How can you not be christian?

[Soniere]

I bookmarked this thread to read it later, because it seems like it's going to be incredibly epic.

[Person012345]

He provided information which was not 100% accurate for the purpose of getting her to engage in actions which were damaging to her in a manner which can be nothing else but intentional on his part... there is a word for this called "disinformation", and it's a form of deceit.

But how is his "deception" more worthy of condemnation than Gods ?

Because God wasn't deceptive.

Yes he was. He misrepresented the effect of the fruit and neglected to mention its most important trait.

I see the problem, you don't know what "deceptive" means.

Sure I do. God behaved like Fox News.

For something to be deceptive it has to be made with the intent to cause damage.

no, it has to be intended to be false, and it was, since god is omniscient.

[Treznor]

^The Bible was written by people over a long an written in hundreds of different lanuages throughtout time. Also people translate what stands out most. To honest it is very arrogant for any human being to claim to know the nature of god, whether god exists or not, or almost anything about the spirital world or whether it exists or not.

Here we go. We're basing a belief system on a disparate series of beliefs and writings that first appeared around the second millennium BCE making claims about invisible, supernatural entities that spoke the Universe into existence. And the OP wonders how we can not be christian.

[The Alma Mater]

[
For something to be deceptive it has to be made with the intent to cause damage.

no, it has to be intended to be false, and it was, since god is omniscient.

No, misleading is enough.

Let us use an example:

You should not trust the governor of California. I have seen him fire machine guns at cops, attempt to murder an innocent woman, steal clothes and bikes, destroy property without a second thought and being possessed by Satan.

I have truly seen him do all that. Yet in this statement I am leaving some very important information out.
Note I am also NOT actually saying that what I saw is a reason to distrust him. Peoples minds will interpret it that way, but I am not actually saying it.

Deception without falsehoods. Awesome, innit ?

[Redwulf]

GODS MASTER PLAN

First I will create humans.
I will give them basic instincts and urges, and call them "sins", hereby condemning them all to sin.
Just in case they manage to avoid these urges, they all have something called "original sin" anyway, which they get just for existing.

Then, I shall send my human form, my son, to Earth.
I will then die on the cross as a sacrafice to myself, to save man from the sin I originally condemned him to!
TAH DAH!

You forgot steps three and 4.

Step 3: ?

Step 4: Profit.

[Gesford]

I suppose its too much to ask for a response to my arguments against theodicy and the aforementioned cosmological arguments for the existence of God?

[Farnhamia]

I suppose its too much to ask for a response to my arguments against theodicy and the aforementioned cosmological arguments for the existence of God?

If you're going to use that kind of language, we'll give you a response and you won't be able to sit for a week.

People ignore my sharply reasoned and acerbically witty posts all the time. You get used to it.

[Gesford]

I'll take that as a yes.

[Palaam]

"2. Ahura Mazda answered: The fair Yima, the good shepherd, O holy Zarathushtra! he was the first mortal, before thee, Zarathushtra, with whom I, Ahura Mazda, did converse, whom I taught the Religion of Ahura, the Religion of Zarathushtra.
3. Unto him, O Zarathushtra, I, Ahura Mazda, spake, saying: 'Well, fair Yima, son of Vivanghat, be thou the preacher and the bearer of my Religion!' And the fair Yima, O Zarathushtra, replied unto me, saying: 'I was not born, I was not taught to be the preacher and the bearer of thy Religion.'
4. Then I, Ahura Mazda, said thus unto him, O Zarathushtra: 'Since thou dost not consent to be the preacher and the bearer of my Religion, then make thou my world increase, make my world grow: consent thou to nourish, to rule, and to watch over my world.'
- Vendidad, the Fargard "Myth of Yima," Zoroastrian holy texts.

"(1) This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil).
(2) Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them;
(3) And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. (4) These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.
(5) As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
(6) Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom."
- the Quran, Sura al-Baqara.

"1 I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
The hotar, lavishest of wealth.
2 Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers.
He shall bring hitherward the Gods.
3 Through Agni man obtaineth wealth, yea, plenty waxing day by day,
Most rich in heroes, glorious.
4 Agni, the perfect sacrifice which thou encompassest about
Verily goeth to the Gods."
- Rigveda, Hymn to Agni.

Each religion says the other is false. Each religion claims to be the true path, the divinely inspired path, and only those who follow that path are "saved" or "correct." How can you choose between any religion? Why is one better than another? Composed by humans, practiced by humans... it's silly.

[Tekania]

Not entirely.

Yes, entirely... He told them they would not die... which is not true... because the result WAS THEIR DEATH.

No it wasn't, the result was a long life.

The result was death. Clearly stated as part of the resultant penalty

Most likely, had they gone on, god would have killed them before then anyway. God loves to kill.

Conjecture, dismissed.

Satan did not lie. He said that the penalty would not surely be death and it wasn't.

Yes he did. The penalty was death applied after the transgression.

The penalty was expulsion from the garden, hard to work land and painful child bearing.

and death.

[Tekania]

For something to be deceptive it has to be made with the intent to cause damage.

de·cep·tive
   /dɪˈsɛptɪv/ Show Spelled[dih-sep-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
apt or tending to deceive: The enemy's peaceful overtures may be deceptive.
2.
perceptually misleading: It looks like a curved line, but it's deceptive.


de·ceive
   /dɪˈsiv/ Show Spelled [dih-seev] Show IPA verb,-ceived, -ceiv·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude: They deceived the enemy by disguising the destroyer as a freighter.
2.
to be unfaithful to (one's spouse or lover).
3.
Archaic. to while away (time).
–verb (used without object)
4.
to mislead or falsely persuade others; practice deceit: an engaging manner that easily deceives.


Sorry, which dictionary are you using ?

mislead....

"transitive verb : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit" Merriam-Webster

[The Alma Mater]

Not entirely.

Yes, entirely... He told them they would not die... which is not true... because the result WAS THEIR DEATH.

No it wasn't, the result was a long life.

The result was death. Clearly stated as part of the resultant penalty

And quite acceptable considering the benefits God conveniently "forgot" to mention. Don't you agree ?

Most likely, had they gone on, god would have killed them before then anyway. God loves to kill.

Conjecture, dismissed.

Logical conjcture based on evidence though.

[Tekania]

Not entirely.

Yes, entirely... He told them they would not die... which is not true... because the result WAS THEIR DEATH.

No it wasn't, the result was a long life.

The result was death. Clearly stated as part of the resultant penalty

And quite acceptable considering the benefits God conveniently "forgot" to mention. Don't you agree ?

No, I do not agree.

Most likely, had they gone on, god would have killed them before then anyway. God loves to kill.

Conjecture, dismissed.

Logical conjcture based on evidence though.[/quote]

No, conjecture based upon false assumptions.

[Treznor]

Logical conjcture based on evidence though.

No, conjecture based upon false assumptions.

Wait. You're claiming false assumptions on the motives of a fictional character, or at least one whose existence is questionable at best. How is it that you are an authority on the evidence presented in Genesis?

[The Alma Mater]

Not entirely.

Yes, entirely... He told them they would not die... which is not true... because the result WAS THEIR DEATH.

No it wasn't, the result was a long life.

The result was death. Clearly stated as part of the resultant penalty

And quite acceptable considering the benefits God conveniently "forgot" to mention. Don't you agree ?

No, I do not agree.

You want to stay a child forever ?

Most likely, had they gone on, god would have killed them before then anyway. God loves to kill.

Conjecture, dismissed.

Logical conjcture based on evidence though.

No, conjecture based upon false assumptions.

God kills often.
The assumption that he likes it is the logical conjecture based on evidence.

[Bottle]

8/10. Successful troll has trolled very successfully.

[The Alma Mater]

8/10. Successful troll has trolled very successfully.

Stop spoiling our fun

[Tekania]

Logical conjcture based on evidence though.

No, conjecture based upon false assumptions.

Wait. You're claiming false assumptions on the motives of a fictional character

Better than claiming evidence on the motives of a fictional character. (ba-dum-dum)

, or at least one whose existence is questionable at best. How is it that you are an authority on the evidence presented in Genesis?

I wasn't attempting to define the likes and dislikes of said being. By any such conjecture on his part, one must assume he thinks parents enjoy punishing children. Certainly we see parents punish children, so such is evidence they enjoy it. No it's conjecture, they may or may not, one would need to look elsewhere to delve into a WHY in order to define lies and dislikes in association with the being.

[Tekania]

God kills often.
The assumption that he likes it is the logical conjecture based on evidence.

