Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another Genesis is wrong post.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 9:13:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.
How did DBC miss this one? They must be slacking.
thedynasty139
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 10:00:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.

LOL, you just made our point.
So maybe that's the trick Myhke, we start pulling the scriptures out of context and then they will be forced to put back the correct meanings!
Is that reverse psychology? it might work....
thedynasty139
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 10:17:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 10:00:48 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.

LOL, you just made our point.
So maybe that's the trick Myhke, we start pulling the scriptures out of context and then they will be forced to put back the correct meanings!
Is that reverse psychology? it might work....

Our point? You mean his point unless you're both the same person. He said that those "goat herders" didn't realize that you can't see with your eyes closed. I showed him that it didn't quite literally mean that their eyes would open. They could now simply "see" or distinguish right from wrong, hence why they clothed themselves after their eyes "opened" in a metaphorical sense. They knew that it was wrong to walk around naked after they ate from the tree.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 10:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 10:17:50 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 10:00:48 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.

LOL, you just made our point.
So maybe that's the trick Myhke, we start pulling the scriptures out of context and then they will be forced to put back the correct meanings!
Is that reverse psychology? it might work....

Our point? You mean his point unless you're both the same person. He said that those "goat herders" didn't realize that you can't see with your eyes closed. I showed him that it didn't quite literally mean that their eyes would open. They could now simply "see" or distinguish right from wrong, hence why they clothed themselves after their eyes "opened" in a metaphorical sense. They knew that it was wrong to walk around naked after they ate from the tree.

He was being sarcastic, making a point from his point of view regarding atheists. Of COURSE, I agree with you. That was the point the OP was trying to make, to look past the literal words and objects.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 10:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

To the people claiming there are far too few interconfessional discussions around here, this is the reason: the most vocal Christians around here are bent on slandering, ridiculing and misrepresenting atheism and atheists at large.

Apparently, to these fellow forum members, all that talk about agape love and the fruits of the Spirit is just PR for external consumption.

And here is a list of the most extraordinary things the vocal Christians around here have said:

- It was morally right to mass rape German girls as young as eight, and as many times as sixty, in the last days of WWII - Bigotry

- God killing at least half plus one of all of mankind at Armageddon, that is, 3 500 000 001 people, is not murder, but suicide from the part of humanity - MCB

- Homosexuals should be stoned to death - V.

- Gravity and solar radiation are destructive forces - Skipasweirdo
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 1:36:47 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.

I'm just reading it literally. Deem would say you are adding your own ideas to the text and not reading it in black and white.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 1:43:32 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 10:53:45 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

To the people claiming there are far too few interconfessional discussions around here, this is the reason: the most vocal Christians around here are bent on slandering, ridiculing and misrepresenting atheism and atheists at large.

Apparently, to these fellow forum members, all that talk about agape love and the fruits of the Spirit is just PR for external consumption.

And here is a list of the most extraordinary things the vocal Christians around here have said:

- It was morally right to mass rape German girls as young as eight, and as many times as sixty, in the last days of WWII - Bigotry

- God killing at least half plus one of all of mankind at Armageddon, that is, 3 500 000 001 people, is not murder, but suicide from the part of humanity - MCB

- Homosexuals should be stoned to death - V.

- Gravity and solar radiation are destructive forces - Skipasweirdo

So you agree some of the most vocal frequently posting atheist around here make posts just like this.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 1:46:41 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 1:43:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 10:53:45 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

To the people claiming there are far too few interconfessional discussions around here, this is the reason: the most vocal Christians around here are bent on slandering, ridiculing and misrepresenting atheism and atheists at large.

Apparently, to these fellow forum members, all that talk about agape love and the fruits of the Spirit is just PR for external consumption.

And here is a list of the most extraordinary things the vocal Christians around here have said:

- It was morally right to mass rape German girls as young as eight, and as many times as sixty, in the last days of WWII - Bigotry

- God killing at least half plus one of all of mankind at Armageddon, that is, 3 500 000 001 people, is not murder, but suicide from the part of humanity - MCB

- Homosexuals should be stoned to death - V.

- Gravity and solar radiation are destructive forces - Skipasweirdo

So you agree some of the most vocal frequently posting atheist around here make posts just like this.

