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

[Subduction Zone]

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

I didn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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



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

If you want explanations then you need to slow down and make proper arguments. I did give you an explanation. You ignored it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't.



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.

Nope. Try to reason. Don't dig yourself deeper into the hole that you are already in.

 

[dybmh]

If you want explanations then you need to slow down and make proper arguments. I did give you an explanation. You ignored it.

Nope. I searched all your posts which contain the link. I replied to each one just now.

 

[dybmh]

Nope. Try to reason. Don't dig yourself deeper into the hole that you are already in.

that's not a rebuttal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. I searched all your posts which contain the link. I replied to each one just now.

Then you didn't understand the refutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's not a rebuttal.

Correct. None was needed. It was advice.

 

[dybmh]

If you want explanations then you need to slow down and make proper arguments. I did give you an explanation. You ignored it.

Nope. And I am certain you have nothing of value to offer in this thread or, honestly in any debate. I read your posts. The only thing to learn from them is how to avoid, deny, and blame. Which is not my style.

 

[dybmh]

Then you didn't understand the refutation.

Nope. Here's what you said:

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.

There you go. We can stop there. Your claim is a fail if there is no creation. You lose. God cannot be immoral without creation. Duh!

When you revoke that. Then we can move on to what "before" would mean for an absolutely eternal being. Already addressed it. But like I said, you cannot seem to escape from a faux-atheist la-la-land. So one little drip-drop at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. Here's what you said:



There you go. We can stop there. Your claim is a fail if there is no creation. You lose. God cannot be immoral without creation. Duh!

When you revoke that. Then we can move on to what "before" would mean for an absolutely eternal being. Already addressed it. But like I said, you cannot seem to escape from a faux-atheist la-la-land. So one little drip-drop at a time.

Nope. You are not thinking rationally again. I would suggest that you look up the word "creation". You only demonstrated your own ignorance again.

 

[F1fan]

but how did natural come into being?

What do you mean “come into being“?

 

[dybmh]

Nope. You are not thinking rationally again. I would suggest that you look up the word "creation". You only demonstrated your own ignorance again.

Nope is not an argument.

Without creation where is your evidence of immorality? If you can't respond then you lose again. With your head figuratively shoved into the poop-chute.

 

[dybmh]

What do you mean “come into being“?

Like when you typed your reply and clicked the "Post reply" button.

 

[ppp]

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.

A lot of people do just fine. I wasn't aware that doing just fine was in question.

 

[ppp]

but how did natural come into being?

Who said it came into being?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope is not an argument.

Without creation where is your evidence of immorality? If you can't respond then you lose again. With your head figuratively shoved into the poop-chute.

It is when the argument is obviously worthless and false. Did you forget your now obviously hypocritical jab at @Audie ? Try making a substantive post if you want a more serious response.

 

[ppp]

Show me some evidence of evasion. Evidence is everything.

All you have to do is go look at the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then show me ONE POST where I evaded a question that someone asked me.
Evidence is everything. You don't go into any court of law and accuse someone of a crime without evidence.

No, why don't you ask @F1fan if you do that. If he refuses to confirm my claim then I will do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like when you typed your reply and clicked the "Post reply" button.

Hmm, which took agency to accomplish. You should now see that the term "creation" puts a burden of proof upon you.

 

[dybmh]

It is when the argument is obviously worthless and false. Did you forget your now obviously hypocritical jab at @Audie ? Try making a substantive post if you want a more serious response.

Hee. I did, multiple times. The faux-atheist bigotry produced under the screen-name @Audie is completely without substance.

I already told you, that I am convinced you have nothing to offer in this thread or any other religious debate. remember the Joseph or Arimathea nonsense? Where you were like "read your bible!" and it was obvious you were beyond ignorant of the story?

Anyway. I think I'm done replying to you for now. There's other much higher quality conversations happening right now.

Bye.