Creations.

[Loudmouth]

Whatever it was they did, they were responsible for.

Not as three-year-old children; but as mature adults.

No one held a gun to their heads.

They weren't mature because they didn't know the difference between good and evil.

 

[Colter]

Is Israel the Promised Land?

No, it was the "predicted land". Basically Abraham and his descendants were chosen because of their blood lines as superior leaders, it was foreseen that by trusting Gods leadership and biding their time, they would eventually inhabit the land while the more base tribes would die out.

But, being chosen went to their heads, they developed a nationalistic, segregated racial pride which left them unable to grasp their place as potential spiritual leaders of the gospel given to them by the Son incarnate which was the whole purpose for the covenant in the first place.

After rejecting that gospel and killing Jesus, they became unchosen.

 

[Colter]

They weren't mature because they didn't know the difference between good and evil.

There was a much bigger story behind the Adam and Eve's default, it wasn't eating a silly piece of fruit.

 

[NotreDame]

The only things created were religions. There are too many, too different, too split to be the work of a god. And seeing as men can create them so easily, it's obvious a god isn't required. All that's essential is a good powerful speaker with a good idea, and a gullible crowd.

Don't believe me? Moonies, Scientology, Mormons, Buddhists, Branch Davidians, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, Aum Shinrikyo, Children of God, Order of the Solar Temple, People’s Temple, Heaven’s Gate.

Add a Pharaoh, Emperor, or King into the mix. And it gains ground. Some of these fell flat because they didn't have Royal patronage. Imagine their power if they had of had that.

Of course to the believers, I don't mean your branch of your religion, it's only the others that are wrong.

This is a rather porous argument. This reasoning assumes that which is not necessary for something to happen/exist (god/God is not required for religion to exist) then none of the religions can came from God/god. This is a fantastic non-sequitur. First, this argument ignores the concept of a necessary and sufficient condition for some phenomenon, event, or occurrence to happen. Yes, God/god may not be necessary for religion or a specific religion to exist but this does not change the fact God/god is sufficient for a religion/religion to exist. In other words, while a necessary condition may be lacking for some phenomenon (phenomenon=God/god inspired/created a religion/religion), this does negate God/god as a sufficient condition for the phenomenon, i.e. the lack of a necessary condition still permits the existence of a religion/religion inspired/created by God/god. The fact a condition is not necessary for an occurrence does not logically lead to the conclusion the occurrence cannot or did not transpire. The event or occurrence can still exist/transpire in the absence of a necessary condition.

Another flaw in your reasoning is this idea the proliferation of so many religions is evidence none of them are the product of god/God. This is another non-sequitur as it is rather inexplicable how exactly the number of religions has anything to do with whether one of them was the product of God/god. At best the most logical conclusion to be deduced from this reasoning is it is possible none of the religions were inspired/created by God/god or among the many religions some of them were created by man but it is possible one among them was inspired/created by God/god. However, the mere number of different religions does not indicate none of them were inspired/created by god/God as it is still possible one of them was while the others were not, and indeed it is possible none were inspired by god/God.

 

[NotreDame]

It's possible to construct a theology like the Christianity by human wisdom.

To be sure, this is possible, but this is but a truism. A lot of things/occurrences are possible. There are a plethora of possibilities but the existence of possibilities does not lead or point to the conclusion that which is possible actually transpired. So while it is possible a theology like Christianity can be created by human wisdom, this does not tell anyone whether this actually happened.

Now all you have to do is prove this is true. Anyone looking at any religions and seeing how they make women second class. Has to admit the hand of Man. God's don't create first and second class people, nor make the functions of women's body a sin or dirty and the birth of a girl something that warrants extra periods.

Awfully presumptuous remark, based upon nothing other than your own moral proclivities and human perception, as quite simply you are not a god/God. Consequently, it is rather difficult for you to opine what a god/God would or would not do.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a rather porous argument. This reasoning assumes that which is not necessary for something to happen/exist (god/God is not required for religion to exist) then none of the religions can came from God/god. This is a fantastic non-sequitur. First, this argument ignores the concept of a necessary and sufficient condition for some phenomenon, event, or occurrence to happen. Yes, God/god may not be necessary for religion or a specific religion to exist but this does not change the fact God/god is sufficient for a religion/religion to exist. In other words, while a necessary condition may be lacking for some phenomenon (phenomenon=God/god inspired/created a religion/religion), this does negate God/god as a sufficient condition for the phenomenon, i.e. the lack of a necessary condition still permits the existence of a religion/religion inspired/created by God/god. The fact a condition is not necessary for an occurrence does not logically lead to the conclusion the occurrence cannot or did not transpire. The event or occurrence can still exist/transpire in the absence of a necessary condition.

I think we are arguing for the most reasonable position. When you have people making completely opposite claims about beliefs that have no evidence to back them, the reasonable position is to assume that none of them are right until someone provides evidence otherwise. When people claim that they use faith, and they come to very different conclusions, I don't think it is out of line to suspect that faith is a faulty method for determining truth.

Another flaw in your reasoning is this idea the proliferation of so many religions is evidence none of them are the product of god/God. This is another non-sequitur as it is rather inexplicable how exactly the number of religions has anything to do with whether one of them was the product of God/god. At best the most logical conclusion to be deduced from this reasoning is it is possible none of the religions were inspired/created by God/god or among the many religions some of them were created by man but it is possible one among them was inspired/created by God/god. However, the mere number of different religions does not indicate none of them were inspired/created by god/God as it is still possible one of them was while the others were not, and indeed it is possible none were inspired by god/God.

Some theists make the claim that their religion must be the true religion because of how popular it is. I don't think it is out of line to point to other popular religions that make contradictory theological claims as a counterpoint.

 

[AV1611VET]

They weren't mature because they didn't know the difference between good and evil.

Neither do scientists today.

That's why they'll argue with you about smoking, drinking, the death penalty, abortion, hom... skip that one ..., creatio ex nihilo, shacking up, and a host of other subjects.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thats right, we don't know of good and evil, just God and elves.

Actually, "good" is over there on the brain scan, and "evil" is there. Settled.

The only question that remains, since this person (RAA, the opposite would be absurd, because we spy neurons) has no soul, how do we know they're not a zombie?

That's why they'll argue with you about smoking, drinking, the death penalty, abortion, hom... skip that one ..., creatio ex nihilo, shacking up, and a host of other subjects.

Well, if its all subjective, even for souls, why should we care about potential zombies even a tiny bit?

Hence the urban decay we see today. Its all down to scientific insight.

And dont leave that phone on the desk unguarded. Phones are more precious than souls nowadays...

 

[Colter]

Neither do scientists today.

That's why they'll argue with you about smoking, drinking, the death penalty, abortion, hom... skip that one ..., creatio ex nihilo, shacking up, and a host of other subjects.

Adam and Eve were the thoroughly trained and tirelessly warned about the situation on earth prior to their incarnation. But over time they were seduced by the "crafty beast" into asserting their own will into the plan of rehab for mankind.