I agree your OP is a shinning example of the hollow vitriole aimed at atheists at large around here.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 1:57:06 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 1:46:41 AM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/15/2016 1:43:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 10:53:45 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

To the people claiming there are far too few interconfessional discussions around here, this is the reason: the most vocal Christians around here are bent on slandering, ridiculing and misrepresenting atheism and atheists at large.

Apparently, to these fellow forum members, all that talk about agape love and the fruits of the Spirit is just PR for external consumption.

And here is a list of the most extraordinary things the vocal Christians around here have said:

- It was morally right to mass rape German girls as young as eight, and as many times as sixty, in the last days of WWII - Bigotry

- God killing at least half plus one of all of mankind at Armageddon, that is, 3 500 000 001 people, is not murder, but suicide from the part of humanity - MCB

- Homosexuals should be stoned to death - V.

- Gravity and solar radiation are destructive forces - Skipasweirdo

So you agree some of the most vocal frequently posting atheist around here make posts just like this.

I agree your OP is a shinning example of the hollow vitriole aimed at atheists at large around here.

Yeah looking in the mirror must be tough.

I made a post that is a good example of the kind of posts vocal atheist here make. And anyone of them would be demanding a literal understanding of "eyes opened". And then construct an argument of ridicule around it.

The majority of Atheist on this website have only presented themselves as tolerant, open minded, truth seekers.. lol lol lol sorry I can't even type that with out laughing.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 2:04:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Some readers obviously insist on interpreting all text literally and can't see or understand it in a metaphorical sense. They are either trying to be funny or deliberately being stupid to try to get a rise out of other readers or they are ignorant of their own stupidity. If they are ignorant of their own stupidity, wise people need to make the allowances and have the same patience and tolerance toward them as they would for a small child.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 2:09:52 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 2:04:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Some readers obviously insist on interpreting all text literally and can't see or understand it in a metaphorical sense. They are either trying to be funny or deliberately being stupid to try to get a rise out of other readers or they are ignorant of their own stupidity. If they are ignorant of their own stupidity, wise people need to make the allowances and have the same patience and tolerance toward them as they would for a small child.

You know what happens when you patiently wait and allow a child to be stupid for too long? trolls and selfish ego centered brats.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 2:22:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 2:09:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:04:36 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Some readers obviously insist on interpreting all text literally and can't see or understand it in a metaphorical sense. They are either trying to be funny or deliberately being stupid to try to get a rise out of other readers or they are ignorant of their own stupidity. If they are ignorant of their own stupidity, wise people need to make the allowances and have the same patience and tolerance toward them as they would for a small child.

You know what happens when you patiently wait and allow a child to be stupid for too long? trolls and selfish ego centered brats.

The patience required is not in allowing the child to remain stupid but is required in educating it.
However, it obviously takes a lot longer to educate an immature adult who is stuck in the rut of immaturity than it does to educate an ignorant child who is far more open to learn new things. When you accept the fact that some adults will never become mentally mature you develop patience and tolerance for their foolishness in the same way you have patience and tolerance for any mentally handicapped people.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 5:36:22 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.
Actually we come up with contradictions, you seem to have some bodily fluid on your hand.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 7:32:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 10:17:50 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 10:00:48 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.

LOL, you just made our point.
So maybe that's the trick Myhke, we start pulling the scriptures out of context and then they will be forced to put back the correct meanings!
Is that reverse psychology? it might work....

Our point? You mean his point unless you're both the same person. He said that those "goat herders" didn't realize that you can't see with your eyes closed. I showed him that it didn't quite literally mean that their eyes would open. They could now simply "see" or distinguish right from wrong, hence why they clothed themselves after their eyes "opened" in a metaphorical sense. They knew that it was wrong to walk around naked after they ate from the tree.

Jesus too believed having eyes and ears didn't matter if God blinded you.

John 12:40
"The Lord has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts--so that their eyes cannot see, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and have me heal them."
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 8:53:09 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 1:57:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 1:46:41 AM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/15/2016 1:43:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 10:53:45 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

To the people claiming there are far too few interconfessional discussions around here, this is the reason: the most vocal Christians around here are bent on slandering, ridiculing and misrepresenting atheism and atheists at large.

Apparently, to these fellow forum members, all that talk about agape love and the fruits of the Spirit is just PR for external consumption.

And here is a list of the most extraordinary things the vocal Christians around here have said:

- It was morally right to mass rape German girls as young as eight, and as many times as sixty, in the last days of WWII - Bigotry

- God killing at least half plus one of all of mankind at Armageddon, that is, 3 500 000 001 people, is not murder, but suicide from the part of humanity - MCB

- Homosexuals should be stoned to death - V.

