In the Beginning Man Was Stupid

[Minimalist]

A note in general about the OP:

I was once a devout christard. I was once the gullible halfwit.

But you got better.

[Gambit]

I read the thread, Drich. Your attempts to avoid admitting being wrong only further prove my contention that you are too deluded to see it.

[Cyberman]

I find it incredibly poetic that in a thread titled "In the Beginning Man Was Stupid", the first reply to the OP was Drich.

[Cinjin]

But you got better.

Greatest thing I EVER did bar none in my life was get rid of that STUPID religion. It was like the weight of an 18 wheeler hauling an M1 Tank being lifted off me. Seriously ... THEE greatest choice I ever made.

[Drich]

That doesn't offer up an explanation, not that it matters as this is not a very big point, but still you've explained nothing. Why would the delusional primitive, oops I mean author of Genesis, leave out the fact that it was Lucifer. That would seem like a pretty important point to me. How do we even know it was indeed Lucifer at this point?

Lucifer was not identified by Moses (who wrote the Pentateuch) Lucifer was not identified by name till Isaiah 14. How do we know it was him? Ultimatly Lucifer is known by many other names in the bible, but in the end is always identified by character.
http://www.markbeast.com/satan/names-of-satan.htm

You use the apologists "point of view" every single day around here. One could easily argue that you are far more guilty of this offense than anyone here. The apologists' entire debate is based on context and point of view. Another religious hypocrite. Nothing new here.

So? Isn't the person argueing the appologist guilty of the same thing? For aren't you argueing that you POV based on _________, is indeed the correct reading?

The difference? Your POV like lucifer's POV serves to seperate people from God. The appologist is simply trying to relay the orginal intent of the message according to the text in which it was written.

In other words ... they DIDN'T DIE.
Greasy sophistry from a guy who just got done bashing "point of view." **insert MASSIVE eyeroll here**

A half truth is still a lie. Lucifer offered a half truth. Just like Obi wan lied to Luke. It was a 1/2 truth he told him. The devil told eve that she would not die. Eve's understanding of Die was that of what God communicated to Her because He told her specifically what would happen if she at of the fruit. lucifer pretended to speak of the same authority and scape goated out on a technicality. This form of deception is indeed coonsidered a lie.

oh and a bonus... you didn't even address the knowledge of good and evil and the glaring fact that the only thing they learned was the fact that they were naked. Which of course is bull shit, since god clearly considered Eve to be his wife and her nudity would NOT have been a sin whatsoever. Add that to the fact that there was supposedly no one else in the entirety of Mesopotamia to see the MARRIED couple walking around in the natural bodies that GOD gave them.

the understanding of Nakedness repersents the loss of innocents. they are aware of things that they were not aware of before. Don't read too much into it.

This passage of scripture is far more likely a testament to the long enduring sexual insecurity of middle eastern men who, even way back when the Bible was written, wanted to express how naughty and sinful naked people are, but STILL couldn't come up with a legitimate way to put it down on paper so it would make any fucking sense.

Sterotype much? Ever Heard of Sodom or Gomorrah? Do you know why God destroyed those two cities? If Middle eastern men were so sex shy then how do you suppose these two place became so corrupt God said I have to destroy these two cities?

Adam and Eve's big lesson from eating the fruit had nothing to do with murder, theft and rape. Nope, the only thing they found out was that they their god wanted them to cover up their genitals. No wonder Cain eventually killed Able ... they didn't learn jack shit.

You are confusing the Law with Sin. Sin is anything not in the Expressed will of God.(It is not limited to your understanding of the Law of moses) At the time the only thing God told them not to do was eat of the tree of Knoweledge. Eating of this tree made them aware of a great many thing they did not understand.

Please give me your apologists POINT of VIEW on this one. I'm sure it will be free of your usual sophistry.

WHAT?! His "little buddy" did come clean ... immediately ... and surprise surprise, your asshole wizard still tossed him out of the garden and the rest of humanity into eventual eternal torment. Hey thanks for the "opportunity" mr wizard!

WHAT WHAT?!?!? No he did not! Read the Story again. Adam did not own up to his actions at All! He blamed Eve for what he did.
Gen 3:11 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.”

Correction He blames God then blames the woman. "The Woman YOU Gave Me of the tree, and I ate..."

Adam like that 10 yearold caught with his hand in the cookie jar, blames everyone else and trys everything he can to pass on the responsiablity of eating the forbidden fruit.

Apologists' POINT OF VIEW defense ... AGAIN. I'm going to go ahead and call these out as APOV from now on. It'll save time, but what I want you to remember, is that you have no basis for this defense, it is merely your way of justifying piss-poor writing and contradiction after contradiction.