Because something is done "often" (note "often" is a relative word) this is evidence said being "likes" it? Often times parents need to punish children, does this mean parents enjoy punishing children?

[Treznor]

Logical conjcture based on evidence though.

No, conjecture based upon false assumptions.

Wait. You're claiming false assumptions on the motives of a fictional character

Better than claiming evidence on the motives of a fictional character. (ba-dum-dum)

The only evidence we have is what was recorded. Based on that rather flimsy evidence, a case has been made that God wasn't exactly dealing straight with humanity from the beginning, and the snake "tricked" humanity into discovering the truth.

Why does this remind me of a discussion of "Star Wars vs Star Trek"?

, or at least one whose existence is questionable at best. How is it that you are an authority on the evidence presented in Genesis?

I wasn't attempting to define the likes and dislikes of said being. By any such conjecture on his part, one must assume he thinks parents enjoy punishing children. Certainly we see parents punish children, so such is evidence they enjoy it. No it's conjecture, they may or may not, one would need to look elsewhere to delve into a WHY in order to define lies and dislikes in association with the being.

No, you're arguing as though you're an authority on the motives and validity of the actors in question in this fiction. There's room for all sorts of conjecture, and none of it is invalid since the actors in question aren't available to submit to questioning and the scene where it took place has mysteriously disappeared from the face of the Earth.

[Resolute Prime]

Lets face it: both god and the serpent were both morally ambiguous, There was no black and white. God said they would die if they ate the fruit(a half-truth). The serpent said that they would not die. What he did not say (nor did god, for that matter) was that they would not die immediately. Additionally, Unlike the snake, God did not say that there are (arguable) benefits to eating the fruits, benefits that the serpent (truthfully) pointed out. However, both are with holding vital information, and this with the addition of the "forbidden" tree of knowledge being the worlds first and possibly the best (in scripture, anyways) schmuck bait, plus the fact that, due to gods will, Eve was as naive as a new born baby, meant that eating the fruit was pretty much guaranteed.

In short; They both made some half-truths there. The serpent was guilty of causing the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden while God who is, btw omniscient, did not stop them from eating the fruit. (I do have to wonder what on earth God is doing when all of this is going down, playing Spore?)

^^
regarding above... Is it possible this is some elaborate and convoluted plan so complex that its goals are still unknown to us? (or perhaps, it is done for da shit and giggles?)

[Tekania]

Logical conjcture based on evidence though.

No, conjecture based upon false assumptions.

Wait. You're claiming false assumptions on the motives of a fictional character

Better than claiming evidence on the motives of a fictional character. (ba-dum-dum)

The only evidence we have is what was recorded. Based on that rather flimsy evidence, a case has been made that God wasn't exactly dealing straight with humanity from the beginning, and the snake "tricked" humanity into discovering the truth.

Why does this remind me of a discussion of "Star Wars vs Star Trek"?

, or at least one whose existence is questionable at best. How is it that you are an authority on the evidence presented in Genesis?

I wasn't attempting to define the likes and dislikes of said being. By any such conjecture on his part, one must assume he thinks parents enjoy punishing children. Certainly we see parents punish children, so such is evidence they enjoy it. No it's conjecture, they may or may not, one would need to look elsewhere to delve into a WHY in order to define lies and dislikes in association with the being.

No, you're arguing as though you're an authority on the motives and validity of the actors in question in this fiction. There's room for all sorts of conjecture, and none of it is invalid since the actors in question aren't available to submit to questioning and the scene where it took place has mysteriously disappeared from the face of the Earth.

I'd argue God did deal straight with them...

I'm not attempting to define the motives HE is. Which is why I assigned it as conjecture and dismissed it rather than delve into the issue of motives. Merely the fact that someone does something, does not mean they automatically enjoy doing it.... I could equally argue that God doesn't enjoy killing... I could argue that God does like killing, but only in the context of a particular killing and its purpose.

Motive does not alter the textual fact that because Adam and Eve ate of the tree God warned they would cause their death, they received a belated death sentence, which is true as to God's warning; nor does it change the fact that the serpent told Eve that in eating of the tree surely would not bring her death; which it did bring, and thus was a lie.

[Tekania]

regarding above... Is it possible this is some elaborate and convoluted plan so complex that its goals are still unknown to us? (or perhaps, it is done for da shit and giggles?)

