Amaleq13

Perhaps that should have given you a clue that you are not the "staunch defender" who abadoned the field rather than admit defeat?

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, let's go back to the opening post:

If you mean does what you said make sense, the correct answer is "no." Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

What you said does not have anything to do with inerrancy. Here is what you said without the mention of inerrancy:

Why are you interested in discussing that? Even if the story of Adam and Eve is true, it is not possible to know all of the details that you want to know. In addition, since you have said that you do have any choice except to remain a Christian, that means that no matter what skeptics say, you have no choice except to remain a Christian, in which case why do you want to discuss Adam and Eve? As I have told you before, "I have no choice except to remain a skeptic. Now what is the next step?"

Do you not have the ability to anticipate that you will always lead arguments in a circle right back to the same place since your only evidence is faith? How would you like for skeptics to deal with your "faith only" argument?

Regarding the story of Adam and Eve, what do you expect skeptics to say? Are you trying to find out if skeptics can convince you that God treated Adam and Eve unfairly?

sonofone

This was my honest intention John since you said you really wanted to know.I intended on bringing forth a question concerning the story of Adam & Eve as stated in the bible that I have been asking on about five different forums now.Four of which are Christian.As you might imagine Christians don't take to kindly to what appears to be an attack of the scriptures or God.

So I tend to get responses like the ones Rhuctin offered.I also thought the question was in context to your original post and felt we could discuss the merits of the story without entertaining whether the story was in and of itself true.Heck Christians don't even agree whether the story is true or not some say it is allegory.

I guess I never imagined to meet such hostility the likes of which are usually found on sites where people feel you are some sort of heretic attacking their faith here. I thought this place was more of a free thought forum.So I didn't come here with the express intention of debating a skeptic or atheist in hopes of conversion.

I happen to be fine with the fact that each of you have found something that works for you.While I would love for each of you to embrace the God of my salvation I have nothing outside of what you have already heard by which to convince you to do so.

Now if your point in asking me why post is akin to some of the Christians in the theology section where I post saying please don't post here unless you have a firm grasp on Hebrew and Greek.Then I can accept that criticism.

In other words if I have no argument outside of faith why bother being here,or posting? I'm here to gain what I can from this experience,and I am willing to share whatever I have to offer in exchange for this experience.

It may not amount to anything for you or to most here,but perhaps it will to someone.If not what was the harm?

Johnny Skeptic

Why? Do you want skeptics to claim that God treated Adam and Eve unfairly? If so, my answer is "Yes, and whether or not Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil. In addition, it is my position that God has treated everyone on earth unfairly, and innocent animals."

How quaint, you are pretending that Christians are the injured party when they aren't. The Bible started this war, not skeptics. The simple truth is that skeptics don't take too kindly to God indiscriminately and needlessly killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes, and planning to unmercifully send skeptic to hell for eternity without parole. Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. God killed babies at Sodom and Gorromah and at Tyre. God promised to protect Jews conditional upon good behavior, but did not protect Jewish babies when their parents disobeyed him.

There is no way that you or any other Christian will ever be able to justify God's plan to unmercifully send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole. In addition, there is no way that you or any other Christian will ever be able to reasonably prove that God is not able to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals without injuring and killing people and innocent animals without hurricanes, and without refusing to protect women from rapists.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject the very same quality of evidence that you accept now. I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone to heaven, although I would hope that he would. I would oppose the Bible for the same reasons that I oppose it now. Some of my reasons are as follows:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from John.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there you have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, you will only accept promises that you believe will ultimately benefit you. You have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests.

Those arguments adequately refute your "faith only" argument because you would not have faith if the Bible did not promise to ultimately benefit you.

Hypothetical arguments are frquently useful tools for exposing invalid arguments. Conservative Christians frequently use them when they feel that is suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

sonofone

I was actually hoping to get a little more than agreement from skeptics that God treated Adam unfairly.I was hoping to see if the story operates from a faulty premise.Don't all bite off of this bone at one time:blush:

The conclusion I have come to actually speaks to one of your objections concerning God putting people in hell without parole.I'm sure you are aware of the Universalist doctrine.

Johnny Skeptic

What faulty premise are you talking about?

Regarding "I was hoping to see if the story operates from a faulty premise," do you believe that it is possible that skeptics will be able to convince you that the story operates from a faulty premise? If not, why are you interested in discussing Adam and Eve? If skeptics were able to convince you that the story operates from a faulty premise, would you give up Christianity?

Are you a universalist? Do you believe that God will send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole?

Since I stated lots of complaints about God other than eternal punishment without parole, why did you only mention God putting people in hell without parole?

No loving, rational God would ever do anything that he did not intend to benefit himself, and/or someone else, at present, or at some time in the future. Since the God of the Bible does not have any known or suspected motives that explain why he is mysterious, as Isaiah claims, and why he does what he does, he probably does not exist.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sonofone: Consider the following Scriptures:

Genesis 3:1-7

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

16-19

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Ok, what do you want to know regarding what skeptics think about those Scriptures other than that God treated Adam and Eve unfairly?

What is your premise? If your premise is that God treated Adam and Eve fairly, and treated everyone else in succeeding generations fairly, I dispute that.

Johnny Skeptic

But the entire Bible operates under the uncorroborated premises that God is perfect, and that he is merciful. Are you not aware that the main theme of the Bible is that God is perfect, that he cannot tolerate sin, and that he insists that people become Christians or he will deprive them of the same pleasures that he intends to provide Christians in the next life?

The story of Adam and Eve is a very minor issue among thousands of other issues that all deal with the character and perfection of God, and his right to rule the universe.

Johnny Skeptic

Messge to sonofone: Perhaps your intention is to try to make skeptics the claimants by asking them to reasonbly prove that some premise is faulty, thereby relieving you of the responsibility of reasonably proving that some premise is valid even though the Bible is the claimant here, not skeptics. If that is the case, then you are much more clever than I thought you were. I have thought all along that you are not very intelligent, which I do not hold against you, and that do not use logic and reason. Conservative Christians are notorious for trying get skeptics to become the claimants. Does that include you?

sonofone

Somehow a lot seems to be getting lost in translation here.You are nothing if not adamant about conversion. Maybe it's me John Perhaps I took a wrong turn in coming here to start with,and your just trying to help me figure this out now rather than later.

Maybe you are entirely right,that it is unfair of me to come here and use this site as a means of personal growth,if I have nothing of value to share in return.

Is this the gist of it?