How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[dybmh]

If you can't be honest then there is no point having a discussion with you.

She is being honest. Your inability to recognize it is on you. But, the truth is you can identify it, this is just an faux-atheist debate tactic lacking all substance.

When are you going to produce a single substantive post from the primitve-AI-style content that are produced by @Audie screen-name?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For those of you who don't take the story of the Fall literally. Adam, Eve, Tree, Serpent, etc, how do you envision the Fall of Man happening? And if it didn't happen, what use is Jesus?

I've known a lot of Christians (defined as those who believe Jesus died for their sins and rose from the grave) who do not take Gen 2-3 literally. They seem to do just fine.

 

[Trailblazer]

Anyone that has studied nature.

You might have a valid point since Baha'u'llah said that God's creation has always existed and we do not know the first Cause. Only God knows that.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150​

​

“God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.”​

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140​

 

[dybmh]

LOL!! You started off with the same old error.


Try again.

That you have nothing important to say? That you have nothing intelligent to offer? Proof positive, right here ^^.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you can't be honest then there is no point having a discussion with you.

I would be dishonest if I said I evaded any questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She is being honest. Your inability to recognize it is on you. But, the truth is you can identify it, this is just an faux-atheist debate tactic lacking all substance.

When are you going to produce a single substantive post from the primitve-AI-style content that are produced by @Audie screen-name?

She may be honest in her confusion. But her claims about others are false. Just as yours tend to be.

And when you post a substantive post then I will see if @Audie has done so. Until then it is at best the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would be dishonest if I said I evaded any questions.

You do that quite often. "I didn't make any claims". I heard phrases like that from you far too often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That you have nothing important to say? That you have nothing intelligent to offer? Proof positive, right here ^^.

Nothing was needed. You need to post an honest and intelligent post to demand an answer.

 

[dybmh]

I read it. It was nonsense. I even explained to you why it failed. More than once.

Oh, I highly doubt it. I'll go search and see if you actually responded. You know how I can tell? Cause I'm great with the search feature, remember?

 

[Trailblazer]

You do that quite often.

Show me some evidence of evasion. Evidence is everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might have a valid point since Baha'u'llah said that God's creation has always existed and we do not know the first Cause. Only God knows that.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150​

​

“God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.”​

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140​

And that is one of the better points about Baha'i. They do not pretend to know the origin to the universe. Scientists will tell you that we can only go so far back using our present knowledge. We can't say for sure exactly how the universe started.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry but you are already handwaving. You do not get to abuse quantum mechanics. You are trying to limit God's omniscience. In other words you have already conceded the argument since you have admitted that he is not omniscient. If God was omniscient there would be only one version.

Not an argument. The "schroedingers cat" is at the beginning to give you context, but is not actually part of the argument.

Perhaps your problem is that you are looking at it from a human perspective, since it would appear that way. But if God was omniscient he would have known from before the creation. It sort of makes the whole exercise pointless.

False! I'm not doing that at all. It Did know before creation. That's what an author does before writing the words on the page.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me some evidence of evasion. Evidence is everything.

No, I am not going to bother. This has been pointed out to you by many posters many times. You have to know that.

 

[dybmh]

It can be and in this case, it definitely was.

Nope schroedinger's cat was just at the beginning and was not part of the actual argument.

Sorry, but if you do not understand QE then you have admitted that it was handwaving.

Nope schroedinger's cat was just at the beginning and was not part of the actual argument.

TLDR. I did see the false claim of a "gotcha". Study some basic logic. I know that the religious hate logic because it is the enemy of so many religious arguments.

TLDR is an admission that you didnt read the argument at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not an argument. The "schroedingers cat" is at the beginning to give you context, but is not actually part of the argument.



False! I'm not doing that at all. It Did know before creation. That's what an author does before writing the words on the page.

Dude, you can't use concepts that you don't understand. That is an instant loss.

And you cannot assume a creation without evidence of it. And even worse, you would need to provide evidence for a "before the creation". You put extremely heavy burdens of proof upon yourself and never even try to fulfill them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope schroedinger's cat was just at the beginning and was not part of the actual argument.



Nope schroedinger's cat was just at the beginning and was not part of the actual argument.



TLDR is an admission that you didnt read the argument at all.

I see that you do not understand TLDR.

Since your claim was refuted it is clear that I read that part of it.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I am not going to bother. This has been pointed out to you by many posters many times. You have to know that.

One thing I never do is evade questions.

 

[dybmh]

No, sorry an incompetent argument that you yourself do not seem to understand does not refute me.

Name-calling "incompetent" is no a logical argument it is not explaining anthing.

Once again, you are trying to limit God in your argument. It is your claim that we have a choice, but the only way that would be a choice would be if God was not omniscient. Limiting your god's omniscience is confirming my claim.

That's not an argument. You didn't quote a single thing I said. You are hand-waving. Your argument is "nuh-uh". Wow. More faux-atheism from an apparently vacuous non-being.

What you're saying is not even close to what I wrote.

God is not limited in any way. God can write the book however it chooses with infinite different variations, with each character, including yourself duplicated infinte times, and you are choosing thoughout your life which one of those infinite worlds is the one which is "real" for you.

that's 48 words, 2 sentences. compacted for someone who cannot escape from living in a short-attention-span theatre.

I'm putting the link in here, so I can keep retrieving your replies easily. This is how resourceful intelligent people win debates. You might want to take notes and adapt.

Choose Your Own Adventure - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dybmh]

Dude, you can't use concepts that you don't understand. That is an instant loss.

I didn't.

And you cannot assume a creation without evidence of it. And even worse, you would need to provide evidence for a "before the creation". You put extremely heavy burdens of proof upon yourself and never even try to fulfill them.

Then your claim fails too. See how that works. no creation, then you can't claim God is immoral. Ta-ta stupid faux-atheist nonsense. Come back when you have something intelligent to offer. Which will be never since, faux-atheism is just empty. Literal nothing. There is nothing good about it.

 

[dybmh]

Dude, you can't use concepts that you don't understand. That is an instant loss.

And you cannot assume a creation without evidence of it. And even worse, you would need to provide evidence for a "before the creation". You put extremely heavy burdens of proof upon yourself and never even try to fulfill them.

I notice you cropped out my link? Why did you edit you post?