Something I want you to imagine

[Drich]

Really? well let me explain, according to the trinity jesus is god and god is jesus,

Your using the term God incorrectly. God is a title and not a name.

that means that the god that made adam andm eve was also part of the god that died on the cross. And he is fully responsilbe for the fall for the following reasons

Which is WHY He Died on the Cross, to Redeem Sin.

1. He created adam and eve without the knowledge of good and evil, thus they had no concept that obeying was good or that eating off the tree was evil.

Good and evil have nothing to do with life or death. which is what God attributed to eating from the Tree of knoweledge was going to do to them.

2. He put the tree where it was easily accessible when he has no stated reason to.

Choice. Choice was apart of the equasion from the very beginning.

3. He allowed satan into the garden.

To identify the choice Adam and Eve could not see. After what are options if you do not see them as options?

4. The fact that he knew what would happen ahead of time and took no action whatsoever to try to stop it.

Maybe cause the 'fall' of man was apart of a bigger picture.

Yes, complete freedom from a law written by men at best. Chrisitanity has very sophisticated mechanisms to manipulate you.

This wll be good.

Let me give you a simple overview of a common one, originil sin.

actually that is not Biblical Christianity. Orginal sin is a catholic doctrine not found in the bible.

Wither adam and eve ever existed or not is beside the point in terms of effect. the concept is designed to convince that you are unworthy to question god or his will.

again no. that is a doctrine designed by catholic priests to keep them from having to answer questions about their faith.

1Thess 5:21 We are commanded to Test ALL Things and To Hold on to what is Good. This doesnt mean just test the questionable but also test the foundational.

How many horrors have been done because of "god's will?"

None, not one. (Including all the bad stuff found in the OT) Now ask how many horrors have been comitted in the Name of God's will by some religious leader... That you could not put a number to.

Can you prove that we need redeeming in the first place?

Do you sin?

[Rahul]

Do you sin?

SIN
"In Abrahamic contexts, sin is the act of violating God's will. Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God."

Since god does not exist, no he never has sinned.

[Lemonvariable72]

Really? well let me explain, according to the trinity jesus is god and god is jesus,

Your using the term God incorrectly. God is a title and not a name.

that means that the god that made adam andm eve was also part of the god that died on the cross. And he is fully responsilbe for the fall for the following reasons

Which is WHY He Died on the Cross, to Redeem Sin.

1. He created adam and eve without the knowledge of good and evil, thus they had no concept that obeying was good or that eating off the tree was evil.

Good and evil have nothing to do with life or death. which is what God attributed to eating from the Tree of knoweledge was going to do to them.

2. He put the tree where it was easily accessible when he has no stated reason to.

Choice. Choice was apart of the equasion from the very beginning.

3. He allowed satan into the garden.

To identify the choice Adam and Eve could not see. After what are options if you do not see them as options?

4. The fact that he knew what would happen ahead of time and took no action whatsoever to try to stop it.

Maybe cause the 'fall' of man was apart of a bigger picture.

Yes, complete freedom from a law written by men at best. Chrisitanity has very sophisticated mechanisms to manipulate you.

This wll be good.

Let me give you a simple overview of a common one, original sin.

actually that is not Biblical Christianity. Orginal sin is a catholic doctrine not found in the bible.

Wither adam and eve ever existed or not is beside the point in terms of effect. the concept is designed to convince that you are unworthy to question god or his will.

again no. that is a doctrine designed by catholic priests to keep them from having to answer questions about their faith.

1Thess 5:21 We are commanded to Test ALL Things and To Hold on to what is Good. This doesnt mean just test the questionable but also test the foundational.

How many horrors have been done because of "god's will?"

None, not one. (Including all the bad stuff found in the OT) Now ask how many horrors have been comitted in the Name of God's will by some religious leader... That you could not put a number to.

Can you prove that we need redeeming in the first place?

Do you sin?

Actually I surprisingly like the advise given in 1thess 5:21, that's actualy why I consider your bible horsehit and your god make believe. And yes original sin is in the bible, it is not called original sin, but jesus and paul both talk about it. And finally your going to tell me that noahs flood isnt a horror? I suggest you read my post on it here and then tell me otherwise.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-20964.html
And btw rahul is right, there is no god therefore no sin

[Drich]

Do you sin?

SIN
"In Abrahamic contexts, sin is the act of violating God's will. Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God."

Since god does not exist, no he never has sinned.

Can you prove your assertion or are we to simply take what you say on faith?

[Lemonvariable72]

SIN
"In Abrahamic contexts, sin is the act of violating God's will. Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God."

Since god does not exist, no he never has sinned.

Can you prove your assertion or are we to simply take what you say on faith?

Thats easy, read your bible, it is full of contradictions, obvious false hoods, fake prophesies,and historical events that never happened. Yet we suppose to believe that non sense was inspired by the same being that authored dna?
Also the fact that people like you have failed to provide even a shred of verifiable evidence despite extraneous effort.

[Drich]

Can you prove your assertion or are we to simply take what you say on faith?

Thats easy, read your bible, it is full of contradictions, obvious false hoods, fake prophesies,and historical events that never happened. Yet we suppose to believe that non sense was inspired by the same being that authored dna?
Also the fact that people like you have failed to provide even a shred of verifiable evidence despite extraneous effort.

If using the bible is considered to be circular logic in the proof of God, then how can it then be a legitimate source to disprove God?

Wouldn't logic dictate that if the bible could be used to disprove God, then that very bible could then also be a viable point of reference to prove God as well??? Do you really want to open a can of worms your atheist brothers work so hard to keep closed?

[Lemonvariable72]

Thats easy, read your bible, it is full of contradictions, obvious false hoods, fake prophesies,and historical events that never happened. Yet we suppose to believe that non sense was inspired by the same being that authored dna?
Also the fact that people like you have failed to provide even a shred of verifiable evidence despite extraneous effort.

If using the bible is considered to be circular logic in the proof of God, then how can it then be a legitimate source to disprove God?

Wouldn't logic dictate that if the bible could be used to disprove God, then that very bible could then also be a viable point of reference to prove God as well??? Do you really want to open a can of worms your atheist brothers work so hard to keep closed?

Sigh the bible is the "god claim" and when said claim has contradicting contained with in itself that means that it is not true in it's entirety.
Infact that is the reason using the bible to prove your claim of god is circular. When you do that, you use the claim to prove the claim. So no logic doesn't dictate that the bible can not be used to disprove the claim. Let me explain it like this, say I write a true crime story, and in chapter three I say the killer is white and in chapter 5 I say he is black. Now If I say it is true regardless because it is a true crime that is circular logic, however when discovers that in one chapter I say he is white, and another he is black, then I obviously misrepresenting the truth in either chapter 3 or 5 or both.

[Rahul]

Can you prove your assertion or are we to simply take what you say on faith?

I don't have to prove anything. I'm not saying something exists. You are. Prove this or we fall back to the default position.

Atheism.

You: "I have an invisible dragon in my garage!"

Me: "No, you don't."

You: "Can you prove I don't or should the entire world take your assertion on faith?"

Motherfucker, please.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...people like you have failed to provide even a shred of verifiable evidence despite extraneous effort.

Not true. God has already provided you with all the evidence you need.

[Faith No More]

Not true. God has already provided you with all the evidence you need.

No, he hasn't. Otherwise, there wouldn't be atheists. Or are you going to take the indefensible position that atheists simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence?