Jump to content

Why would god............


Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Further to Adam 'Tending' the Garden of Eden

Genesis 2:15

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

Why would Adam have been expected to till the garden if it was originally created perfect?

Your argument has already been addressed:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=62403

On what basis do you judge the garden imperfect merely because it will look and function differently if tended?

One of a Adam's punishments for eating the fruit, was that he would have to toil to get his food. It seems to me that he already was expected to have to toil and till, prior to eating the magic apple.

Correct--and you'll probably want us to ignore the matter of degree, won't you?

Genesis 3:17...

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,

and have eaten of the tree..

cursed is the ground because of you;

in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life...

In the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread

till you return to the ground..

What a silly hodgepodge of contradictory nonsense this story is!

It appears that you assume that all toil is equal.

Are you an idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strife consistently strings together cogent arguments based on evidence.

It's worth noting that LaClair offers no evidence in support of his argument that Strife consistently strings together cogent arguments based on evidence.

Strife is an idiot, as evidenced by his arguments:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=53400

...communism isn't a religion (and "communist" isn't supposed to be capitalized).

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...highlite=streak

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=11718

"Like I said, I don't like delving into legal stuff. However, I'd say that the only way for that teacher to be innocent is if there is no separation of church and state at all. And obviously, that's not the case."

"It takes no faith to 'not believe,' nor does it take any faith to believe in an absence of something in the face of zero evidence showing a presence of the same thing."

"You are once again asking for the logically fallacious "proof of a negative."

"Now, tell me in no uncertain terms what the difference is between "belief without evidence" and "trusting in the truth of...without absolute proof." rolleyes.gif You've got to be kidding me, man. That is not equivocation--that's paraphrasing at best. Same meaning, different words."

Strife, about as often as not, puts something outlandishly stupid in his posts.

I don't see an inclination toward making things up on the fly or believing things just because Strife wants them to be true, which is pretty much all I see from you.

... like when Strife bought those obviously bogus quotations from the Jonathan Miller series on atheism?

Sometimes Strife goes into attack mode, but unlike yourself, stays grounded in evidence and reason.

... said Paul LaClair while in attack mode, having abandoned evidence and reason.

So for me it isn't a matter of what I may think of Strife personally. What's relevant on this board is the quality of Strife's arguments, which stand so far above yours that I'm almost ashamed of myself even getting involved in this exchange.

Strife doesn't compare favorably with anybody on this board, unless you count the sheer volume of his posts in his favor.

I do think people take Strife seriously. Thinking people do.

On the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me for not being an expert on the bible, which is the greatest fairy tale of them all.

The dogma of the immaculate conception is non-biblical. It was later theologians who decided that sexual desire (conscupiscence) is sinful. That's how "adam's sin" or original sin is passed on. They figured that Mary had to be a pure vessel, so she could not have been concieved in sin, so they developed the doctrine of the IC. It was not made dogma (something roman catholics had to believe) until the middle of the 19th century. This was later "confirmed" a little French girl who saw the BVM in a garbage dump. It is celebrated on Dec 8. This dogma is related to the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. Since she was without sin, according to the pope, her body did not corrupt after her death. It went directly to heaven, skipping the worms and bugs. As a kid I thought the Feast of the Assumption came about when theologians asked where she was and the answer was "I assume she's in heaven." That is not the case. This was made dogma in the middle of the 20th century. It is celebrated on Aug 15. Protestants and Orthodox, in general, do not believe the two dogmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Strife consistently strings together cogent arguments based on evidence. I don't see an inclination toward making things up on the fly or believing things just because Strife wants them to be true, which is pretty much all I see from you. Sometimes Strife goes into attack mode, but unlike yourself, stays grounded in evidence and reason.

So for me it isn't a matter of what I may think of Strife personally. What's relevant on this board is the quality of Strife's arguments, which stand so far above yours that I'm almost ashamed of myself even getting involved in this exchange.

I do think people take Strife seriously. Thinking people do.