Next time just ask for BCV (Book Chapter and Verse) Isa 14 and Ezk 28 Here is a commentary dismissing the goto atheist arguement on these two passages. (One that I am prepared to discuss at length, so at least read this before you come at me with the same old song and dance.)
http://www.goodseed.com/learning/article...zekiel-28/

He went from having these powers to having nothing.

No he didn't. He still has great power.

compared to what/whom? Lucifer is a servant, always was and will be. Does He currently enjoy a greater station than any of us , yes. Is the station he serves in greater than when he served at the right hand of God? No. It is from the height of his glory to where he is now is what God has reduced him to.

In Ephesians, Satan is called the ruler of the kingdom of the air. John even tells us that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

I had a service manager who rans or controled my whole shop. He use to own his own business, and before he came to work for me he was incharge of 100 people. At our height we had 10. Now from any one of those 10 people that man was a king, but I am sure for him he had fallen a long way from the heights he once enjoyed.

That doesn't sound like a being who is going to be slithering around on his belly every day.

Because you live on the ground. You are beneath satan so from where you stand he is king. But from the hieghts of Heaven and God's right hand he is slithering on the ground.

You can't change whats written Drich. It clearly says word for word that he would be cursed to slither on his belly forever. Nope. Another glaring contradiction.

I didn't change a thing. I am simply making you aware that your POV is not the only one.

A filthy apologists twist of words. You're trying to change the argument. We are not debating who has more power in your Bible. Clearly god has the alleged "winning hand." The debate here is only the curse that god put on Lucifer that has clearly NEVER been enforced and I don't know any christian besides yourself who would claim that satan can only be found as a serpent slithering in the sand. Go ahead ... please do give us all your APOV defense.

Your wish has been granted.

This answer doesn't make sense to me. Explain yourself. I see a god that at least claimed to be angry about them discovering the knowledge of good and evil. Mind you, they didn't TURN EVIL, they merely gained KNOWLEDGE OF good and evil. So explain what you mean when someone has to be responsible and/or atone for KNOWLEDGE?

The knoweledge of Good and evil makes them responsiable for the times they choose sin rather than being in the expressed will of God... Do I really need to explain the whole Jesus died for our sins bit or do you get it now?

We've gone round and round on this stupidity before so I will digress with this final thought.

Either learn to spell or learn to use a fucking spell check. It's like trying to read a god damn grade schooler's book report - and a lazy one at that!

hock:

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe that the Bible is a metaphorical tale for the true power of God. But I'm using "true power" as a metaphor for "nonexistence".

[Cinjin]

This passage of scripture is far more likely a testament to the long enduring sexual insecurity of middle eastern men who, even way back when the Bible was written, wanted to express how naughty and sinful naked people are, but STILL couldn't come up with a legitimate way to put it down on paper so it would make any fucking sense.

Sterotype much? Ever Heard of Sodom or Gomorrah? Do you know why God destroyed those two cities? If Middle eastern men were so sex shy then how do you suppose these two place became so corrupt God said I have to destroy these two cities?

I'll skip right to this one that you think is so funny it deserves a man rolling around laughing on the floor.

Apparently you don't know what sexual insecurity means. Pay attention now, a sexually insecure male can be a sex addict. It has absolutely nothing to do with liking or not liking sex. So your Sodom and Gomorrah argument goes right out the window. Allow me to explain to your tiny little mind...
The stereotype (a word that exists because like minded people often repeat each other's actions for centuries on end) has proven to be accurate among fundamentalists in that area of the world. Case in point the Muslims still go ape shit when a woman wants to show her fucking face. There are countless stories of women maimed and murdered simply for expressing the tiniest fraction of sexuality.
They are sexually insecure because they do not want any woman to think that any man could possibly be better than them in any way. A woman's sexuality is offensive and frightening to many religious middle eastern men. They have proven this fact over and over and over and used the name of god (allah) to justify their atrocities.
You yourself validate my statement by calling it a stereotype. If you weren't aware of this treatment of women in the middle east you would not have been able to even throw out the word stereotype. Ironic huh. The word used to condemn a concept only ever validates said concept simply by calling it that.

Full circle back to my original point, that clearly went way over your head: Some desert primitive wrote the book of Genesis and it is LIKELY that back then their sexual insecurity was far more rampant than it even is today. It stands to reason that if the Torah and the Quran and the Bible all have the same characters and the same angry Abrahamic desert god spewing the same patriarchal anti-women hate speech that this same douche bag who wrote Genesis was just as intent as the rest of the Bible authors have proven to be to make sex and nudity an evil thing ... by any and every means possible.


