[Dakar the Fourth]

You know me, the scourge of the PL.

[BRussell]

I think the term "materialist" (or maybe philosophical materialist, to distinguish it from consumerism) is a better term than atheist. The term atheist implies a rejection of a specific belief, but that's really unnecessary. It's better to just say you're not religious, if that's the case. But I'd guess that most atheists are not just non-religious, rather they simply believe that physical matter is all there is - no supernatural, etc.

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Um. I can't really tell if you're an atheist trying to explicate your point of view, or a theist trying to satirize an atheist's point of view, but either way I, as an atheist, take issue with a few all of your points here.

I'm an atheist explicating my view in a somewhat extreme (and slightly satirical) manner for the sake of argument.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I support all rights (being a libertarian) including women's reproductive rights. However I suspect you're talking about abortion here, and I'm rather anti-abortion (not pro-life, anti-abortion). I think it's a necessary evil at this point in time, but an evil none the less. I would think that most who support a right to abortions would, if they put even the slightest modicum of thought into the matter, say that abortions are regrettable and it would be better if they didn't happen even while we should have the right to them. Being pro-abortion is hardly an atheist position, it's just a large intersection in the great venn diagram of life.

Also, I think the 10th ammendment is one of the most important ones we've got (being, for lack of a better word, and anti-federalist).

We've actually discussed this before and are more or less in complete agreement. I intentionally didn't put any negative value judgments in it because that's not the kind of thing a law does in this context (i.e. laws don't say things are "a legal right but regrettable"). Likewise, every pro-life person I've ever discussed this with isn't interested in how I feel it's regrettable.

Regardless of all the value judgments that I do make about abortion, I still support women's (almost exclusive) reproductive rights, which means abortion, more or less on demand. The fact I don't feel great about it isn't really changing my position, so my regrettable feelings about it strike me (and have often been argued) as irrelevant.

OTOH, as someone who doesn't see a blank spot where the 10th Amendment is, I understand that the only way women should have these reproductive rights is through another Amendment. I added the blank spot part because this is something I have seen in other people on numerous occasions, including myself long ago.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Condoms are certainly a useful invention, and we should certainly be encouraging their use. The idea of teaching kids that sex and condoms are an inseparable pair is a good one. But again it's not an atheist position. There are many theists who believe this as well, and probably atheists who don't.

Absolutely. But, as you say above "it's just a large intersection in the great venn diagram of life", all of my points here have been of that nature.

A big reason for this would be the significant religions religions that have a doctrinal problem with condoms. Atheists are obviously not constrained by that.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This is just ridiculous. I have a lot of gay friends. I'm all in favor of gay rights, gay marriage (at least as long as the government is going to insist on being involved in marriage at all), and all that jazz. As far as homosexuality itself is concerned, I'm neutral. Other people are whatever they are, I'm neither pro- nor anti-homosexual.

This was probably the biggest stretch, but is by no means untrue with myself.

OTOH, I'm a little dubious about people who claim they're neutral about sex, even if (or perhaps especially because) it's a type of sex they don't practice.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Just because people disagree with you, does not mean that they are threatening.

Of course. But all three of my examples have policy implications, that's why I chose them. You can shrug-off an idea, it's much harder to shrug off policy.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Again, I don't buy it. Safety, for an atheist or any other minority, comes not in numbers, but in liberty.

I think you mistook what I said. I was giving safety in numbers as a reason people would make the (very poor) choice to mock someone other than having an inferiority complex.

I wasn't saying it was a good notion in any way shape or form. I was merely pointing out it was different.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think the term "materialist" (or maybe philosophical materialist, to distinguish it from consumerism) is a better term than atheist. The term atheist implies a rejection of a specific belief, but that's really unnecessary. It's better to just say you're not religious, if that's the case. But I'd guess that most atheists are not just non-religious, rather they simply believe that physical matter is all there is - no supernatural, etc.

Well that brings into question the definition of god. At its most basic 'atheist' simply means 'without god(s)'. Perhaps you still believe in pixies or whatever, but not god(s) so you're a non-materialist atheist. On the other hand, maybe you want to define anything supernatural as equivalent to god(s) in which case just believing in pixies might be enough to be considered a theist.