- Gravity and solar radiation are destructive forces - Skipasweirdo

So you agree some of the most vocal frequently posting atheist around here make posts just like this.

I agree your OP is a shinning example of the hollow vitriole aimed at atheists at large around here.

Yeah looking in the mirror must be tough.

I made a post that is a good example of the kind of posts vocal atheist here make. And anyone of them would be demanding a literal understanding of "eyes opened". And then construct an argument of ridicule around it.

The majority of Atheist on this website have only presented themselves as tolerant, open minded, truth seekers.. lol lol lol sorry I can't even type that with out laughing.

Pick any flaw and with all probability a Christian will be the worst offender around here. Just look at what some of them have written. Unlike Bigotry, no atheist I know of around here condoned the mass rape of German women. Etc., etc., etc..

But to you all that Christian talk about agape love and the Fruits of the Spirit seems to be just PR for external consumption. You have repeatedly shown no intention whatsoever to align your conduct with aforementioned values.

Exactly as I thought.
willbedone
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 9:16:18 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it. : :

Their eyes being opened to know good and evil means they became blind and deaf to the Tree of Life that can only be taught to them if they listen to the voice of God and obey his commandment's. Adam and Eve and all their offspring quit listening to the voice of God and obeying his commandments which is the only way to gaining knowledge of how they were created. Still today, most of God's people are blind to the Truth because they believe they are real people living on a real planet called Earth.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 1:39:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
- Mhykiel 1
Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.
A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.
Bible fans are idiots : they believe sceptics to be idiots.
Think and tell why sceptics 'missed' that 'error' in Genesis. I know you are capable of it.

- thedynasty139 3
Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.
- EtrnlVw 4
LOL, you just made our point.
So maybe that's the trick Myhke, we start pulling the scriptures out of context and then they will be forced to put back the correct meanings!
Is that reverse psychology? it might work....
Why don't you give it a try and see how it works out ?
Genesis 1 :
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


- thedynasty139 5
Our point? You mean his point unless you're both the same person. He said that those "goat herders" didn't realize that you can't see with your eyes closed. I showed him that it didn't quite literally mean that their eyes would open. They could now simply "see" or distinguish right from wrong, hence why they clothed themselves after their eyes "opened" in a metaphorical sense. They knew that it was wrong to walk around naked after they ate from the tree.
- EtrnlVw 6
He was being sarcastic, making a point from his point of view regarding atheists. Of COURSE, I agree with you. That was the point the OP was trying to make, to look past the literal words and objects.
So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com....

- Omniverse 7
To the people claiming there are far too few interconfessional discussions around here, this is the reason: the most vocal Christians around here are bent on slandering, ridiculing and misrepresenting atheism and atheists at large.

Apparently, to these fellow forum members, all that talk about agape love and the fruits of the Spirit is just PR for external consumption.
That is because these people have interpreted the Bible literally and failed to see the deeper meaning. When the Bible says you must be nice to your neighbours it actually means you should slander people who disagree with you.

- Omniverse 10
I agree your OP is a shinning example of the hollow vitriole aimed at atheists at large around here.
- Mhykiel 11
Yeah looking in the mirror must be tough.

I made a post that is a good example of the kind of posts vocal atheist here make. And anyone of them would be demanding a literal understanding of "eyes opened". And then construct an argument of ridicule around it.

The majority of Atheist on this website have only presented themselves as tolerant, open minded, truth seekers.. lol lol lol sorry I can't even type that with out laughing.
Tough indeed, looking in the mirror.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
thedynasty139
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 2:03:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
"So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com...;

No, that's not the point. The Bible is speaking metaphorically, and it even explains this in a previous verse. If you tell me that you can't understand what those verses in sequence mean, it's not my job to teach you how to read.
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 2:24:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 2:09:52 AM, Mhykiel

What is that bodily fluid on your hand?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 2:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 2:03:24 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
"So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com...;

No, that's not the point. The Bible is speaking metaphorically, and it even explains this in a previous verse. If you tell me that you can't understand what those verses in sequence mean, it's not my job to teach you how to read.

The Bible was not meant to be taken (completely) literal, and I've not seen atheists who claim otherwise. Mhykiel has set up a strawman that would be similar to suggesting you think the entire Bible was meant (completely) metaphorically.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 4:24:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 1:36:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/14/2016 9:37:51 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

Not a Christian, but this is a weak point.

