Gekko, can you prove...

Now this does not come from my studies in religious circles. It comes from my 8th grade public school myths and religion teacher.

God made adam and eve and they had a choice to be naive and happy and live forever without problems in the Garden of Eden or they could choose to live outside of the protection, with knowledge of good and evil. They were removed from the source and since that time until modern medicine as we got further from the source our lives lasted fewer and fewer years. The point of that day you will surely die. Means that instead of living forever in the Garden because of what you do on that day of eating the forbidden fruit you are detached from the source and shall surely die.


God gave us the choice because someday he hopes or expects or knows that even with knowledge of evil man will choose to be good. (My teacher was Jewish)

Now from a Christian perspective it does not take a rocket scientist to understand the point of Jesus, the perfect man be offered for all the sins so that man does not have to die. He died not just for adam and eves orginal sin of detachment but for all the sins since.

Nice observation about the serpant not speaking. The serpant does know the story. He knows who is boss. But he wants everyone to make the same mistake he did. Wanting to be God himself and look within. Apparently being silent worked for him for at least 5,0000 years and is still working.


By the way I choose to be flame proof. So do not bother. I also do not accept as my words anything that is not quoted in full or for you solid types at least quoted in context. (As, I develop these rules I will be able to read this stuff without wasting too much time.)

 

Would that be intended to establish a credibility which might otherwise not be present?

If they were able to choose “naive and happy” and to “live forever” why would they “choose to live outside of the protection, with knowledge of good and evil.” ?

If it was ‘bad’ for them to do so, the ability to choose ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ must have already been available to them. Otherwise they made an uninformed guess!!

Furthermore, to make the right choice, they would also have to be capable of distinguishing between the two, so they could be aware of the ‘correct’ one to choose.

You say .. “until modern medicine” and “as we got further from the source”. That suggests modern medicine brings “us” back to the source ??

What do you mean "Our" lives? in that context?

Because of medicine, people live longer and longer lives.
Soon, every day medicine might be able to repair ‘faulty genes’ which cause degradation.
People would then be older than Moses!
How will the Adam&Eve story be interpreted to accommodate such events??

The Bible’s Genesis suggests no choice or freewill was available, only consequences from ignorance.

The problem with interpretation of this kind is that anyone can interpret any way, and any interpretation would have no more a value than the next one. It may be nice to interpret but it does not make a story right or true.

Surely the “Word of God” is what it says, not what you interpret it to say?

From this you..

1. Presuppose God exists.
2. Say that God gives choice when the Bible’s Adam & Eve story suggests no choice is available.

Your teacher being Jewish is relevant in what way?

This is more of the same though.
The christian imperative superimposed onto an old Hebrew story.
More "Word of God" but full of contradiction and requiring interpretation yet again, which may be nice for some, but does not make the thing itself, or any of the renditions of it, right or true.

That is not what the Bible says. The “Word of God” states that the serpent spoke.

Aren’t you mistaken?

Is the serpent another interpretation for something else?

Could the serpent really think as well as you suggest, or is this more interpretation of "Gods Holy Word"?

Why would a philosophical snake seem reasonable, in place of an obviously more reasonable conclusion that it is all a fairy tale?

I think I have fulfilled your conditions. Your words are quoted in full and in context. Art might consider I have been flaming you , it would be ironic I guess, coming from Pyro Kid himself.

I wonder, did you - or if you didn’t would you have – considered it reasonable for you to have been taught some critical scrutiny or interrogation of the Bible to be a waste of time, if it were given the same encouragement as was given to your Bible lessons, before accepting the 'teachings' of your Jewish religion tutor as being correct?

 

Hey stu,

Trying to piss together some credibility again? [read stu, page 10, same thread]

Your "Invisible Friend Gilbert" [read stu, page 10, same thread and earlier] must have been whispering things in your ear again. As you didn't give us any further explanation for your several references to this your "Invisible Friend Gilbert", I think he could probably be related to, nay even identical with Adam & Eve's serpent.

Why all those questions again to jem about the serpent speaking or not speaking? Why those speculations about whether the serpent could really think or not? Tell us about your "Invisible Friend Gilbert" first. You told us your "Invisible Friend" indeed speaks to you. Can he also think? You owe it to us, don't keep on pissing nonsense. Reflect a bit on the quote below from jem. He certainly is not too much of the mark. For the last 5000 years the serpent is using "Invisible Friends" like your Gilbert in trying to find useful idiots to spread his word.