Now if you want to pick up the gauntlet on this topic, I will run with you on it all day long. There are more web links to the sexual misconduct of religious men (especially in the middle east) than I could ever post on one thread. It's so bad that I often wonder if religion didn't actually get it's start from some woman making fun of some primitive's tiny pecker. That's an exaggeration of course, but probably not by much.

---

WHAT?! His "little buddy" did come clean ... immediately ... and surprise surprise, your asshole wizard still tossed him out of the garden and the rest of humanity into eventual eternal torment. Hey thanks for the "opportunity" mr wizard!

WHAT WHAT?!?!? No he did not! Read the Story again. Adam did not own up to his actions at All! He blamed Eve for what he did.
Gen 3:11 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.”

Correction He blames God then blames the woman. "The Woman YOU Gave Me of the tree, and I ate..."

Adam like that 10 yearold caught with his hand in the cookie jar, blames everyone else and trys everything he can to pass on the responsiablity of eating the forbidden fruit.

Bull SHIT. He answered every question immediately and honestly...

Did the woman give him the fruit? Yes, that was the truth. Was it a pussy move? Probably, but it was INDEED still the truth no matter how you try to paint it otherwise.

Than you say that Adam blames god by saying "YOU gave me" ... SO? That is still indeed the truth, and what's more it doesn't matter, Adam did come clean. He did admit to eating the fruit and he DID NOT lie to god. Furthermore, your douche bag god essentially did the same thing you're accusing adam of. He blamed the serpent for deceiving them when he was clearly the one that allowed the serpent to tempt them in the first place. Your god is the ultimate hypocrite. I guess that shows you really are made in his image huh Drich.

Gonna go back on your words again? Remember smart guy ... "Lucifer can't do anything without god's permission."

[Drich]

Apparently you don't know what sexual insecurity means. Pay attention now, a sexually insecure male can be a sex addict. It has absolutely nothing to do with liking or not liking sex. So your Sodom and Gomorrah argument goes right out the window. Allow me to explain to your tiny little mind...

appearently you do not understand what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah -or- you do not understand the term you are preaching with..

The stereotype (a word that exists because like minded people often repeat each other's actions for centuries on end) has proven to be accurate among fundamentalists in that area of the world.

I know what it means I identified you futile effort to try and stereotype, I was point out your failure to stereotype these people accuratly.

Case in point the Muslims still go ape shit when a woman wants to show her fucking face. There are countless stories of women maimed and murdered

Accurate stereotype different people.

They are sexually insecure because they do not want any woman to think that any man could possibly be better than them in any way. A woman's sexuality is offensive and frightening to many religious middle eastern men. They have proven this fact over and over and over and used the name of god (allah) to justify their atrocities.
You yourself validate my statement by calling it a stereotype. If you weren't aware of this treatment of women in the middle east you would not have been able to even throw out the word stereotype. Ironic huh. The word used to condemn a concept only ever validates said concept simply by calling it that.

Ah, no. Next time you want to teach do a google search on the subject you are soap boxing about first, that way you don't leave yourself open to intelectual dismissal, and laughie on the floor guys..

You are describing Male Chauvinism, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_chauvinism#As_sexism)
and/or Misogyny(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny)

not Sexual insecurity.
Everything I looked up for sexual insecurity has to do with a person questioning his sexual idenity. (Whether or not he/she is the correct gender.) Not to say those people are immune from that, it's just not what you were describing in your FAILED bigoted rant.
So I called you out on it.

Full circle back to my original point, that clearly went way over your head:

Oh, the irony..

Some desert primitive wrote the book of Genesis and it is LIKELY that back then their sexual insecurity was far more rampant than it even is today. It stands to reason that if the Torah and the Quran and the Bible all have the same characters and the same angry Abrahamic desert god spewing the same patriarchal anti-women hate speech that this same douche bag who wrote Genesis was just as intent as the rest of the Bible authors have proven to be to make sex and nudity an evil thing ... by any and every means possible.

The bible and koran were written in two very different time periods. The account in genesis is said to have been written 2500 years before the koran, and some 600 years after the last book of the bible.

Or do you not think 2500 years is enough time for a culture to change?
Just FYI Durning the Roman occupation the romans turned that whole area into a brothel more or less for their soliders, the responce from 1000 years of plunder and exploitation from invaders is what most likly inspired Mohammad to turn on his culture condemning women. Because their beauty is what inspires crime/sin against their people and against their culture, (it kept these invaders in their lands.) So the had them cover up.

Now if you want to pick up the gauntlet on this topic, I will run with you on it all day long.

I'm sure you will, to bad you are headed in the wrong direction.

