if not evolution

[ding]

Every single communist state was a militant atheistic state and is the antithesis of a virtuous state.

Failed behaviors lead to failure QED.

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

Because I believe that militant atheists are devoid of virtue?

 

[Hollie]

Every single communist state was a militant atheistic state and is the antithesis of a virtuous state.

Failed behaviors lead to failure QED.

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

Because I believe that militant atheists are devoid of virtue?

You believe many nonsensical things. Its what you do.

 

[ding]

Every single communist state was a militant atheistic state and is the antithesis of a virtuous state.

Failed behaviors lead to failure QED.

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

Because I believe that militant atheists are devoid of virtue?

You believe many nonsensical things. Its what you do.

You mean like communism is naturalized humanism?

 

[Hollie]

Every single communist state was a militant atheistic state and is the antithesis of a virtuous state.

Failed behaviors lead to failure QED.

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

Because I believe that militant atheists are devoid of virtue?

You believe many nonsensical things. Its what you do.

You mean like communism is naturalized humanism?

You mean like you're befuddled?

 

[ding]

Every single communist state was a militant atheistic state and is the antithesis of a virtuous state.

Failed behaviors lead to failure QED.

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

Because I believe that militant atheists are devoid of virtue?

You believe many nonsensical things. Its what you do.

You mean like communism is naturalized humanism?

You mean like you're befuddled?

Karl Marx said it. What else do you agree with Karl about? Do you believe that organized religion is a scam?

 

[Hollie]

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?

Because I believe that militant atheists are devoid of virtue?

You believe many nonsensical things. Its what you do.

You mean like communism is naturalized humanism?

You mean like you're befuddled?

Karl Marx said it. What else do you agree with Karl about? Do you believe that organized religion is a scam?

What else are you confused about?

 

[ding]

Because I believe that militant atheists are devoid of virtue?

You believe many nonsensical things. Its what you do.

You mean like communism is naturalized humanism?

You mean like you're befuddled?

Karl Marx said it. What else do you agree with Karl about? Do you believe that organized religion is a scam?

What else are you confused about?

I didn't think you would answer the question.

 

[Hollie]

You believe many nonsensical things. Its what you do.

You mean like communism is naturalized humanism?

You mean like you're befuddled?

Karl Marx said it. What else do you agree with Karl about? Do you believe that organized religion is a scam?

What else are you confused about?

I didn't think you would answer the question.

I knew you didn't have a serious question.

 

[ding]

You mean like communism is naturalized humanism?

You mean like you're befuddled?

Karl Marx said it. What else do you agree with Karl about? Do you believe that organized religion is a scam?

What else are you confused about?

I didn't think you would answer the question.

I knew you didn't have a serious question.

Do you believe that organized religion is a scam? Yes or no?

 

[Hollie]

You mean like you're befuddled?

Karl Marx said it. What else do you agree with Karl about? Do you believe that organized religion is a scam?

What else are you confused about?

I didn't think you would answer the question.

I knew you didn't have a serious question.

Do you believe that organized religion is a scam? Yes or no?

Do you understand you're befuddled? Yes or No?

 

[ding]

Karl Marx said it. What else do you agree with Karl about? Do you believe that organized religion is a scam?

What else are you confused about?

I didn't think you would answer the question.

I knew you didn't have a serious question.

Do you believe that organized religion is a scam? Yes or no?

Do you understand you're befuddled? Yes or No?

I'm not befuddled at all.

Do you believe that organized religion is a scam? Yes or no?

 

[Hollie]

What else are you confused about?

I didn't think you would answer the question.

I knew you didn't have a serious question.

Do you believe that organized religion is a scam? Yes or no?

Do you understand you're befuddled? Yes or No?

I'm not befuddled at all.

Do you believe that organized religion is a scam? Yes or no?

You're befuddled. Do you understand that? Yes or no?

 

[ding]

You mad?

 

[Hollie]

You mad?

You befuddled?

 

[ding]

 

[Hollie]

Your most insightful comment to date.

 

[Hollie]

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.

The serpent didn't lie.

Talking serpents aside, no, the serpent didn’t lie. "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die".

A&E didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic.

All this fuss over fruit theft.

For on that day you shall surely die.
All that means is that before the trespass they were immortal.
After the trespass they would surely face die eventually.
Every takes that verse the wrong way.

You may scoff, but if someone gave you something of enormous value and told you there's one thing you can't do with it, I'm sure you'd comply.

I don’t necessarily agree with that interpretation. It simply means that once again, we’re left to question why a god of love and mercy would condemn his children, and their children, and their children, etc. for an act by A&E when they had no knowledge of good or evil.

"why a god of love and mercy would condemn"
You just answered your own question...
There is a Talmudic dictum that a good promise God always happens, a punishment...not so much if you fess up.
God tells Adam and Eve they will surely die if they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil.
They eat...and God does not cause them to die on that very day.
Is God not merciful?

Is god not merciful? Well, no.

The problem with all of this is that given the story, man did not commit the first sin-- Lucifer did, and thus became Satan. Everyone prefers to forget that before man was created, there had to be a conflict that allowed Lucifer to become the tempter in the test God offers to his unenlightened creations, Adam and Eve. Clearly, God has created evil, and allowed it to flourish even before Man is created. The issue of "less than perfection" has already been completely established and is extant in the universe before Man is culled from dust.

Ever notice that in the Genesis story Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions (we don't get the "Oh, yeah, by the way, there is a Hell, Okaay?" information until waaay too late)? Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?

Simply remember the foundations of the Theism--The curse of all humanity for the actions of the "first" man and woman to use their free will to gain knowledge-- The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

If I were "infinitely merciful" there would be no act that could possibly circumvent my infinite mercy. The comparisons to humans don’t ever work, even as an illustration, because theists insist on a perfect and ultimate and unlimited god. Infinite love and mercy should be what it is-- infinite love and mercy. Eternal damnation is a contradiction to those attributes, and there is no way to reconcile a god who establishes amorality as morality

God creates Man, the result of everything is already set in place. God knows Man must fail, as he has created Satan already to allow Man to fail, and in fact decides to give Satan-- whom God knows is evil prideful rebellion incarnate-- to have power of such magnitude that it will become a war of good versus evil in the "last days" -- when in fact God should be able to eradicate Satan and evil and hell and damnation --with a metaphorical blink of an eye. He just doesn't do it.

 

[ding]

tl/dr

 

[Hollie]

tl/dr

It's beyond your level of comprehension.

 

[ding]

Karl? Is that you?