Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[waterfowl]

please read what i posted up, then tell me if you still believe the story of adam and eve.

Yes of course I still believe it. That 'article' is a load of crap that just tries to poke holes in the story but doesn't. Especially about nakedness being immoral...nakedness isn't immoral, it was because they were embarrased an emotion they wouldn't have felt without eating the fruit...it had nothing to do with it being sinful.
And the comparison with a little kid and a bleach bottle...if you tell a little kid don't drink this or you'll die, they know what you mean. Eve knew perfectly well what she was doing, and she knew what the consequences were.

 

[Sophie777]

It was an apple. If it wasn't just an apple and it was metaphorical then the bible is false as it is circulating information that all do not understand. Young children think it is just an apple. If it was just an apple... I would have eaten it. Why didn't he say 'don't swim in the lake' or something. Anyway.. gorillas probably love apples.

 

[waterfowl]

It was an apple. If it wasn't just an apple and it was metaphorical then the bible is false as it is circulating information that all do not understand. Young children think it is just an apple. If it was just an apple... I would have eaten it. Why didn't he say 'don't swim in the lake' or something. Anyway.. gorillas probably love apples.

'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden'
It never says that it was an apple...that is just something that got attached to the story in modern times. People obviously wanted to depict it as an apple for some reason, and it stuck.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Lol.

I'm surprised none of you asked why God placed any sort of temptation there in the first place. He placed an opportunity for humans to disobey him. Why???

I'm not trying to offend. Better not respond to me post then it was something I always ask anyway

 

[Sophie777]

Because he was bored.

 

[Sophie777]

It is manipulative. Why purposefully test human beings by telling them something is forbidden. If not for this single sin, in theory wouldn't the world be without sin. And, really Eve would have disobeyed orders of Gods in any instance and he created her and is then responsible for her sinfulness. If not for the temptation, the sin wouldn't exist.

 

[Kleaver]

Because the bible is fictional.

Why did the wolf dress up in womens clothing in Little Red Riding Hood? Who the fuck cares, it's NOT TRUE!

 

[Sophie777]

Yes the only use of any of these fairy tales are for 'the moral of the stories'
There is no doubt that the bible has morals to be seen in its stories but this is, in my opinion, its only purpose.

 

[waterfowl]

Why does a mother bake a chocolate cake, put it on the table and tell her little boy that he can't eat it? Is she trying to torture him? No!
Perhaps God had to put it there to keep balance or something. And anyway if there is ever temptation God offers a way out. In Adam and Eve's case they could have eaten from any of the other no doubt thousands of trees!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

LMFAO! hahahhaha
I've pointed this out 100 times before ur_inner_child.. i pointed out the hypocricy of knowing everything, putting a tree there which you don't want them to eat from (although you know they will), threatening them with death (although they don't even KNOW WHAT DEATH IS)...
Then the tree of imortality got puts a guard in front of it, WOW WHY NOT PUT A GUARD ON THE BAD ONE YOU DUMB OMNISCIENT GOD?!

For someone who's omniscient he's INCREDIBLY dumb.

 

[rapier]

It isn't humanly possible to have 56 children. Which means the bible is false in this section. Which means the entire book is void.

A somewhat naive approach to uncovering truths. I am not a fan of the bible, but it does contain historical truths which cannot be refuted. It does NOT however, prove the existence of a god in any way - but nor does it disprove it.

I may also remind you that "God" is not a Christian or for that matter semitic invention. The Bible constitutes a fraction of religious literature and does not relate to more than one tradition in each of its various incarnations.

The comment about lack of proof therefore a default to the negative argument is also somewhat dubious. Neither side is able to produce conclusive evidence; if it were so then this conversation would be void. The fact is, that a conclusion by default is an easy way out of a difficult subject and not a valid way to push your argument.

EDIT: Noone has jumped on me yet, but I must add that the Christian Bible does contain much which I would consider to be utter fallacy, and undoubtedly you could give me 100 reasons why this is so - just saving you the trouble

 

[bexta]

Another point i'd like to state out is that people wanted to wash jesus's feet.

People have done some pretty crazy shit over the past 2000 years. Like climbing 43 story buldings in france to using the INTARWEB! but washing feet?
WTF!
Bad enough to wash someone's feet if they are clean. But back in jesus time, they had like leather thongs they wore for years at a time walking everywhere.

Not only did people wash his feet, but they kissed his feet too then wiped in in expencive wine.
Imagine jesus' feet. He walks everywhere in like 40 degree heat on rocks and shit wearing chafing leather thongs.
I'd rather drink the wine that use it on his blistered sweaty feet.
What a crock of shit.

This is another aspect that makes the bible void.



:EDIT:

btw rapier is gay

 

[Kleaver]

A somewhat naive approach to uncovering truths. I am not a fan of the bible, but it does contain historical truths which cannot be refuted. It does NOT however, prove the existence of a god in any way - but nor does it disprove it.

I may also remind you that "God" is not a Christian or for that matter semitic invention. The Bible constitutes a fraction of religious literature and does not relate to more than one tradition in each of its various incarnations.

The comment about lack of proof therefore a default to the negative argument is also somewhat dubious. Neither side is able to produce conclusive evidence; if it were so then this conversation would be void. The fact is, that a conclusion by default is an easy way out of a difficult subject and not a valid way to push your argument.

In a few years when you come knocking on my door to preach shit about jeezuz and god and whoever else, expect the door to be slammed in your face

 

[rapier]

In a few years when you come knocking on my door to preach shit about jeezuz and god and whoever else, expect the door to be slammed in your face

I'd be more than happy to accomodate you if you'd point out anywhere in the quote where I support the religious side of this argument.

I won't be knocking on your door because I don't have a religious affiliation. Try again

 

[Kleaver]

I'd be more than happy to accomodate you if you'd point out anywhere in the quote where I support the religious side of this argument.

I won't be knocking on your door because I don't have a religious affiliation. Try again

I think you're forgetting that I'm like your BESTEST BUDDY in real life. I know these things without you having to say them.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What would you consider conclusive proof? to me i think i've provided enough proof... and even justified how common religious beliefs could come to pass, and how they're most probably wrong....

I think a guy called jesus existed (apparently he might have lived near a place where they commonly talked about philosophy... it was on a story called the real jesus that my school (christian) showed us... however they told us some bits are lies.) however i also think crazy bob who managed to get 1000 people to kill themselves did pretty much the same thing... just his beliefs didn't replicate themselves as much as jesus, and mohammed... (there's alot of speculation as to wether he ripped off christianity... but anyway).

 

[rapier]

I think you're forgetting that I'm like your BESTEST BUDDY in real life. I know these things without you having to say them.

I never knew you were psychic :-D

EDIT: Not-That-Bright, discrediting religion is one thing. Discrediting the existence of god is completely another. My argument is that noone can push either point conclusively.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

umm ok so what you're saying is perhaps all the religions are wrong, but there is a god out there that is allowing everything to take its natural course?

 

[bexta]

I love jesus. I swear to god uleh.

 

[Kleaver]

umm ok so what you're saying is perhaps all the religions are wrong, but there is a god out there that is allowing everything to take its natural course?

No, you tit. Things just happen because they do. You weak minded crotch sniffers can't accept this though so you have to create some kind of fictional character, name him 'dog' backwards and then make some bullshit story about a hippy with holes in his hands.

Nice job fucktards.