and you see bad people doing bad things, don't blame God... blame man. God isn't responsible for murder, the murderer is responsible for murder.

And while you may be content that your very long stretch of an interpretation explains away the double standard... 1) it does not address the dilemma for which the story is one instance, 2) nor is it in line with (as you had prefaced earlier) "popular Christian" sentiment.

How so, the story doesn't specify how they left Eden. It just says that their punishment for eating from the tree was banishment.

As far as my explanation goes, it's just a guess. I never claimed that my answer was a fact and I only offered my explanation to you because you asked for it. I don't know how they left, nor do I care... their journey out of Eden isn't relevant to the story. Maybe when God publishes his Lord of the Rings edition of the Bible we'll all find out.

Do you distinguish between "trying" and "doing"?

What the hell, are you Yoda? Does that make me Luke Skywalker? Fuck yeah... such it jerk-wads, I'm a fucking Jedi

At 5/11/11 02:53 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Not in the context of the situation. The original post was, and I'm paraphrasing from memory so it's a rough translation at best, "Why would a God who can do anything allow bad things to happen?".

So I answered the question. It's all in the story of Adam and Eve. The answer is sort of a multi-step answer.
-1) God cannot do everything. (God cannot contradict himself)
-2) God gave man free will.
-3) God created man free from knowledge of evil and sin
-4) Man disobeyed God, ate from the tree, and learned of evil
-5) Man began to sin (murder, rape, etc...)
-6) God, although powerful enough to stop it, can't halt mans evil actions because it would be a contradiction of item 2 (free will). *See item 1.

So, when you look at the world and you see bad people doing bad things, don't blame God... blame man. God isn't responsible for murder, the murderer is responsible for murder.

Then I'm glad we can agree that the "overall general point" isn't that "God cannot do everything", but rather "God cannot do everything" is one of several arguments from which your "overall general point" is derived - One of several points along side the notion that human beings have an "innate ability to sin." So let's not downplay either as 'just some collection of words making sentences' eh?

How so, the story doesn't specify how they left Eden. It just says that their punishment for eating from the tree was banishment.

How so what? I asked two questions and called your interpretation a stretch. What are you 'how so'ing?

I don't know how they left, nor do I care... their journey out of Eden isn't relevant to the story.

It's relevant to the issue at hand.

What the hell, are you Yoda? Does that make me Luke Skywalker? Fuck yeah... such it jerk-wads, I'm a fucking Jedi

Do you distinguish between "trying" and "doing"? You say they couldn't go back. Then you say they could try to go back.

Do babies have an innate ability to sin? You say humans have an innate ability to sin. So, do human babies as well?

At 5/11/11 06:47 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I asked two questions

correction: expressed two caveats.

At 5/11/11 06:47 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Then I'm glad we can agree that the "overall general point" isn't that "God cannot do everything",

Except "God cannot do everything" is indeed, my overall general point. It's why the explanation both starts, and ends with that very statement.

It's sort of how these things work.
You write a paper about Mumia Abu-Jamal... in this paper you have an introductory paragraph that explains that Mumia is a political activist who is currently in prison after being framed for a murder he didn't commit (based on his controversial political views) and is being denied a new trial even though his original trial was unconstitutional. The next three paragraphs talk about Mumias' political views, the murder, and the unfair court trial. You then have a fourth, closing paragraph, that restates the initial point that Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political activist who is currently in prison after being framed for a murder he didn't commit, and is being denied a new trial.

Now, what is my paper about?
a) Mumia is a political activist in prison who is being denied a new trial
b) Mumias' political views/opinions
c) Murder
d) Unfair court trials

This is third-grade stuff man...

I don't know how they left, nor do I care... their journey out of Eden isn't relevant to the story.

It's relevant to the issue at hand.

Genesis: 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

He drove them out... a drunk guy was driven out of a bar last night by the bouncer. The drunk left willingly... out of fear... but still willingly. He had the option to stay there... but it would have resulted in getting punched in the face.. like, really hard. So the drunk made a willing decision to run away.

Do you distinguish between "trying" and "doing"? You say they couldn't go back. Then you say they could try to go back.

They were free to try to get back into Eden... it's not like God cast a curse on them that removed that thought from existence. There were no "God puppet-strings" stopping them from trying to walk back into Eden. There was a giant flaming sword that would burn them to shit as it cut them into a million pieces... but if they wanted to walk into it, they were more then welcome to do so.

Do babies have an innate ability to sin? You say humans have an innate ability to sin. So, do human babies as well?