Genesis 3:5 says: "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Their eyes didn't literally open. They were just able to distinguish between good and evil when they ate from that tree. I can't see how someone could make such a bold claim and not even bother to read the verse before it.

I'm just reading it literally. Deem would say you are adding your own ideas to the text and not reading it in black and white.

Still sniping from the sidelines? What a gutless wonder you are.

Where have I said that idioms should be read literally? In fact I discussed this very verse several times in the other thread without a robotic word by word interpretation which would render an absurd meaning. As usual, you invent a strawman to fight against because you failed where it really counted. Carry on. You've nearly punched the stuffing out of that strawman. Lol.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 5:55:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 2:26:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:03:24 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
"So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com...;

No, that's not the point. The Bible is speaking metaphorically, and it even explains this in a previous verse. If you tell me that you can't understand what those verses in sequence mean, it's not my job to teach you how to read.

The Bible was not meant to be taken (completely) literal, and I've not seen atheists who claim otherwise. Mhykiel has set up a strawman that would be similar to suggesting you think the entire Bible was meant (completely) metaphorically.

Do you gloss over the posts where deem insists genesis is a literal account? These verses are taken from genesis

Deem seem to argue for the literal in every verse I have seen him post.

Perhaps not the entire Bible but the vast majority of it
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 6:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 5:55:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:26:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:03:24 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
"So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com...;

No, that's not the point. The Bible is speaking metaphorically, and it even explains this in a previous verse. If you tell me that you can't understand what those verses in sequence mean, it's not my job to teach you how to read.

The Bible was not meant to be taken (completely) literal, and I've not seen atheists who claim otherwise. Mhykiel has set up a strawman that would be similar to suggesting you think the entire Bible was meant (completely) metaphorically.

Do you gloss over the posts where deem insists genesis is a literal account? These verses are taken from genesis

Deem seem to argue for the literal in every verse I have seen him post.

Perhaps not the entire Bible but the vast majority of it

Sure, we have atheists who attack literal interpretations, but those posts are not addressing the entire Bible and the interpretations mentioned are advocated by certain Christians (atheists are not responsible for it).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 6:21:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:44:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

and then in

Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened.."

Obviously those Goat herders 6,000 years ago didn't realize that you can't see if your eyes are closed.

A post worthy of Deem, Bulpoop, and Chloe.

As SO points out, if an atheist is attacking some literal reading from the Bible, it's generally a response to a Christian's literal reading of that part of the Bible. We don't believe your book. There's no reason for us to interpret it literally and attack it unless a Christian is already interpreting it literally, and especially if they're doing it to spread ignorance or oppress others. People like Ken Ham interpret Genesis to be a literal account of creation. There are folks of his ilk on this forum. So there are atheists who will attack that interpretation on this forum. The math for this is not hard.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:22:05 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 6:09:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 5:55:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:26:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:03:24 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
"So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com...;

No, that's not the point. The Bible is speaking metaphorically, and it even explains this in a previous verse. If you tell me that you can't understand what those verses in sequence mean, it's not my job to teach you how to read.

The Bible was not meant to be taken (completely) literal, and I've not seen atheists who claim otherwise. Mhykiel has set up a strawman that would be similar to suggesting you think the entire Bible was meant (completely) metaphorically.

Do you gloss over the posts where deem insists genesis is a literal account? These verses are taken from genesis

Deem seem to argue for the literal in every verse I have seen him post.

Perhaps not the entire Bible but the vast majority of it

Sure, we have atheists who attack literal interpretations, but those posts are not addressing the entire Bible and the interpretations mentioned are advocated by certain Christians (atheists are not responsible for it).

Like bulpoop post on Jesus being nailed.

Account in gospell and acts say the chief preists shouted to nail jesus to cross. Pilate says do as you want. Verse says Jesus crucified.

Bulpoop argues because some crucifixions were tied not nailed. We don't know for sure Jesus was nailed.

You don't have a problem with that word by word argument?
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:41:09 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:22:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 6:09:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 5:55:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:26:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:03:24 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
"So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com...;

No, that's not the point. The Bible is speaking metaphorically, and it even explains this in a previous verse. If you tell me that you can't understand what those verses in sequence mean, it's not my job to teach you how to read.