As you implied, there are plenty of people who are atheists yet believe in souls. There are, of course, plenty others who don't. It would be interesting to see numbers on how many self-describing atheists do or don't believe in the supernatural, or even specifically the soul.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm an atheist explicating my view in a somewhat extreme (and slightly satirical) manner for the sake of argument.

Ah, mostly a matter of misunderstanding then. Sounds like we're in much more agreement than I thought.

OTOH, I'm a little dubious about people who claim they're neutral about sex, even if (or perhaps especially because) it's a type of sex they don't practice.

I didn't say I'm neutral about sex, certainly I'm not. There are certain kinds of sex that appeal to me greatly, there are other kinds of sex that do not appeal to me at all. What I was saying is that I'm neutral about the sex that other people choose to engage in. It doesn't matter to me one whit that man a chooses to have sex with another man, or that man b chooses to have sex with his great dane even though I wouldn't ever want to do those things myself. I have my own personal preferences when it comes to sex, but that's all they are: personal preferences. I don't really make any value judgements about whether a particular kind of sex is 'good' or 'bad' (so long as it's conventual, of course).

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm neutral about the sex that other people choose to engage in. It doesn't matter to me one whit that man a chooses to have sex with another man, or that man b chooses to have sex with his great dane

I noticed you neglected to proclaim your neutrality over frilly Penthouse lesbian a and frilly Penthouse lesbian b.

[nonhuman]

At the advice of counsel I have no comment at this time.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

OTOH, I'm a little dubious about people who claim they're neutral about sex, even if (or perhaps especially because) it's a type of sex they don't practice.

Is there some reason I'd be expected to care who Michael Cain chooses to sleep with or how he chooses to do it as long as it isn't me?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

You know me, the scourge of the PL.

Hey, stop scourging!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well that brings into question the definition of god. At its most basic 'atheist' simply means 'without god(s)'. Perhaps you still believe in pixies or whatever, but not god(s) so you're a non-materialist atheist. On the other hand, maybe you want to define anything supernatural as equivalent to god(s) in which case just believing in pixies might be enough to be considered a theist.

As you implied, there are plenty of people who are atheists yet believe in souls. There are, of course, plenty others who don't. It would be interesting to see numbers on how many self-describing atheists do or don't believe in the supernatural, or even specifically the soul.

My sense is that virtually everyone who calls themselves atheists rejects all supernatural things. But I dunno, maybe I'm assuming too much.

Are there really atheists who believe in souls, or other supernatural things?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

My sense is that virtually everyone who calls themselves atheists rejects all supernatural things. But I dunno, maybe I'm assuming too much.

Are there really atheists who believe in souls, or other supernatural things?

Absolutely. I don't know that I could provide supporting documentation, but I certainly have anecdotal evidence of atheists who believe in other things supernatural.

Also, depending on how you interpret both the term 'atheist' and the teachings, Buddhism could qualify as an atheistic faith that still teaches of supernatural things.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I'm amazed that people walk the Earth and can think of how organized and minute and fragile and enormous the beauty and mechanics of the Human species is -- and all other species -- and think it all happened by chance. Those people have far more faith than I do.

I'm just popping in to this thread quickly and bringing up something from the first page, as thats all I've read so far.

That is an amazing bit of words there, RAILhead. I've never seen someone say it so bluntly and beautifully.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is there some reason I'd be expected to care who Michael Cain chooses to sleep with or how he chooses to do it

Not until someone puts that image in your head.

[Uncle Skeleton]

@RAILhead and Mac User #001

Rose colored glasses. For every flowery warm fuzzy thing that makes you think the human race is divine and flawless, there's a soury worn scuzzy thing so foul you wish you'd never known about. The human species is not fragile and it's not all beautiful, it has an even chance of showing you the beauty or the beast. It doesn't take faith to think of humanity as all good or all bad, it just takes selective blindness.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

@RAILhead and Mac User #001

Rose colored glasses. For every flowery warm fuzzy thing that makes you think the human race is divine and flawless, there's a soury worn scuzzy thing so foul you wish you'd never known about. The human species is not fragile and it's not all beautiful, it has an even chance of showing you the beauty or the beast. It doesn't take faith to think of humanity as all good or all bad, it just takes selective blindness.

I don't think he's saying "it's good and beautiful, therefore god made it" as much as "it's complex and therefore god made it." It's the argument from design rather than the argument from beauty.