Instead of coughing up your same little game, this time in reply to jem, clear up things first stu. Calling on the help of a demonstrated illiterate like flaming Virtuoso won't help. He doesn't have time anyway as he's taking writing lessons right now.

nononsense

 

He can easily prove it, by defining morality so as to include a requirement not to murder people.

Of course you can then ask why anyone should accept his definition. But one could ask that of any other definition of morality, or any definition of *anything at all*.

 

How does the fact that a law is enforced have anything to do with morality at all? Slavery has been enforced in accordance with local laws, as has human sacrifice, gang-rape, genocide etc.

 

nonsense.

Why the aggressive response to a post I made to someone else?? What’s your problem?
In case you hadn't noticed I was talking to jem not you.
Your attempt at argument is appearing INCOHERENT, as already pointed out to you by Virtuoso.
Your sense of humor appears neither rational or effective, as already pointed out to you by ART.
Your grasp of the association and irony of Gilbert is completely missing, as is now being pointed out by myself.
You don't have a clue.
Instead of cavorting around in your complete bewilderment, why don't you try to fight against your incapacity to communicate properly and until then, perhaps it would be better for you to just shut the fuck up

 

stu,

Just like you stu, I post as I like. My post is not aggressive at all. I only caught you in starting over the same foolish play that you had to abandon already once, getting angry like a silly kid.
Simply stand up for your own writings, which you don't. Who used foul language? What permits you now to talk about the irony that you claim to have introduced. Where we not discussing something in a rather serious way? What makes you an arbiter of incoherence, humor and rationality. By your language , not mine, you were simply pissing around.

I take note of your reference to Virtuoso. I have never seen a guy at ET ringing up 12+ orthography and grammar mistakes in only 20 lines of writing. Subsequently he had the arrogance to make remarks about English language proficiency. This is the real buddie you need to pursue your Neanderthal argumentation on reason and rationality spiced with your "Invisible Friend Gilbert" irony.

Let me finish by returning to you a bit of stu's genuine "pissing" (sic) prose:
"Instead of cavorting around in your complete bewilderment, why don't you try to fight against your incapacity to communicate properly and until then, perhaps it would be better for you to just shut the fuck up (sic)."

nononsense

 

nononsense,

My response to jem was measured and reasonable. Was it not?

But you chose to indulge in phrases such as these in regard to a post which was not addressed to you in the first place and then you say it was not aggressive!

Trying to piss together some credibility again? [read stu, page 10, same thread]

You owe it to us, don't keep on pissing nonsense

Instead of coughing up your same little game,


The above is your response to my reasonable enquiry to jem and you say it wasn't aggressive !!??.

I was. I made a reasonable and measured response to jem, remember?

If you were treating all this in a serious way, why not deal with the points I raised in my response to jem's post instead of all the aggressiveness?


You may now understand the irony of Gilbert after it has been pointed out to you , it appears you did not when you said this...

"As you didn't give us any further explanation for your several references to this your "Invisible Friend Gilbert", "

"Tell us about your "Invisible Friend Gilbert" first. You told us your "Invisible Friend" indeed speaks to you "Can he also think? You owe it to us, don't keep on pissing nonsense

This is the real buddie you need to pursue your Neanderthal argumentation on reason and rationality spiced with your "Invisible Friend Gilbert" irony.
-----------------

There are supposedly grown up - adult people, describing serpents which can speak and think , invisible gods talking to characters in a fictional narrative , trees of knowledge which are supposed to be of good and evil.... and all you come up with is an insult.

And you displayed this kind of incoherence....

"Some time after Adam and Eve got put at the door of Eden, a lot of wise guys apparently had the same problems like you these days in getting their tale of Genesis straight. Remember Noah's days? Remember Sodoma & Gomorrah? "



You say you want to discuss this seriously?? ... Then start by responding to the points I raised with jem and stop trying to use Gilbert as an excuse not to.

 

Speaking of a reasonable inquiry, what is your first assumption?

 

You have been slated by Axeman and others in every God thread I've read. Axeman correctly pointed out to you, time after time, your habit of raising strawman argument.

All you are now doing here is asking me to create my own straw man for you.

It is not reasonable inquiry to ask someone to create their own weak argument for you, so that you have something to try and tear down.

Also, assumption is not a necessity for debate.