Yes, babies do have an innate ability to sin. They're selfish and greedy, for starters... also, there's this little thing called "original sin"... which I don't know much about.

At 5/12/11 02:39 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Except "God cannot do everything" is indeed, my overall general point. It's why the explanation both starts, and ends with that very statement.

This is third-grade stuff man...

The reason supporting and concluding remarks are arranged that way is because there's more to their relationship than their relative locations on a page or in a wall of text.

"God cannot do everything" does not answer the question, "where then do bad things come from?"

It's employed to support the conclusion (which answers the question): "The wrongs of the world are created by mans free will and their innate ability to sin..." or alternatively "So, when you look at the world and you see bad people doing bad things, don't blame God... blame man. God isn't responsible for murder, the murderer is responsible for murder."

If you're so stubborn that you absolutely can't admit that "God cannot do everything" isn't your overall general point (by which we both obviously mean conclusion), then can you atleast admit that it is a supporting argument?

Genesis: 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

He drove them out... a drunk guy was driven out of a bar last night by the bouncer. The drunk left willingly... out of fear... but still willingly. He had the option to stay there... but it would have resulted in getting punched in the face.. like, really hard. So the drunk made a willing decision to run away.

Alright. Thought experiment. If Adam had refused to be driven out, would God have let him stay?

They were free to try to get back into Eden... it's not like God cast a curse on them that removed that thought from existence. There were no "God puppet-strings" stopping them from trying to walk back into Eden. There was a giant flaming sword that would burn them to shit as it cut them into a million pieces... but if they wanted to walk into it, they were more then welcome to do so.

So God made it so that they could not get back into Eden: not a contradiction of free will.

If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will.

Are we on the same page?

Yes, babies do have an innate ability to sin. They're selfish and greedy, for starters... also, there's this little thing called "original sin"... which I don't know much about.

Are babies selfish and greedy due to their knowledge? Is the distinction between a baby's relationship with sin and Adam and Eve's relationship with sin that Adam and Eve were not selfish or greedy?

At 5/12/11 06:15 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: "God cannot do everything" does not answer the question, "where then do bad things come from?"

You're correct, it doesn't answer the question by itself.... and yes, I agree that the other things I said are supporting arguments... however, having supporting arguments does not change the overall topic of the discussion. After all, the question was about God... not man. 'Why does God...' the answer is 'Because God...' God is the subject, not man. Thus the point of my response was to explain God and his actions, not mans.

I'm not going to debate this any further. I know what my point was... no amount of you telling me "nu-uh" is going to change that.

Alright. Thought experiment. If Adam had refused to be driven out, would God have let him stay?

No more so then my drunken friend would have been allowed to stay in the bar had he refused to leave.

If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will.

Now you're on the right track! This is the real question... or better yet, why did God create the Tree of Knowledge at all if he didn't want man to eat from it? I mean, he could have just never made the damn thing and then nobody would have to worry about not eating from it. At the very least he could have made it a bit more difficult to get to then just setting it right there, in the middle of the garden, where Adam and Eve hung out all the time.

Once again, I'm not an expert so you have to excuse some of my ignorance... however, from what I understand it was all just a test of sorts. God had to be fair and allow man to choose his own path... making the tree unreachable isn't exactly fair in the choice process.

It's like saying you can vote for either Bush or Obama in a fair election. To vote for Obama you put your name in this box right here in front of you. To vote for Bush you have to swim to the bottom of the ocean and do battle with the Krakken. If you return with the limb of the beast, I will give you a key to open up the door to my left. Inside this door is another box. Put your name in that box to vote for Bush. Something about this election doesn't seem fair...

So God made the tree, made it as easily accessible as the other trees, and did nothing to deter them from eating from it. This allowed man fair chance to choose his path. There's a bit more to the story (involving lucifer, his attempt to overthrow God, and his domination over Earth) but the end is the same. Man had to have an equally easy choice to make... either eat from the tree or don't. Not giving him that choice or making the choice of eating from the tree extremely difficult makes it "unfair". Once again.. free will... we have to have the option to choose evil if we want.

Are babies selfish and greedy due to their knowledge? Is the distinction between a baby's relationship with sin and Adam and Eve's relationship with sin that Adam and Eve were not selfish or greedy?

I don't know. I don't know anything about Adam and Eve as individual people. I never met them. All I know is what the story tells me. The baby thing was just a terrible example of me trying to explain their type pure, innocent, thought. My bad.

At 5/13/11 02:57 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/12/11 06:15 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: "God cannot do everything" does not answer the question, "where then do bad things come from?"