There are more web links to the sexual misconduct of religious men (especially in the middle east) than I could ever post on one thread. It's so bad that I often wonder if religion didn't actually get it's start from some woman making fun of some primitive's tiny pecker. That's an exaggeration of course, but probably not by much.

This is an excellent example of the direction you want to run. Toward Bigotry and hate.

Bull SHIT. He answered every question immediately and honestly...

He did not take responsiablity for his actions. He blamed God for giving him a flawed woman, and He blamed the woman her self. He was setting himself up as a victim of circumstance. When in reality he did what he did because he chose to do so.

Furthermore, your douche bag god essentially did the same thing you're accusing adam of. He blamed the serpent for deceiving them when he was clearly the one that allowed the serpent to tempt them in the first place. Your god is the ultimate hypocrite. I guess that shows you really are made in his image huh Drich.

Gonna go back on your words again? Remember smart guy ... "Lucifer can't do anything without god's permission."

Do you not think that the 'fall' was apart of the plan from the begiinning? If so then someone would have to tempt and take responsiablity for that fall.

[Cinjin]

Ah, no. Next time you want to teach do a google search on the subject you are soap boxing about first, that way you don't leave yourself open to intelectual dismissal, and laughie on the floor guys..

AWESOME! You're talking about dismissing me intellectually while you're making up your own verbs and misspelling basic English.
Next time you want to lecture me, maybe you should spend some time with a Google search, a dictionary and much better reading comprehension, as you completely missed the point ... Again!

You are describing Male Chauvinism and/or Misogyny not Sexual insecurity.
Everything I looked up for sexual insecurity has to do with a person questioning his sexual idenity. (Whether or not he/she is the correct gender. Not to say those people are immune from that, it's just not what you were describing ...

Hey fucktard, male chauvinism, misogyny, sexual regression, verbal abuse, physical and mental manipulation, etc. etc. - they can all stem from sexual insecurity. I don't know if your monitor was turned off when your were searching the web, but try again. Furthermore, you're trying to side step the point by attempting to tangle the argument up in semantics. My point stands as you're just a dishonest christard grasping at straws by yelling out: "hey you used the wrong term."

Full circle back to my original point, that clearly went way over your head:

Some desert primitive wrote the book of Genesis and it is LIKELY that back then their sexual insecurity was far more rampant than it even is today. It stands to reason that if the Torah and the Quran and the Bible all have the same characters and the same angry Abrahamic desert god spewing the same patriarchal anti-women hate speech that this same douche bag who wrote Genesis was just as intent as the rest of the Bible authors have proven to be to make sex and nudity an evil thing ... by any and every means possible.[/quote]

The bible and koran were written in two very different time periods. The account in genesis is said to have been written 2500 years before the koran, and some 600 years after the last book of the bible.

Or do you not think 2500 years is enough time for a culture to change?
Just FYI Durning the Roman occupation the romans turned that whole area into a brothel more or less for their soliders, the responce from 1000 years of plunder and exploitation from invaders is what most likly inspired Mohammad to turn on his culture condemning women. Because their beauty is what inspires crime/sin against their people and against their culture, (it kept these invaders in their lands.) So the had them cover up.

Hey thanks Captain Obvious, the bible and the Quran didn't get written at the exact same time and muslims aren't the same as christians. No shit sherlock! That has nothing to do with what I said. That AREA of the world treats women like property. Your god and your dead brothers in christ were no different. Sexually repressed, sexually insecure goat herders wrote all those ancient books regardless of which false god they worshiped. Once again the lying apologist wants to change the actual argument into something it was never about to wiggle his way out of the hole he dug. You know good and god damn well that my statement had nothing to do with just muslims or just christians or just some collection of stupid hebrews. The culture of that society, even still today, is one of sexual repression, guilt and insecurity and that translates into ALL ancient writings.

Now if you want to pick up the gauntlet on this topic, I will run with you on it all day long.

I'm sure you will, to bad you are headed in the wrong direction.

There are more web links to the sexual misconduct of religious men (especially in the middle east) than I could ever post on one thread. It's so bad that I often wonder if religion didn't actually get it's start from some woman making fun of some primitive's tiny pecker. That's an exaggeration of course, but probably not by much.

This is an excellent example of the direction you want to run. Toward Bigotry and hate.

Bigotry and hate??? Try history and fact pal. You've said nothing here but try to color me an angry racist simply to hide your lack of an argument. Sorry christard, facts are facts and your christian ancestors were just as woman-hating/fearing as the muslims. It's got nothing to do with whether or not I love/hate them or not.


Filthy stinking dirty apologist.

[Drich]

So no more questions of Genesis?