The Bible was not meant to be taken (completely) literal, and I've not seen atheists who claim otherwise. Mhykiel has set up a strawman that would be similar to suggesting you think the entire Bible was meant (completely) metaphorically.

Do you gloss over the posts where deem insists genesis is a literal account? These verses are taken from genesis

Deem seem to argue for the literal in every verse I have seen him post.

Perhaps not the entire Bible but the vast majority of it

Sure, we have atheists who attack literal interpretations, but those posts are not addressing the entire Bible and the interpretations mentioned are advocated by certain Christians (atheists are not responsible for it).

Like bulpoop post on Jesus being nailed.

Account in gospell and acts say the chief preists shouted to nail jesus to cross. Pilate says do as you want. Verse says Jesus crucified.

Bulpoop argues because some crucifixions were tied not nailed. We don't know for sure Jesus was nailed.

You don't have a problem with that word by word argument?
Are you incapable of telling the truth?
Look.
At 8/15/2016 3:12:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
Is there any mention in any gospel claiming that Jesus was nailed to the cross?

I am well aware that the great majority of my questions, if answered honestly, knock over the false walls of your beliefs and that is why you lot are to afraid to answer my questions. That is precisely why I ask them.
Not one of you honestly answered that question, because your religion is built on myth and superstition but if you ever even approach that knowledge you will burn for eternity. Faith Through Fear.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 6:53:59 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 6:41:09 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/16/2016 6:22:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 6:09:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 5:55:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:26:12 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/15/2016 2:03:24 PM, thedynasty139 wrote:
"So the point was to prove that when the Bible says A it actually means B. That fallacy is known as the proof by example fallacy : http://grammarist.com...;

No, that's not the point. The Bible is speaking metaphorically, and it even explains this in a previous verse. If you tell me that you can't understand what those verses in sequence mean, it's not my job to teach you how to read.

The Bible was not meant to be taken (completely) literal, and I've not seen atheists who claim otherwise. Mhykiel has set up a strawman that would be similar to suggesting you think the entire Bible was meant (completely) metaphorically.

Do you gloss over the posts where deem insists genesis is a literal account? These verses are taken from genesis

Deem seem to argue for the literal in every verse I have seen him post.

Perhaps not the entire Bible but the vast majority of it

Sure, we have atheists who attack literal interpretations, but those posts are not addressing the entire Bible and the interpretations mentioned are advocated by certain Christians (atheists are not responsible for it).

Like bulpoop post on Jesus being nailed.

Account in gospell and acts say the chief preists shouted to nail jesus to cross. Pilate says do as you want. Verse says Jesus crucified.

Bulpoop argues because some crucifixions were tied not nailed. We don't know for sure Jesus was nailed.

You don't have a problem with that word by word argument?
Are you incapable of telling the truth?
Look.
At 8/15/2016 3:12:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
Is there any mention in any gospel claiming that Jesus was nailed to the cross?

I am well aware that the great majority of my questions, if answered honestly, knock over the false walls of your beliefs and that is why you lot are to afraid to answer my questions. That is precisely why I ask them.
Not one of you honestly answered that question, because your religion is built on myth and superstition but if you ever even approach that knowledge you will burn for eternity. Faith Through Fear.

Adherence to a strictly literal understanding and deception. An attempt to instill precision bias in the reader.

Is there any verse in the Gospels that specifically say Jesus was nailed to the cross? No bulpoop none.

This of coarse is because you narrow the selection to the 4 Gospels, while Acts 2:23 says Jesus was nailed.

But more so is because precision bias is mistaking precision with accuracy. Narrowing the scope to a literal example of a statement claiming Jesus was nailed to a cross. In absence of such you want to deem the act never happened as said.

But the context of nailing being what the crowd was asking for, the possibility that the common crucifixion was nailing, and that Jesus is said to be crucified... All lead to a nailed Jesus.

It's not as if the crowd shouted "Nail him to the cross" and then when they got a hold of Jesus quartered him. Crucifixions have been known to use nails.

This is the adherence to a literal interpretation, word for word, regardless of context and basic reading comprehension skills.

I ask EVERY Atheist, that if a reading comprehension test was given and the question was asked "How do you think Jesus was killed with nails or not?" would it be fair to mark "with nails" incorrect?

And yet burm and skep want to argue that my post doesn't accurately illustrate the same buffoonery and type of precision bias based argument of bulpoop and de'em? I think it has been well demonstrated and only lost on a few.