Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?

[POI]

Below is a 20 minute video. For the ones who opt not to watch, I'll start with the following question? (Which may then lead to many others, as this is a fairly new concept of thought for me)....

Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering? Before you Christians answer, I trust you are already aware of this guy's counter points?

[brunumb]

Eating from the Tree of knowing good AND BAD (meaning, life AND DEATH) caused them to die (just as God had said).

Where is that meaning specified, or is it just your convenient interpretation? If it is correct, then before eating from the tree of knowing life and death, they could not have known the meaning of death. God's warning was meaningless to them. Then we have the issue of who created the tree? Well, that would have to have been God. What reason did he have to create such a tree and endow its fruit with the magical property of giving knowledge of life and death (good and bad), particularly if no one was intended to eat from it and gain such knowledge? The whole scenario is an attempt by primitive ancient people to explain the world they found themselves in. They really failed miserably.

[brunumb]

Remember, I am the Bible believing Christian here...and I just simply go by what the Bible says on the situation.

Remember, the Bible carries no authority in this part of the forum. You might as well rely on claims made in Moby Dick or Harry Potter for all the weight they carry. Believing in magic doesn't make magic real.

[brunumb]

Evolution is a religion, in my opinion. We may never agree on that note, but it is what it is.

Evolution does not meet the criteria for defining what is a religion despite your opinion. And it is what it is, a scientific theory which best explains the voluminous data relating to the origin of all species on this planet.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to brunumb in post #152]

Yeah, ok.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Evolution does not meet the criteria for defining what is a religion despite your opinion.

And what is a criteria, besides that of an opinion?

You have yours, and I have mines.

And it is what it is, a scientific theory which best explains the voluminous data relating to the origin of all species on this planet.

If that is the way you feel..

[benchwarmer]

Sometimes I think you just randomly plop down fallacy names and have no clue what they really mean. I don't recall jumping into the creationist taxi and then jumping out of the science one. Feel free to explain it. You might want to look it up first though.

You think so?

Basically what I'm saying is; it is fine for you to ride in the taxi when it goes to the destination of space shuttles and the need for intelligent designers...but when it comes to cellular structures, as they are more complex than space shuttles, you hop off the taxi because you don't like its destination, which is directly towards intelligent design creationism (a higher power).

Yeah, the taxi cab fallacy like I said.

Isn't it ironic that you are committing the strawman fallacy while trying to tell me I've fallen into the taxicab fallacy?

Who brought up space shuttles, cellular complexity, and design? That would be you. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to toss me in a cab that I never hailed. If you want to get into a 'design' debate, perhaps start a new thread and then figure out who steps into what fallacy there rather than imagining what might happen here.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #113]

You explained why you think it is not valid. I must disagree.

Then nothing else needs to be said. Have a great, godless week!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Isn't it ironic that you are committing the strawman fallacy while trying to tell me I've fallen into the taxicab fallacy?

Who brought up space shuttles, cellular complexity, and design? That would be you. I'd appreciate it if you don't try to toss me in a cab that I never hailed. If you want to get into a 'design' debate, perhaps start a new thread and then figure out who steps into what fallacy there rather than imagining what might happen here.

The fact that you will even consider a design debate knowing full well that I am an intelligent design advocate, helps prove the accuracy of what I said.

How much are cab fares these days, as its been a while for me.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #151]

What reason did he have to create such a tree and endow its fruit with the magical property of giving knowledge of life and death (good and bad), particularly if no one was intended to eat from it and gain such knowledge?

Genesis 2:9
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

Worded the way that it is, one could argue that the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil was intended to be eaten.
Therefore, the god was using it for another purpose, which has all the markings of a test to see if its creation Adam, could resist disobeying a command. The fruit being "good to eat" did not cause them to die. "You shall surely die" had nothing to to with the fruit being "bad to eat."

Even being that a command was disobeyed, that - in theory - should have been forgivable IF Adam had taken responsibility instead of pointing his finger at others.

However...it is noted that the only option given was 'you shall surely die' not 'you shall surely die unless you show remorse and understanding for your disobedience or could show why your disobedience wasn't harmful to you."

Given there was no proviso of that nature - it has to be said that 'you shall surely die' was the only option available as a penalty, and contrition/forgiveness or explaining why logically there was no harm in eating the fruit, were never on the table as options.

That being the case, the necessity of keeping Adam away from the very thing which would negate the penalty taking effect, was paramount in ensuring that Adam would 'surely die' as predicted.

The prediction therefore, was made in the knowledge that in order the penalty be carried out for any breach of the order given, Adam would have to be removed from having access to the tree of life - although it is written in the style that it was more an after-thought;

Genesis 3:22
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

...

Genesis 3:23[/quote]
“Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,”

where Adam would eventually surely die, as predicted. How about that!

It turned out to be true after all, as Adam surely did die.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #111]

From a biblical point of view, death entered the world through sin, which entered the world through the one man (Adam).

Biblically speaking, death entered the world because Adam was not given any more access to the fruit which would allow him to live forever.

His sin was disobeying a god who forewarned him of the consequence, and part of that consequence was for the god to send Adam away from the garden so that Adam couldn't use the one way in which the prophecy "you shall surely die" wouldn't be able to be fulfilled.

The whole thing was set up that way. "Do what I tell you or I will make sure that you die."