You're correct, it doesn't answer the question by itself .... and yes, I agree that the other things I said are supporting arguments...

It's a multi-step answer where by the conclusion is derived from several premises. The notion that evil does not come from God is not one of those premises.

however, having supporting arguments does not change the overall topic of the discussion. After all, the question was about God... not man. 'Why does God...' the answer is 'Because God...' God is the subject, not man. Thus the point of my response was to explain God and his actions, not mans.

I'm not saying the point of your response was to explain mans actions.

You can put it in any sequence you want. You can explicitly implicate man or not. You can tell me the overall topic of the discussion is jello. It does not change the logical relationship that you extablished between the notion that [ God is not omnipotent ] and the notion that [ evil does not come from God ]. According to your construct, the former is part of a proof for the latter, the former is a supporting argument for the conclusion - not the other way around.

***

But fine. If that tangents dead, let's go back to the part you originally left for dead...

"At this point I'd like to stop and remind you that the word "innate" is just one word out of lots of words that I used and put together to form sentences and paragraphs that convey an overall general point. That point being that, contrary to popular belief, God cannot do everything."

How is that pertinent?

Was there a point when I was arguing that "innate" wasn't a word in a sentence in a paragraph?
Was there a point when I alleged that you weren't arguing that God cannot do everything?

Or was this just an underhanded and patronizing means to tell me to stop looking at some of the more specific points you'd made (particularly one's involving the word innate)? Cause that's what I took from it. And that's why I responded by telling you that, in so many words, lesser points are important too.

Cause regardless of how much focus you personally want to give it... it's relevant.

No more so then my drunken friend would have been allowed to stay in the bar had he refused to leave.

My answer is dependent on the issue below...

Now you're on the right track!

There were two conditions given. You've only quoted one. It is ambiguous as to whether you're affirming both. In order for me to respond to the meat of your post (the big chunk I'm about to cut out) you should actually address what I asked you.

I don't know. [ Please watch the character fluff ]. All I know is what the story tells me. The baby thing was just a terrible example of me trying to explain their type pure, innocent, thought. My bad.

I'm going to take a long way back on this one (like thats a surprise).

When you say human beings have an innate ability to sin, is this equivalent to saying that human beings are born sinners? Would it be fair to make the following distinction: that Adam and Eve had the innate ability to sin, but were not born sinners?

At 5/13/11 06:28 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: When you say human beings have an innate ability to sin, is this equivalent to saying that human beings are born sinners?

Being born a sinner involves something called "original sin". Although I don't know much about this myself, I am lead to believe that it does indeed state that all people are born with sin (or as sinners). To clarify, I don't think 'original sin' is an action that we do, but it's a trait (or something similar) passed on from Adam the moment he ate from the Tree.

As far as humans having the innate ability to sin... I'll just say I'm sorry I ever used the word "innate" and I swear I'll do my best from this day forward to never use that word around you again. It seems to have triggered some horrible forgotten memory of yours and now... now only the blood of the innocent will appease your appetite for justice.

I did some research and I'm told that man does not have to sin, but we all do; either by choice (we don't care what God said) or by ignorance (we don't know what God said). I don't know... is that still innate?

I'm not an expert... I'm sorry I used the word innate.

At 5/16/11 01:35 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Being born a sinner involves something called "original sin". [...] it does indeed state that all people are born with sin (or as sinners). To clarify, I don't think 'original sin' is an action that we do, but it's a trait (or something similar) passed on from Adam the moment he ate from the Tree.

So, would it be fair to say that Adam and Eve were not born sinners (since their births preceeded original sin)?

As far as humans having the innate ability to sin... [ character fluff ]

I did some research and I'm told that man does not have to sin, but we all do; either by choice (we don't care what God said) or by ignorance (we don't know what God said). I don't know... is that still innate?

Do you distinguish between the ability to act and the act itself? i.e....

Do you make a distinction between the following statements:
1. Humans have an innate ability to sin.
2. Humans are innately sinners.

i.e... when you ask { is that still innate? } do you mean to reflect on { whether humans have an innate ability to sin } or { whether humans innately sin } or do you see no difference?

I'm not an expert... I'm sorry I used the word innate.

Fine. I'll bite on the expert thing. What does it matter to our discussion that you're not an expert? I'm not an expert either.

***

{ If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will. } and { God made it so that they could not get back into Eden: this is not a contradiction of free will. } Are we on the same page?

At 5/16/11 06:24 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: So, would it be fair to say that Adam and Eve were not born sinners (since their births preceeded original sin)?

