if not evolution

[PredFan]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

Not “just appeared “ but created by God.

I'm not trying to be a jerk---but what actually happened?
a swirl of dust turned to man? man would've HAD to just appear--like a Star Trek energizer!! how else would be?
god did it with clay, piece by piece?
what is your idea/belief??

I’m not saying it’s my belief, I just knew the answer to your question.

so the answer is a man just appeared--created by god?
with blood, muscles, teeth, etc.
no matter how long it took---the man must've just ''appeared''...?

Yes.

 

[PredFan]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

Meh, you claim to know what God would and would not do.

 

[PredFan]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

That’s it folks! We have a winner! Thanks to all who played.

Uh, no we don't.

If God used evolution, then we don't need a God at all.

You all lose the argument.

Meh, because you say so? You don’t know shit.

 

[Hollie]

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose.

You know this how?

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

Evolution might “improve life” though it often does not. But only creation by god would be able to “perfect life.” And since living things are not perfect, if they are not the product of evolution then either one or more of the gods chose to create imperfect things, or they cannot create perfect things.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

Which verse leads you to state that the creation story is allegorical?

No single verse or even a single event but all events in genesis.

Your insistence that genesis is allegorical vs. literal is a discussion to be had between you and other Christians. Just bring a large cache of weapons and ammo for that discussion.

However, the events and timelines as described in the bibles are a mess whether you believe them to be literally true or not. Let's take a critical, objective, shall we?


Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):


Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[Commentary] God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.




Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way, and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God.

He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

 

[Hollie]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

Meh, you claim to know what God would and would not do.

Meh, religionists do also. I just want to hang out with the cool kids.

 

[Hollie]

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose.

You know this how?

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

Evolution might “improve life” though it often does not. But only creation by god would be able to “perfect life.” And since living things are not perfect, if they are not the product of evolution then either one or more of the gods chose to create imperfect things, or they cannot create perfect things.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

I’m not convinced you are the final arbiter of what is allegorical and what is not with regard to biblical Genesis.

I suggest the creation story is all an allegory. What is more important: A god who clearly delivers his message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or does he speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what his intent is? What a risk he puts his children at, if the latter is the case! What if you "glean wrong"? What if the point is this (using the Christian perspective in this case) – God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days and evolution is a heretical belief system that counters God's clear and unmuddled word that he alone is responsible for creation?

What if, since you've opened the door to allegory, the crucifixion and the resurrection are allegory as well? Offhand, I can really see the allegorical nature of the resurrection, that men die, go into the earth, but then live on-- this would explain for the gatherers and herders the idea of the cyclic nature of Nature, that we "live on" as part of God's greater creation. It's a nice allegory, isn't it?

I doubt any Christian theist would accept it as true, however.

There is no instrument sensitive enough on the face of the planet that could measure my lack of care for what you think.

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

 

[Hollie]

Either the gods are the creators of all or not. There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

There is only one Creator, Hollie. He doesn't care what you call Him. He has left us largely to our own devices. Choose wisely, but above all when you don't, don't rationalize you did.

How do you know there is only one creator?

Why would you think there were more than one?

Why do you think your gods are the only gods?

For starters, no other religion makes a claim of being a revealed religion and mine does.

I'm not going to go into a detailed list because we both know you'll just piss all over it in a very rude and disrespectful way and then I'll just have to inundate you with horrors associated with your religion, atheism. The militant variety.

Actually, Islam makes the claim of being the only “true revealed religion”.

Atheism is not a religion.

 

[ding]

You know this how?

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

Evolution might “improve life” though it often does not. But only creation by god would be able to “perfect life.” And since living things are not perfect, if they are not the product of evolution then either one or more of the gods chose to create imperfect things, or they cannot create perfect things.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

I’m not convinced you are the final arbiter of what is allegorical and what is not with regard to biblical Genesis.

I suggest the creation story is all an allegory. What is more important: A god who clearly delivers his message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or does he speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what his intent is? What a risk he puts his children at, if the latter is the case! What if you "glean wrong"? What if the point is this (using the Christian perspective in this case) – God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days and evolution is a heretical belief system that counters God's clear and unmuddled word that he alone is responsible for creation?

What if, since you've opened the door to allegory, the crucifixion and the resurrection are allegory as well? Offhand, I can really see the allegorical nature of the resurrection, that men die, go into the earth, but then live on-- this would explain for the gatherers and herders the idea of the cyclic nature of Nature, that we "live on" as part of God's greater creation. It's a nice allegory, isn't it?

I doubt any Christian theist would accept it as true, however.

There is no instrument sensitive enough on the face of the planet that could measure my lack of care for what you think.

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

That would be apathy, darling. There's a big difference.

 

[ding]

There is only one Creator, Hollie. He doesn't care what you call Him. He has left us largely to our own devices. Choose wisely, but above all when you don't, don't rationalize you did.

How do you know there is only one creator?

Why would you think there were more than one?

Why do you think your gods are the only gods?

For starters, no other religion makes a claim of being a revealed religion and mine does.

