FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Elsewhere > ~Elsewhere~
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-25-2006, 01:40 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In the ohio region
Posts: 79
Default Is god a hyprocrite?

Considering he impregnated a women out of wedlock?
mudknot2005 is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 02:02 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blah.
Posts: 6,559
Default

What the fuck are you talking about? "God" is not a he. God is a goddess of the moon whom we give thanks to when the corn is reaped fully each passing year.

All kidding aside, I'd say "yes" to your question. In the Biblical sense, of course.
Mace is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 02:20 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

This is E material.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 02:21 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In the ohio region
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace Sin
What the fuck are you talking about? "God" is not a he. God is a goddess of the moon whom we give thanks to when the corn is reaped fully each passing year.

All kidding aside, I'd say "yes" to your question. In the Biblical sense, of course.
you forgot about us dancing naked.............okay... since "god" impregnated... ect...
mudknot2005 is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 06:20 PM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudknot2005
Considering he impregnated a women out of wedlock?
I suppose the obvious argument would be that in the religious sense, a marriage is the joining of two, into one, before God. So in that sense, God could impregnate anyone and not technically be other than married to them.

The obvious question for me is; Did Mary know what was going on? If she didn't know then she couldn't provide her consent and without consent, we have the technical aspects of sexual assault.

Of course for any of this to be true God must first exist. And in my opinion, that's where the whole scenario breaks down.
Beastt is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 06:59 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In the ohio region
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beastt
I suppose the obvious argument would be that in the religious sense, a marriage is the joining of two, into one, before God. So in that sense, God could impregnate anyone and not technically be other than married to them.

The obvious question for me is; Did Mary know what was going on? If she didn't know then she couldn't provide her consent and without consent, we have the technical aspects of sexual assault.

Of course for any of this to be true God must first exist. And in my opinion, that's where the whole scenario breaks down.
this is true, i was mearly trying to poke fun at it....... Basically same thing as saying god commited a sin by being crucifed because by placing himself on earth and knowing he was going to be killed was a form of suicide....
mudknot2005 is offline  
Old 01-25-2006, 10:47 PM   #7
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudknot2005
this is true, i was mearly trying to poke fun at it....... Basically same thing as saying god commited a sin by being crucifed because by placing himself on earth and knowing he was going to be killed was a form of suicide....
Or that it was wrong of Adam and Eve to disobey God when God had purposely kept them from understanding right and wrong.
Beastt is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 02:09 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beastt
Or that it was wrong of Adam and Eve to disobey God when God had purposely kept them from understanding right and wrong.
He obviously gave her enough sense to realize right from wrong, or she wouldn't have been discussing the situation to begin with.
Horse's Gullet is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 08:09 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horse's Gullet
He obviously gave her enough sense to realize right from wrong, or she wouldn't have been discussing the situation to begin with.
There wasn't much of a discussion there. The serpent asked about God's prohibition, and Eve replied. The serpent then said that God was lying, and Eve ate the fruit, no questions asked. There's absolutely no sign of a knowledge of right and wrong there.

There's also the fact that the main reason for Eve taking the fruit was to gain a knowledge of good and evil. Rather pointless for someone who already knows.

Also, you seem to be ignoring Genesis 3:7 and 3:22, which show that Adam and Eve did not originally have a knowledge of good and evil, but gained that knowledge after eating the fruit.
Ophis is offline  
Old 01-26-2006, 09:22 PM   #10
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horse's Gullet
He obviously gave her enough sense to realize right from wrong, or she wouldn't have been discussing the situation to begin with.
Well, as Ophis already pointed out, it really doesn't matter whether you believe Eve had knowledge of right and wrong before eating the apple. If she did, then it's a bit difficult to believe that she was ignorant of right and wrong. If she didn't, then you can't expect her to know any better.

Either way the story fails.
Beastt is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.