They do not take you seriously. I'm quite serious about that. It's because of how you let your opinions run the show, instead of forming your opinions around evidence and reason. I don't know you, but I also get the sense from your respective writings that Strife is smarter than you are. You really should think about changing your KOTW moniker and starting over.

I'm crushed. One bloviating left-wing nut case thinks another bloviating left-wing nut case is smarter than me. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
The dogma of the immaculate conception is non-biblical.  It was later theologians who decided that sexual desire (conscupiscence) is sinful.  That's how "adam's sin" or original sin is passed on.  They figured that Mary had to be a pure vessel, so she could not have been concieved in sin, so they developed the doctrine of the IC.  It was not made dogma (something roman catholics had to believe) until the middle of the 19th century.  This was later "confirmed" a little French girl who saw the BVM in a garbage dump. It is celebrated on Dec 8.  This dogma is related to the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.  Since she was without sin, according to the pope, her body did not corrupt after her death.  It went directly to heaven, skipping the worms and bugs.  As a kid I thought the Feast of the Assumption came about when theologians asked where she was and the answer was "I assume she's in heaven."  That is not the case.  This was made dogma in the middle of the 20th century.  It is celebrated on Aug 15.  Protestants and Orthodox, in general, do not believe the two dogmas.

No one asked for your long-winded and boring dissertation. BTW, conscupiscience ?? Give me a break, sexual desire would have sufficed, moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Chill out guys.

I dare say that most protestant Christians if asked, would assume that the 'immaculate conception' referred to Jesus.

Technically, Jesus DID have an immaculate conception. It's just that according to Catholic doctrine, his was the second one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm crushed. One bloviating left-wing nut case thinks another bloviating left-wing nut case is smarter than me. Oh well.

It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your primitive concept of argument and infantile manner of presentation. And the correct form is "smarter than I."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one asked for your long-winded and boring dissertation.  BTW, conscupiscience ??  Give me a break, sexual desire would have sufficed, moron.

Most posts are entirely voluntarily. No one requests you to post here at all (he said somewhat testily).

I appreciated billydee's explanation, do not consider a ten-sentence-or-so explanation (I didn't count) to be overly long, and didn't find it boring. The explanation moved forward, each phrase and each sentence serving a substantive purpose. As Mozart is reported to have said, "there are as many notes as are required."

What says something is the fact that a paragraph that length is in itself 2long4u. When is the last time you read a book on science or any other technical matter, if ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chill out guys.

I dare say that most protestant Christians if asked, would assume that the 'immaculate conception' referred to Jesus.

Technically, Jesus DID have an immaculate conception. It's just that according to Catholic doctrine, his was the second one.

Is it really a conception, or more of an implantation? It's interesting that they had no idea at the time that the woman contributed anything to the product of conception. They knew she nourished and carried the child, but were unaware that she contributed an egg. That is why the Bible often describes conception of a child as the man "planting his seed." Talk about giving new meaning (or more accurately, restoring old meaning) to treating women like dirt.

For me, the point here is that they were wrestling with things they didn't understand and made stuff up to fill in the rather large gaps. The "immaculate conception" could just as easily be called the "necessary exception." (Necessary, that is, to make the corners of the theological rug fit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chill out guys.

I dare say that most protestant Christians if asked, would assume that the 'immaculate conception' referred to Jesus.

Technically, Jesus DID have an immaculate conception. It's just that according to Catholic doctrine, his was the second one.

You're half right if we grant you the benefit of the doubt.

The immaculate conception doesn't just refer to Mary's being born without original sin. It refers to a specific intervention that caused Mary to be born minus original sin. One who accepts the doctrine of IC in the case of Mary has no need to expect a similar intervention at the birth of Jesus. The latter follows as a matter of course (if one assumes that Mary committed no sin that would give her "secondary sin" corresponding to that of Adam--but if that were the case there would be no reason for the doctrine in the first place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingoDave

Strife worte:

Reminds me of this:

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry

Christopher Hitchens has recently been quoting a similar phrase, which goes something like,

'Christians describe a God who creates us sick, and then commands us to be well'; or something like that.