And I think part of the answer to the argument that "it couldn't have happened by chance" is that evolution does not say it happened by chance. The core of evolution is not random at all, but about survival pressures, though obviously there is a random component to it (e.g., mutations).

[- - e r i k - -]

Argument from beauty and argument from design are both fallacious.

I appreciate the beauty (and the not so beauty) of the natural world at least equally as religious types. It is even more wonderful to appreciate how it has come to be, continues to evolve and works together in a wholly scientific and non-supernatural way. That my friends is true beauty.

[Taliesin]

There are still some questions that remained unanswered, which I would like to see clarified so we can go on to the next level:

No man no agriculturing/farming, but what about the sentence in Genesis 2, that God didn't let it rain yet?

Another question is if Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate the apple from that special tree.

If they were immortal, why did the eating of the forbidden make them mortal?

And before they became mortal, were all life in the universe immortal as well? And did this disobedience by Adam and Eve turn all other life in the universe from immortality to mortality and if yes, why did other life get punished for Adam and Eve's wrong-doing?

Taliesin

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

No man no agriculturing/farming, but what about the sentence in Genesis 2, that God didn't let it rain yet?

What about it? I'm not sure I understand what's so confusing about a God who just created the world and hadn't decided to cause rain yet for whatever reason. I don't see that it makes any more or less sense than the rest of the story.

Another question is if Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate the apple from that special tree.

If they were immortal, why did the eating of the forbidden make them mortal?

And before they became mortal, were all life in the universe immortal as well? And did this disobedience by Adam and Eve turn all other life in the universe from immortality to mortality and if yes, why did other life get punished for Adam and Eve's wrong-doing?

Someone, I don't remember who and don't have enough battery life left to justify looking to find out, already gave one possible explanation to this: that as long as they were in the Garden they were importal; that there was no death or suffering in the Garden and it was because they were cast out that they had to endure the ravages of mortality. I don't know what, if any, scriptural basis this has, but it makes at least some sense.

I think someone else said that the reason God kicked them out of the garden for eating the forbidden fruit was so that they wouldn't have access to a different tree whose fruit would make them immortal.

I think the bigger question is why God even made the tree which bore the forbidden fruit in the first place.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think someone else said that the reason God kicked them out of the garden for eating the forbidden fruit was so that they wouldn't have access to a different tree whose fruit would make them immortal.

I think the bigger question is why God even made the tree which bore the forbidden fruit in the first place.

To test their obedience perhaps, thus the phrase "forbidden fruit is the sweetest"
The fruit was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before A&E ate from the tree, they had know idea they were naked.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Before A&E ate from the tree, they had know idea they were naked.

I hate those dreams -- except sometimes I make it all the way to school before I realize I'm naked.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

To test their obedience perhaps, thus the phrase "forbidden fruit is the sweetest"
The fruit was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before A&E ate from the tree, they had know idea they were naked.

I've never understood why God would need to test us. Being omniscient, he should already know the results of those tests. Being omnipotent, he should be able to create exactly the beings he wants on the first try which would negate the need to test us. Being benevolent he should want to spare us the pain, torment, and anguish that these tests inevitably involve.

The fact that God would test Man says to me that he is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not benevolent in some combination. In fact much of what I know of God from multiple readings of the (Christian) Bible, from regular church attendance for the first 10 years of my life, and from being the son of a (Jewish by birth and upbringing) Methodist minister and Biblical scholar convinced me long ago that if God exists, I want nothing to do with Him.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think someone else said that the reason God kicked them out of the garden for eating the forbidden fruit was so that they wouldn't have access to a different tree whose fruit would make them immortal.

I think the bigger question is why God even made the tree which bore the forbidden fruit in the first place.

Trees of wisdom and immortality are a common mythological trope. (For instance, the Greek gods were not immortal, but had to eat ambrosia and nectar to prevent aging.) The existence of such a mythic element in the Bible is textual evidence for the slow cultural movement from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism among the ancient Israelites.

[olePigeon]

We shall now conclude this thread with a hymn.

Oh Lord, please don't burn us,
Don't grill or toast your flock,
Don't put us on the barbecue,
Or simmer us in stock,
Don't braise or bake or boil us,
Or stir-fry us in a wok...