Sure, why not. We'd have to accept that any plan of such a being would be far beyond our ability to completely understand. The is generally the soterological belief of Calvinists. That (1) everything works out based upon a predetermined plan and path established by God.... and that (2) this plan and path is so complicated its impossible to fully understand every nuance, so it's generally treated practically like there is no plan.

[Treznor]

I'd argue God did deal straight with them...

Yes, you have been arguing that. And in doing so, you've been arguing that you know what God's motives were, or at least weren't when he set the rules as he did.

I'm not attempting to define the motives HE is. Which is why I assigned it as conjecture and dismissed it rather than delve into the issue of motives. Merely the fact that someone does something, does not mean they automatically enjoy doing it.... I could equally argue that God doesn't enjoy killing... I could argue that God does like killing, but only in the context of a particular killing and its purpose.

See above. In order to refute his arguments of God's motives, you have to engage in the same conjecture to say those weren't his motives. Yes, he goes a little overboard in making the claim that God loves killing (although he makes a good point with regard to the frequency with which God kills), but you're insisting that God's motives are far more benign.

Motive does not alter the textual fact that because Adam and Eve ate of the tree God warned they would cause their death, they received a belated death sentence, which is true as to God's warning; nor does it change the fact that the serpent told Eve that in eating of the tree surely would not bring her death; which it did bring, and thus was a lie.

True, God told Adam and Eve that eating the fruit would make them die. The context, as provided to us, implies a rather immediate result which did not happen. In fact, it wasn't until God took a stroll in the garden later that day and noticed that they'd clothed themselves that the consequences were enforced. So God makes good on a threat he made, but there's so much gray area in terms of what he promised and what the snake told them that neither of them comes out as the clear villain. The story is obviously intended to demonstrate the duplicity of the snake and the consequences of exercising free will in defiance of God's Will, but when you look at it without the religious filter it's clear that God acts like an asshole.

[Tekania]

I'd argue God did deal straight with them...

Yes, you have been arguing that. And in doing so, you've been arguing that you know what God's motives were, or at least weren't when he set the rules as he did.

Whoa... I haven't assumed a motive on God's part. I've merely pointed out that it in the context it is meaningless. If someone sets a rule, and sets a penalty for the rule, it matters not if the penalty is applied the moment of the infraction or 20,000,000 years after the infraction. The penalty was applied after the breaking of the rule.

I'm not attempting to define the motives HE is. Which is why I assigned it as conjecture and dismissed it rather than delve into the issue of motives. Merely the fact that someone does something, does not mean they automatically enjoy doing it.... I could equally argue that God doesn't enjoy killing... I could argue that God does like killing, but only in the context of a particular killing and its purpose.

See above. In order to refute his arguments of God's motives, you have to engage in the same conjecture to say those weren't his motives. Yes, he goes a little overboard in making the claim that God loves killing (although he makes a good point with regard to the frequency with which God kills), but you're insisting that God's motives are far more benign.

My intention was never to "refute" his conjecture, it was a dismissal of his conjecture as conjecture because it's based upon extra-biblical personal opinions. As such, none of it can be worth anything outside the biblical context of the story. Since he can simply apply them as needs to refute any other conjectures in opposition and opposition could imply personal extra-biblical opinions in their opposing conjectures... Moving into such extra-biblical applications makes arguing the points of the biblical story pointless.

Motive does not alter the textual fact that because Adam and Eve ate of the tree God warned they would cause their death, they received a belated death sentence, which is true as to God's warning; nor does it change the fact that the serpent told Eve that in eating of the tree surely would not bring her death; which it did bring, and thus was a lie.

True, God told Adam and Eve that eating the fruit would make them die. The context, as provided to us, implies a rather immediate result which did not happen. In fact, it wasn't until God took a stroll in the garden later that day and noticed that they'd clothed themselves that the consequences were enforced. So God makes good on a threat he made, but there's so much gray area in terms of what he promised and what the snake told them that neither of them comes out as the clear villain. The story is obviously intended to demonstrate the duplicity of the snake and the consequences of exercising free will in defiance of God's Will, but when you look at it without the religious filter it's clear that God acts like an asshole.

It's not implied, it's assumed on your part. God fulfilled his promise, nothing "gray" about it. On the flip side, the snake lied, because everything the snake told them, didn't happen; they didn't become like gods, and they did suffer death. You have good concept of the religious meaning in purpose of the story. Your last part is stricken.