Yeah... I believe so.

{ If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will. } and { God made it so that they could not get back into Eden: this is not a contradiction of free will. } Are we on the same page?

This again? I just explained it...

The tree isn't just a tree... it's a choice. It represents the ability to choose to disobey God. Because there was a tree God told them they can't eat from Adam and Eve now had the ability to choose to obey God, and not eat from the tree, or to disobey God and eat from the tree anyway.

If the tree was impossible to reach, or didn't exist... then Adam and Eve could never eat from the tree. Not being able to eat from the tree removes their ability to disobey God. Not being able to disobey God is a contradiction of free will.

Remember, God said "don't eat from the tree..." not "don't think about eating from the tree".

Not being able to go one place does not remove the option of choosing were to go. You can even choose to go to the place you can't reach. You might not ever make it, but you're free to try.

At 5/17/11 01:24 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

{ If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will. } and { God made it so that they could not get back into Eden: this is not a contradiction of free will. } Are we on the same page?

This again? I just explained it...

Here's how I responded, "There were two conditions given. You've only quoted one. It is ambiguous as to whether you're affirming both."

The tree isn't just a tree... it's a choice. It represents the ability to choose to disobey God. Because there was a tree God told them they can't eat from Adam and Eve now had the ability to choose to obey God, and not eat from the tree, or to disobey God and eat from the tree anyway.

If the tree was impossible to reach, or didn't exist... then Adam and Eve could never eat from the tree. Not being able to eat from the tree removes their ability to disobey God. Not being able to disobey God is a contradiction of free will.

They had no free will before they were given the dilemma?

Eating from the tree was the only choice to be made in the Garden?

To whom do we give credit for naming the birds and livestock?

They had not the ability to sin before they were given the dilemma?

Is not the existence of a choice to disobey God dependent on both the circumstance that provides the means, as well as the corresponding commandment from God?

Remember, God said "don't eat from the tree..." not "don't think about eating from the tree".

In most Bibles, you'll find God commanding us not to think certain things before you hit Genesis.

Not being able to go one place does not remove the option of choosing were to go. You can even choose to go to the place you can't reach. You might not ever make it, but you're free to try.

As would be the case if the Tree of Knowledge was rendered inaccessible by say... a flaming sword, as was the Tree of Life.

Is the distinction here that God never said to Adam and Eve, "do not return to the Garden."?

At 5/17/11 08:53 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: They had no free will before they were given the dilemma?

The tree was made first, it existed before man did. "Don't eat from the tree" was the first thing God said to man. There was no "before the dilemma".

Eating from the tree was the only choice to be made in the Garden?

Not the only choice, but it was the only way man could choose to disobey God.

In most Bibles, you'll find God commanding us not to think certain things before you hit Genesis.

Genesis is the very first book of the Bible
Genesis is the beginning of the story... of existence... where God creates everything.
Adam and Eve were the very first people

There is no "before Genesis".

As would be the case if the Tree of Knowledge was rendered inaccessible by say... a flaming sword, as was the Tree of Life.

If the tree was blocked by a flaming sword then Adam and Eve wouldn't be able to eat from it. This is a problem because they have to actually eat from the Tree of Knowledge to disobey God. If they can't eat from the tree at all then they can't disobey God... not even if they choose to. Not being able to disobey God is a contradiction of free will.

The tree had to be just as easily acceptable as all of the other trees so they could CHOOSE to eat from it. It was a choice... not a forced decision due to a lack of options.

Is the distinction here that God never said to Adam and Eve, "do not return to the Garden."?

The distinction is that the tree represents mans ability to choose to disobey God and the other is just a place.

At 5/6/11 11:04 AM, newave wrote: The problem with your view is that it takes in consideration divisions in the belief of christianity.

Yes, because you cannot devise a system in which it determines an accurate belief system of Christianity. That's before you argue the semantics of interpretation and translation. That's why there is variation. One doesn't stand above another.

The fact of the matter is there is only one christian system.

To you there is.

The bible gives strict instruction on what to do in every aspect of life. People simply chose to take pieces of it.

Does this mean that people should follow all the writings of the old testament?

That is where factions comes in. It does not diminish the religion as being just one with one God. I have personally heard many people who do not believe state their reasons because of flaws of the practicioners. This is a silly notion.

Silly to you maybe. But the fact is if Christians can't agree amongst themselves from text that's supposed to be from an immensely powerful entity you can't be surprised that we're sceptical of it's legitimacy.