Oh please don't lightly poach us,
Or baste us with hot fat,
Don't fricassee or roast us,
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick thy servants Lord,
In a Rotissomat...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Trees of wisdom and immortality are a common mythological trope. (For instance, the Greek gods were not immortal, but had to eat ambrosia and nectar to prevent aging.) The existence of such a mythic element in the Bible is textual evidence for the slow cultural movement from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism among the ancient Israelites.

Well yes, but that analysis is irrelevant and meaningless to someone who actually believes the story...

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I've never understood why God would need to test us. Being omniscient, he should already know the results of those tests. Being omnipotent, he should be able to create exactly the beings he wants on the first try which would negate the need to test us. Being benevolent he should want to spare us the pain, torment, and anguish that these tests inevitably involve.

The fact that God would test Man says to me that he is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not benevolent in some combination. In fact much of what I know of God from multiple readings of the (Christian) Bible, from regular church attendance for the first 10 years of my life, and from being the son of a (Jewish by birth and upbringing) Methodist minister and Biblical scholar convinced me long ago that if God exists, I want nothing to do with Him.

The God of the Old Testament is clearly not omniscient, nor omnipotent for that matter.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well yes, but that analysis is irrelevant and meaningless to someone who actually believes the story...

Genesis itself is a fusion of two different creation myths that predate Judaism, hence the discrepancy between god created them both in his image and the man needs a helper or whatever. It's a discrepancy the Jews were well aware of. That's why they imagined Lilith as the first wife of Adam.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I've never understood why God would need to test us. Being omniscient, he should already know the results of those tests. Being omnipotent, he should be able to create exactly the beings he wants on the first try which would negate the need to test us. Being benevolent he should want to spare us the pain, torment, and anguish that these tests inevitably involve.

It refers to these tests as the "refining fires". These tests are for our development, not for God's. To create a being "perfect on the first try" does not do anything for Creation. A father would never allow his daughter to ride a bike after all, she may fall and skin her knee. He will always hold her hand and never allow her to walk on her own because he would not want her to get hurt. He would only teach and never audit the result of his teaching. He would lock her away in a closet to ensure she couldn't lie to him or cause him to distrust her nor would she ever face the lie of another. She would never experience love, but would also never experience hardship. If we were in fact automatons, we would have no perspective of what benevolence is. What is good if there is no "bad"?

Christians believe we were created from our first days to rule, have dominion over, and reign; that there is an ultimate purpose for us beyond this life. Revelations 3:21; To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. and Revelations 2:26; To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations.

Our tests are the direct result of our freewill. When we use our freewill to do that which is wholly good, we've proven worthy of the type of leadership promised by Scripture. If you are my boss and I refuse to do what you ask because I repeatedly question your motives and your intentions, I will likely not attain leadership myself. I realize this may be hard for some without faith to accept though I don't find the concept terribly confusing nor do I think this subtracts from an omniscient God.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The God of the Old Testament is clearly not omniscient, nor omnipotent for that matter.

What basis do you have for saying that?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The God of the Old Testament is clearly not omniscient, nor omnipotent for that matter.

are you referring to predestination?

[Chuckit]

A couple of passages that do strongly imply these ideas:

1. He didn't know Adam had eaten from the tree.

2. He lost a fight with a mortal man.

Of course, there are others that also contradict these ideas. Like I've said before, the Old Testament seems to have such a wide range of views on God that it's almost impossible to say something about him without contradiction.

[Big Mac]

Very funny, Chuckit. He knew Adam and Chava ate the fruit - He only asked why for their sake. Do you really think that a being who knows the future wouldn't know they ate from the tree? Do you really think God couldn't have figured out where Adam was without asking him while Adam was hiding? If He had never interacted with us and just relied on Omniscience to see the future and judge accordingly, then He would not have been able to steer humanity on His desired course. If he had banished them from the garden without explanation it would not have served His purpose. And Yaacov wrestled an angel, not God.

There are passages that indicate that God is sometimes selective about His omniscience - such as when He chooses to judge Yishmael on the basis of his current actions rather than what he would do in the future. But nothing is withheld from His knowledge.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Very funny, Chuckit.

Where's the joke?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where's the joke?

Chuckit knows scripture better than to make silly arguments like that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Chuckit knows scripture better than to make silly arguments like that.

Shame on you, Chuckit!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He knew Adam and Chava ate the fruit - He only asked why for their sake ...

That's what I call "theological fan-wanking."

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And Yaacov wrestled an angel, not God.

That's odd, since Israel means "wrestled with God." Maybe it was "the angel of God" ??

[Big Mac]

Angels are sometimes called by godly appellations because they are from God, but that's different from them actually being God. One cannot physically wrestle with God - one cannot even look upon God and live according to the Hebrew Scriptures. It's taught in Judaism that the angel he wrestled with was Esau's angel. As for theological fan waving, I don't know precisely what you mean by that euphemism, but what we're talking about here is just simple logic applied to understand what the text means.

[Shaddim]

Angels are often referred to as Elohim, in fact there's an entire "choir" of angels classified as the Elohim.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's what I call "theological fan-wanking."

fanwanking seems to be a buffy the vampire slayer reference. Now it all makes sense... queue doomsday orchestral score.

[(s)macintosh]

I reject "Adam and Eve" in an evolutionary sense because I despise pedophilia, incest and familial rape.

If Adam and Eve were indeed the first humans, they would have needed to reproduce (obviously) to advance the human species. One man and one woman can produce many, many children but to further the species, birthed brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons would have had to fornicate together, otherwise the existence of humankind would have been exterminated long ago.

There is an inbuilt psychological aversion towards incest among humans (just thinking about your parents having sex ought to be enough to make your stomach churn) but following the biblical version of events causes one to come to no other conclusion: Incest and Rape were commonplace during the Creation. The only way around this extreme hostility towards procreating with a known family member is through the forcible submission by an unwelcome partner; ie, rape.

I can hear it already: "Maybe Adam and Eve were psychologically innocent and didn't know any better." Then the aversion was thus learned over time. Evolution fits. It fits because it is the only plausible explanation. If we all came from the same genetic seed, produced, if you will, from Adam and Eve then feel free to explain the genetic faults of the Caucasian race, Asian race, African race, Hispanic race, et al. They must obviously be "faults" because we should all belong one hegemonic society, if we indeed came from one single set of incestual parents.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

fanwanking seems to be a buffy the vampire slayer reference. Now it all makes sense... queue doomsday orchestral score.

"Fanwanking" refers to the practice of fans inventing elaborate, non-canonical explanations to dismiss continuity errors in a fictional universe. I'm sure some people have done it with Buffy, but I don't think it's intimately tied with that particular series.

An example from a Battlestar Galactica site:

In the Miniseries, the number of ships is given as 41, but in "33" the number is enlarged to 63 with no aired reason. Instead of assuming this was a simple retcon, a "fanwank" would state improperly that other ships apparently joined the Fleet after the jump from Ragnar Anchorage.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

I reject "Adam and Eve" in an evolutionary sense because I despise pedophilia, incest and familial rape.

There's nothing to suggest that nature has any higher regard for these issues than you or Scripture. While the recessive results of incest are undesirable, they are more desirable than not propagating the species. This is very evident throughout nature.

If Adam and Eve were indeed the first humans, they would have needed to reproduce (obviously) to advance the human species. One man and one woman can produce many, many children but to further the species, birthed brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons would have had to fornicate together, otherwise the existence of humankind would have been exterminated long ago.

... and yet you seem convinced that nature has not used this detestable act to propagate the species.

There is an inbuilt psychological aversion towards incest among humans (just thinking about your parents having sex ought to be enough to make your stomach churn) but following the biblical version of events causes one to come to no other conclusion: Incest and Rape were commonplace during the Creation. The only way around this extreme hostility towards procreating with a known family member is through the forcible submission by an unwelcome partner; ie, rape.

Survival is an interesting thing. If you are thirsting to death, your mind can tell you that fish-eyes are a most suitable delicacy because of the miniscule degree of fresh water within them. In regions where starvation is rampant, women make dirt cakes and sell them to other villagers. There's nothing to suggest that rape is necessary, but there's also nothing to suggest that a male has not mounted a female against her wishes in nature.