I'm not going to go into a detailed list because we both know you'll just piss all over it in a very rude and disrespectful way and then I'll just have to inundate you with horrors associated with your religion, atheism. The militant variety.

Actually, Islam makes the claim of being the only “true revealed religion”.

Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong in both counts.

 

[Hollie]

How do you know there is only one creator?

Why would you think there were more than one?

Why do you think your gods are the only gods?

For starters, no other religion makes a claim of being a revealed religion and mine does.

I'm not going to go into a detailed list because we both know you'll just piss all over it in a very rude and disrespectful way and then I'll just have to inundate you with horrors associated with your religion, atheism. The militant variety.

Actually, Islam makes the claim of being the only “true revealed religion”.

Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong in both counts.

Your pronouncements are rather lacking in credibility.

 

[ding]

You know this how?

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

Evolution might “improve life” though it often does not. But only creation by god would be able to “perfect life.” And since living things are not perfect, if they are not the product of evolution then either one or more of the gods chose to create imperfect things, or they cannot create perfect things.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

Which verse leads you to state that the creation story is allegorical?

No single verse or even a single event but all events in genesis.

Your insistence that genesis is allegorical vs. literal is a discussion to be had between you and other Christians. Just bring a large cache of weapons and ammo for that discussion.

However, the events and timelines as described in the bibles are a mess whether you believe them to be literally true or not. Let's take a critical, objective, shall we?


Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):


Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[Commentary] God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.




Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way, and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God.

He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

You can take that up with a Jew. I don't feel like repeating my self to a militant atheist.

 

[Hollie]

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

Evolution might “improve life” though it often does not. But only creation by god would be able to “perfect life.” And since living things are not perfect, if they are not the product of evolution then either one or more of the gods chose to create imperfect things, or they cannot create perfect things.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

I’m not convinced you are the final arbiter of what is allegorical and what is not with regard to biblical Genesis.

I suggest the creation story is all an allegory. What is more important: A god who clearly delivers his message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or does he speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what his intent is? What a risk he puts his children at, if the latter is the case! What if you "glean wrong"? What if the point is this (using the Christian perspective in this case) – God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days and evolution is a heretical belief system that counters God's clear and unmuddled word that he alone is responsible for creation?

What if, since you've opened the door to allegory, the crucifixion and the resurrection are allegory as well? Offhand, I can really see the allegorical nature of the resurrection, that men die, go into the earth, but then live on-- this would explain for the gatherers and herders the idea of the cyclic nature of Nature, that we "live on" as part of God's greater creation. It's a nice allegory, isn't it?

I doubt any Christian theist would accept it as true, however.

There is no instrument sensitive enough on the face of the planet that could measure my lack of care for what you think.

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

That would be apathy, darling. There's a big difference.

That’s fine, pumpkin. But really, your making arrogant, unsupported claims on a public discussion board should have suggested to you that others might disagree. Your snide remarks do nothing but make you appear unprepared for countering opinions. If you’re not prepared for chslkenges to your religious claims you might want to rethink participation on a discussion board.

 

[ding]

Why would you think there were more than one?

Why do you think your gods are the only gods?

For starters, no other religion makes a claim of being a revealed religion and mine does.

I'm not going to go into a detailed list because we both know you'll just piss all over it in a very rude and disrespectful way and then I'll just have to inundate you with horrors associated with your religion, atheism. The militant variety.

Actually, Islam makes the claim of being the only “true revealed religion”.

Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong in both counts.

Your pronouncements are rather lacking in credibility.

That's probably because you don't know what a revealed religion is and you don't want to face the reality that you are a militant atheist.

 

[ding]

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

I’m not convinced you are the final arbiter of what is allegorical and what is not with regard to biblical Genesis.

I suggest the creation story is all an allegory. What is more important: A god who clearly delivers his message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or does he speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what his intent is? What a risk he puts his children at, if the latter is the case! What if you "glean wrong"? What if the point is this (using the Christian perspective in this case) – God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days and evolution is a heretical belief system that counters God's clear and unmuddled word that he alone is responsible for creation?

What if, since you've opened the door to allegory, the crucifixion and the resurrection are allegory as well? Offhand, I can really see the allegorical nature of the resurrection, that men die, go into the earth, but then live on-- this would explain for the gatherers and herders the idea of the cyclic nature of Nature, that we "live on" as part of God's greater creation. It's a nice allegory, isn't it?

I doubt any Christian theist would accept it as true, however.

There is no instrument sensitive enough on the face of the planet that could measure my lack of care for what you think.

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

That would be apathy, darling. There's a big difference.

That’s fine, pumpkin. But really, your making arrogant, unsupported claims on a public discussion board should have suggested to you that others might disagree. Your snide remarks do nothing but make you appear unprepared for countering opinions. If you’re not prepared for chslkenges to your religious claims you might want to rethink participation on a discussion board.

My arguments have been made and were unchallenged. Want me to repeat them again.