Of course that's what the story in Genesis is supposed to explain.

It might make sense to six year old, but it sounds like a load of bollocks to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Chill out guys.

I dare say that most protestant Christians if asked, would assume that the 'immaculate conception' referred to Jesus.

Technically, Jesus DID have an immaculate conception. It's just that according to Catholic doctrine, his was the second one.

Then their assumption would be wrong. Which is why Jesus chose to be baptized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Really?

"34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." --Luke 1:34-35 (emphasis added)

It appears you should be asking yourself, not me, unless you can show me where in the Bible it says that Joseph impregnated Mary. Chapter and verse, please.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's funny to see that you don't have the ability to admit when you're wrong. You're as stubborn and block headed as any fundie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Given your propensity for willful ignorance, I’d say the new rock I just bought is smarter than you are.

You bought a new rock? I'm curious, did you buy it in the rock dept. in WalMart ?

Personally, I prefer the selection in K-Mart better. I also think the K-Mart rocks make better pets. I'd really like to hear more about your new rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Is it really a conception, or more of an implantation? It's interesting that they had no idea at the time that the woman contributed anything to the product of conception. They knew she nourished and carried the child, but were unaware that she contributed an egg. That is why the Bible often describes conception of a child as the man "planting his seed." Talk about giving new meaning (or more accurately, restoring old meaning) to treating women like dirt.

For me, the point here is that they were wrestling with things they didn't understand and made stuff up to fill in the rather large gaps. The "immaculate conception" could just as easily be called the "necessary exception." (Necessary, that is, to make the corners of the theological rug fit.)

You too Paulie? I'm a bit surprised that you are that ignorant of the event that the immaculate conception refers to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're half right if we grant you the benefit of the doubt.

The immaculate conception doesn't just refer to Mary's being born without original sin.  It refers to a specific intervention that caused Mary to be born minus original sin.  One who accepts the doctrine of IC in the case of Mary has no need to expect a similar intervention at the birth of Jesus.  The latter follows as a matter of course (if one assumes that Mary committed no sin that would give her "secondary sin" corresponding to that of Adam--but if that were the case there would be no reason for the doctrine in the first place).

If God could make an exception for Mary's child, why couldn't he make one for the rest of us? All this doctrine proves is that God could have eliminated original sin if he had wanted to do it. Why wouldn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then their assumption would be wrong.  Which is why Jesus chose to be baptized.

Jesus "chose to be baptized" because it makes for a better story. Christianity is mainly about the narrative. Tell a good story and people will believe it. Makes no never mind whether it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really a conception, or more of an implantation? It's interesting that they had no idea at the time that the woman contributed anything to the product of conception. They knew she nourished and carried the child, but were unaware that she contributed an egg. That is why the Bible often describes conception of a child as the man "planting his seed." Talk about giving new meaning (or more accurately, restoring old meaning) to treating women like dirt.

Seems like Paul can barely resist the fallacy of equivocation. It calls, he answers.

For me, the point here is that they were wrestling with things they didn't understand and made stuff up to fill in the rather large gaps. The "immaculate conception" could just as easily be called the "necessary exception." (Necessary, that is, to make the corners of the theological rug fit.)

It's about as necessary as proposing that a first cause requires a cause in turn.

It is kind of Paul to remind us of his ineptitude from time to time. May he never retire from KOTW.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ad hominem. Care to actually address my post (dismissing it out of hand doesn't count), or are personal insults really all you can muster?

:lol:

He probably considers it too obvious to require an explanation.

What stopped you from looking up "immaculate conception" at Wikipedia, Strife?

Just a little bit of an investment in research could save you from embarrassment (if don't misread the information such as you have done in the past).

"Strife consistently strings together cogent arguments based on evidence."

... such as assuming that the immaculate conception refers to Jesus' birth. Right, Paul?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...