I can hear it already: "Maybe Adam and Eve were psychologically innocent and didn't know any better." Then the aversion was thus learned over time. Evolution fits. It fits because it is the only plausible explanation. If we all came from the same genetic seed, produced, if you will, from Adam and Eve then feel free to explain the genetic faults of the Caucasian race, Asian race, African race, Hispanic race, et al. They must obviously be "faults" because we should all belong one hegemonic society, if we indeed came from one single set of incestual parents.

I can understand you not accepting the Biblical account of Creation so I won't go into too much Scriptural detail, but I would like to show that you're missing some Biblical principles and the logic using Evolution does not follow;

A. Adam and Eve were created perfect.
B. There are several things that would not have been necessary had they not sinned per Scripture; farming, painful labor, killing of any kind, etc...
C. Sin corrupts, first the relationship between man and God and secondly the very nature of man himself. The earliest of religious practice shows ritualistic cleansing of sin by blood, blood shed to cover man's shame of sin (nakedness in Eden realized after sin), and lastly sin literally corrupts bloodline. Paul says in Scripture that God made all nations of one blood. The wage of one sin is death. Sin affected blood. It affected the blood of Adam and all subsequent families of his bloodline. Blood was required for atonement and incorruptible blood for the atonement of all mankind. Sinless blood needed to be shed because it was incorruptible. Jesus.
D. Per Scripture, Adam lived to be 930 years. Are you absolutely certain that there was no familial sex going on in your bloodline back to 1078? It may in fact have been necessary at some point in this time for your very existence yet you seem very confident it hadn't.
E. It can not be demonstrated that nature has any lower regard for these detestable acts than Scripture. Why then would you not abandon the principles of evolution on this same premise?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Fanwanking" refers to the practice of fans inventing elaborate, non-canonical explanations to dismiss continuity errors in a fictional universe. I'm sure some people have done it with Buffy, but I don't think it's intimately tied with that particular series.

An example from a Battlestar Galactica site:

Excellent research. Now google humor.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Fanwanking" refers to the practice of fans inventing elaborate, non-canonical explanations to dismiss continuity errors in a fictional universe. I'm sure some people have done it with Buffy, but I don't think it's intimately tied with that particular series.

Oooh. It's good to know this has a term.

We would always call it a "Star Trek argument".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Excellent research. Now google humor.

Something to do with ice cream, apparently.

[BRussell]

Fanwanking, that is a good word. It might also come in useful for describing how Apple fanatics account for discrepancies in Steve Jobs' "continuity errors." Or politics. Etc.

[Taliesin]

....

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What about it? I'm not sure I understand what's so confusing about a God who just created the world and hadn't decided to cause rain yet for whatever reason.

Does that mean that until the creation of Adam and Garden Eden there was no rain on earth?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Someone, I don't remember who and don't have enough battery life left to justify looking to find out, already gave one possible explanation to this: that as long as they were in the Garden they were importal; that there was no death or suffering in the Garden and it was because they were cast out that they had to endure the ravages of mortality. I don't know what, if any, scriptural basis this has, but it makes at least some sense.

So they were immortal in Garden Eden, and outside of Garden Eden they became mortal like anything else. So according to your interpretation everything outside of the Garden Eden was already mortal before Adam/Eve got expelled.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think someone else said that the reason God kicked them out of the garden for eating the forbidden fruit was so that they wouldn't have access to a different tree whose fruit would make them immortal.

Didn't you just say that in the Garden Eden Adam/Eve were already immortal..

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think the bigger question is why God even made the tree which bore the forbidden fruit in the first place.

I wanted first to make sure, if Adam/Eve were mortal or immortal before they ate the forbidden apple, in a sense of starting with the small questions and working towards the bigger ones.

Taliesin

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Does that mean that until the creation of Adam and Garden Eden there was no rain on earth?

That would appear to be what the book says...

So they were immortal in Garden Eden, and outside of Garden Eden they became mortal like anything else. So according to your interpretation everything outside of the Garden Eden was already mortal before Adam/Eve got expelled.

Didn't you just say that in the Garden Eden Adam/Eve were already immortal..

Again, neither of these is my interpretation. They're just two interpretations that others have presented in this thread. Since it seemed there was some confusion on what could possibly be going on in the story I thought I'd re-hash what others had said.

[- - e r i k - -]

The parallels between Star Trek and Religion is scarily drawing closer.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Now you've crossed the line.