Bald Prophets are Dangerous

[Brakeman]

DODGE! or giving you the benefit of the doubt.. you are confused.

I find myself wanting to use words like dummy and stupid right now. I am sorry that i am already here if you are honestly trying to understand. But starting your post out by mindlessly accusing me of being confused simply because I made the same observation about you, is 'button pushing' especially when have not sighted anything to support your accusation.

Liar

I was referring to the "Magic gift" of a god quality sense of right and wrong as I quoted in Genesis 3.5.

(this is the part where i want to desperatly call you a dummy.)
Look _______, Genesis 3:5 is apart of a larger contextual message. It starts at verse. If you have to take it out of context/cherry pick to make an arguement, then know your arguement failed long before you posted it.

Cherry picking is only a fallacy if the meaning changes in context.

Here is how it failed:

3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

So did anything in these verses change the meaning of the verse that says mankind will have god quality senses of right and wrong by the eating of god's magic fruit? .. Nope not here..

After they ate of the fruit verse 7 full fills what verse 5 described. They knew they sinned and as a result made covering for themselves out of fig leaves. The following verses describe what i was saying about self righteousness or the justification of sin:

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

Anything in these verses change the meaning due to context? Nope..

These verses shows Adam's deviation from God's righteousness to his own personal Brand of righteousness/self-righteousness/Morality.

So? Does that change anything bout the issue of our god quality sense of right or wrong? No..

For God's Stated righteousness said it is never ok to Eat of the tree of knoweledge. Adam's new found morality said "It's ok to eat from the tree because "the woman God gave me tricked me."

Again, Does that change anything bout the issue of our god quality sense of right or wrong? No..

So again What God said about the tree was absolutly true, and the message of self righteousness or downward sliding morality is also true as Adam tried to justify his sin with what he felt (and what some of you even argue) was a legit reason for sin, making him 'morally right in his own eyes.' Even so Adam nor do we have the ablity to change the status of sin. Even if we justify it by making it moral to our own selves. (Again, the fact that we try and 'morally justify sin' prooves that we know what we did was wrong, other why the suplmentary justification?)

Perhaps you need to reread what I posted, as you have not understood what I said and have certainly not contradicted it. I don't know what you are trying to argue against. I certainly didn't say that mankind doesn't sin and we make the god regulations, which is about the only thing I can rightfully extract from your argument.