 

[Hollie]

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

Evolution might “improve life” though it often does not. But only creation by god would be able to “perfect life.” And since living things are not perfect, if they are not the product of evolution then either one or more of the gods chose to create imperfect things, or they cannot create perfect things.

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

Which verse leads you to state that the creation story is allegorical?

No single verse or even a single event but all events in genesis.

Your insistence that genesis is allegorical vs. literal is a discussion to be had between you and other Christians. Just bring a large cache of weapons and ammo for that discussion.

However, the events and timelines as described in the bibles are a mess whether you believe them to be literally true or not. Let's take a critical, objective, shall we?


Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):


Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[Commentary] God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.




Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way, and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God.

He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

You can take that up with a Jew. I don't feel like repeating my self to a militant atheist.

When you post your comments on a public discussion board, you should assume that you have given others an opportunity to disagree. Your anger and frustration at those disagreements suggests you’re not really prepared to address those countering arguments.

Getting angry and emotive is a bit childish.

 

[Hollie]

Why do you think your gods are the only gods?

For starters, no other religion makes a claim of being a revealed religion and mine does.

I'm not going to go into a detailed list because we both know you'll just piss all over it in a very rude and disrespectful way and then I'll just have to inundate you with horrors associated with your religion, atheism. The militant variety.

Actually, Islam makes the claim of being the only “true revealed religion”.

Atheism is not a religion.

Wrong in both counts.

Your pronouncements are rather lacking in credibility.

That's probably because you don't know what a revealed religion is and you don't want to face the reality that you are a militant atheist.

Ah, a name-caller.

Lovely.

 

[Hollie]

I’m not convinced you are the final arbiter of what is allegorical and what is not with regard to biblical Genesis.

I suggest the creation story is all an allegory. What is more important: A god who clearly delivers his message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or does he speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what his intent is? What a risk he puts his children at, if the latter is the case! What if you "glean wrong"? What if the point is this (using the Christian perspective in this case) – God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days and evolution is a heretical belief system that counters God's clear and unmuddled word that he alone is responsible for creation?

What if, since you've opened the door to allegory, the crucifixion and the resurrection are allegory as well? Offhand, I can really see the allegorical nature of the resurrection, that men die, go into the earth, but then live on-- this would explain for the gatherers and herders the idea of the cyclic nature of Nature, that we "live on" as part of God's greater creation. It's a nice allegory, isn't it?

I doubt any Christian theist would accept it as true, however.

There is no instrument sensitive enough on the face of the planet that could measure my lack of care for what you think.

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

That would be apathy, darling. There's a big difference.

That’s fine, pumpkin. But really, your making arrogant, unsupported claims on a public discussion board should have suggested to you that others might disagree. Your snide remarks do nothing but make you appear unprepared for countering opinions. If you’re not prepared for chslkenges to your religious claims you might want to rethink participation on a discussion board.

My arguments have been made and were unchallenged. Want me to repeat them again.

Repeat them again. Then look back through the thread for challenges.

 

[PredFan]

The more I learn about evolution, the more I’m convinced it was the workings of God.

Beautiful, simple, unstoppable.

How does letting random adaptations work over billions of years equate to one or more gods?

Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

Less Disney and more Darwin generally provides a more realistic assessment of the objective state of nature.

Meh, you claim to know what God would and would not do.

Meh, religionists do also. I just want to hang out with the cool kids.

I don’t. You don’t hang out with me so you can’t be very cool.

 

[ding]

So you are taking an allegorical account of creation and extrapolating a claim of perfection. I already explained this to you.

As to what is necessary and what is not is debatable. I don't believe any of it was unnecessary because everything is connected and serves a purpose.

Which verse leads you to state that the creation story is allegorical?

No single verse or even a single event but all events in genesis.

Your insistence that genesis is allegorical vs. literal is a discussion to be had between you and other Christians. Just bring a large cache of weapons and ammo for that discussion.

However, the events and timelines as described in the bibles are a mess whether you believe them to be literally true or not. Let's take a critical, objective, shall we?


Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):


Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[Commentary] God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.




Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way, and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God.

He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

You can take that up with a Jew. I don't feel like repeating my self to a militant atheist.

When you post your comments on a public discussion board, you should assume that you have given others an opportunity to disagree. Your anger and frustration at those disagreements suggests you’re not really prepared to address those countering arguments.

Getting angry and emotive is a bit childish.

And you have had that opportunity.

 

[ding]

There is no instrument sensitive enough on the face of the planet that could measure my lack of care for what you think.

Why the need for vitriol and hate because I disagree with your beliefs?

That would be apathy, darling. There's a big difference.

That’s fine, pumpkin. But really, your making arrogant, unsupported claims on a public discussion board should have suggested to you that others might disagree. Your snide remarks do nothing but make you appear unprepared for countering opinions. If you’re not prepared for chslkenges to your religious claims you might want to rethink participation on a discussion board.

My arguments have been made and were unchallenged. Want me to repeat them again.

Repeat them again. Then look back through the thread for challenges.

I did. All I saw were challenges on allegory versus literal. Nothing challenged the central theme of my argument.