Satan Disproves Christianity

[John V]

So, every last sin was morally acceptable before Adam and Eve were cast out?

They didn't even consider any sin other than the tree.

[Esquilax]

So, every last sin was morally acceptable before Adam and Eve were cast out?

They didn't even consider any sin other than the tree.

But hypothetically, if Adam had murdered Eve, would it have been okay, or not?

[John V]

But hypothetically, if Adam had murdered Eve, would it have been okay, or not?

No. Why do you ask?

[Esquilax]

No. Why do you ask?

One more question first: is the same true for all sins? Would they all have been unacceptable in the garden?

[John V]

One more question first: is the same true for all sins? Would they all have been unacceptable in the garden?

Sin is by definition unacceptable.

[Esquilax]

Sin is by definition unacceptable.

So when you said this:

Yes, that horrible oppression of being allowed to do anything you want except to eat the fruit of one particular tree.

You were rather mischaracterizing the state of the rules involved, yes? I think that's what we in the business call a lie... which is itself a sin.

[John V]

So when you said this:

You were rather mischaracterizing the state of the rules involved, yes? I think that's what we in the business call a lie... which is itself a sin.

Not at all. Key word is "want." As noted, they didn't even think of other sins, and so didn't want to do any of them. Figured that's what you were missing, but was amusing watching you build the case.

[Esquilax]

Not at all. Key word is "want." As noted, they didn't even think of other sins, and so didn't want to do any of them. Figured that's what you were missing, but was amusing watching you build the case.

Irrelevant; you've already said that if they did want to commit a sin, they couldn't. Whether they wanted to or not does not change the oppressive force at play; if I was physically forbidden from swimming, my desire to swim or not is neither here nor there. The point is, I couldn't swim anyway.

You're trying to swap in preference as an excuse in a discussion of rules and their relative fairness. The former has no bearing at all on the latter.

[John V]

Irrelevant; you've already said that if they did want to commit a sin, they couldn't.

Incorrect. They were able to eat the forbidden fruit. Don't take your own unsupported twists and tell me that's what I said.

Whether they wanted to or not does not change the oppressive force at play; if I was physically forbidden from swimming, my desire to swim or not is neither here nor there. The point is, I couldn't swim anyway.

Maybe that's your point. My point was that except for the tree they could do anything they wanted to do, and that statement is accurate.

You're trying to swap in preference as an excuse in a discussion of rules and their relative fairness. The former has no bearing at all on the latter.

I started with preference. You're the on trying to make the swap. You're a really dishonest debater at times.

[Esquilax]

Incorrect. They were able to eat the forbidden fruit. Don't take your own unsupported twists and tell me that's what I said.

Fucking hell, you're really trying to drag this out. Fine. It's not that they couldn't as in were literally incapable of the act, but couldn't in that committing the sin would have been unacceptable to god, culminating in some divine punishment. And if eating a fruit cursed literally the entire human race from the beginning of time onward to mortality and suffering- not to mention all the animals who apparently became carnivorous after- one can only wonder the kind of punishment a murder would attract.

Maybe that's your point. My point was that except for the tree they could do anything they wanted to do, and that statement is accurate.

Yep. It also absolutely does not impact the claim you were responding to when you said that, namely that from a certain perspective the character of satan in the bible reads like a man waking up from oppression and fighting back, only with bad PR from the ruler he fights.

Another ineffective argument from John, then.

I started with preference. You're the on trying to make the swap. You're a really dishonest debater at times.

No, I just- apparently foolishly- assumed that you were hoping to argue back at the poster you'd quoted. From the looks of things, it appeared you just wanted a non-sequitur, then. That's cool, but maybe you need a signal for your random posts in future; people might get the idea that you want a contiguous conversation, otherwise.