Greatest I am, on Saturday, June 26th, 2010, 12:32 PM, said:
I read your skewed version above. B S is as good as I can grant you.
You are a person who lives by the straw man argument. You create arguments that require the other side to grant you your interpretation of the truth. As such I will point out all the times you did this in this post, and show you why you are wrong. I do not hold out hope that this will help you, but maybe others reading this will at least not fall into the logical trap you are trying to put me in.
You said the snake lied yet A & E did not die.
They are in fact dead, as are most people that have ever lived. You must pigeon hole the meaning to imply that they would bite the fruit, then whammy they keel over dead as a doorknob. Seeing the fact that they didn't die right then would imply that it was similar to a judge sentencing someone to death, they don't die immediately. They did do a study at Harvard a few years back though, 10 out of 10 people die.
God said they would but only after He imposed their death sentence instead of forgiving them the way a loving God or father would.
You want to make the argument that 'any' father would just forgive any sins because that's the only way a loving
father can act. This is completely false, a loving father can
punish their child to teach them a greater lesson, can
allow them to feel the ramifications for their actions, can
place conditions on their child's actions. God clearly told them that to eat this fruit would cause their death. They ate the fruit. According to your argument, God must then change the rules and make Himself to be a liar, because they should never be responsible for their actions. It's clear why this broad brush is not reality.
How in hell do you expect to be able to get the moral message of the Bible when you believe in real talking animals?
There is nothing contradictory to believing in one thing reflecting on the truth or falseness of another. I can believe that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream ever, and also believe that The Lakers are the best NBA team franchise in the history of the world. Neither of those beliefs affect the other beliefs validity.
Further, you might have noticed that God describes the snake as just an animal and that would mean that it was in Satan's control. Right?Then tell us if you can, why God would punish an animal who was innocent and in controlled by Satan?
God is the Creator of all life. If He decides one life is to eat worms, and another one is to live in the depth of the ocean, what business is it of yours to judge that?Maybe God wanted the snake to be a constant reminder that we have sinned. By seeing his 'changed state' we can always remember that we are not as we were meant to be.Besides animals are under our dominion, they are not their own people.
You might also tell us why God would allow Satan access to His brand new prototype humans?Not quite a fair fight in my book.
You are implying that Adam was created and immediately unprepared to make the decision he needed to make with regards to eating the fruit.Why do you think you are correct in this.Is it in your experience in the creation of new life forms that they need a couple days before their brain works right?Or have you noticed when you make brand new forms of humans that they don't work right until they get upgrades?You have already posted in this thread that not only would you have eaten the fruit, it would be wrong not to eat the fruit. you've had a few years to think about, yet you came to the same conclusion as Eve.I guess you are admitting that the thinking process that comes up with the conclusion to eat the fruit is immature as well as incorrect.So I ask you, why are you so sure about your position then?
Would you throw away the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil?RegardsDL
Again, knowing good and evil was not the benefit of eating from that tree, dieing was. Any moral sense you have comes from your inherent understanding of God's laws for your life, not because Eve listened to the serpent