What 'exactly' changed in Adam when he sinned?

by gumby 297 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Farkel

  Schizm,

  With regards to the difference between an "answer" to a question and a "reply" to a question, there is a big difference.

  Question: "How many planets are there in our solar system?"

  Answer: "I don't know," or "nine, possibly ten." THAT is an answer.

  Question: "How many planets are there in our solar system?"

  Reply: "I think popsicles are delicious." THAT is a reply.

  Do you now see the difference?

  I said,

  :: Name one parent who would kill their own child if one of the child's friends did something evil.

  You replied,

  : God made the sacrifice, it was men who "killed" his son. And I wouldn't necessarily characterize Adam's misdeed as being "evil". Extremely foolish, yes, but not "evil".

  You didn't answer my challenge: name one parent who would kill their own child if the of the child's friends did something evil. God killed by forcing them to die billions of people for a crime committed by someone else.

  As I said:

  : : As a result God is, in effect killing the victims of the crime: us.

  : Scenario: Farkel fails to train his child to not play out in the street. As a result the child is run over by a car and dies. Who is to blame for the child's death? Is it God, or FARKEL?

  God fails to properly train his first two earthly children of the deadly consequences of fruit eating. He tells them the deadly penalty in just one short sentence. Who's to blame for their deaths and billions of others since them? Who's to blame for an omnipotent and omniscient God not recognizing the distinct possibility that an incredibly naive and inexperience could be easily seduced by a supernatural creature posing as a snake? Is it God, or Eve?
  
  : Of course, you'll undoubtedly take the blame for it yourself. Likewise, the blame for the deaths of all Adam's children falls upon his own head, not that of God's.

  Sure, if that happened to my own child, I would do so. But I'm not God who knows-all and sees-all. Who should be held to a higher standard, then, me or God?

  : It was Adam that failed as a father, and his children had to suffer because of it. "Unfair," you say? Is it also "unfair" that your child had to die due to YOUR negligence?

  One child dying is far different than billions of people dying directly or being wiped out personally by God because of fruit-eating. Your analogy is a weak one. If I had five little children and I was responsible for letting one of them get hit by a car, would it be morally ethical for the Courts to kill me and my other four children because of what I did? No? Well, that's exactly what God did, but on a vastly grander scale.

  : : To make matters worse, in a real ransom situation, when the ransom is paid, the payor gets back what was taken. Christ paid the debt 2,000 years ago and God hasn't done shit. Human perfection [lasting life] was lost in Eden and human perfection [lasting life] should have been returned with the death of Jesus

  : Then the fact that all except those who will rule with Christ won't attain "lasting life" until the end of the millennium must seem all the more unjust to you. While we generally think of it as being *customary* that "the payor gets back what was taken" rather quickly, does that mean that it's NOT a "ransom" if more time is taken to settle the account? If so, then WHO made such a rule?

  "More time" would be ok if it took a week or two, but nearly 2,000 (and counting) years is a joke. The maker of that "rule" is of course, BibleJokeGod who is the greatest and cruelest jokester of all time.

  Here's another curve I'll toss at you: for all the JW assumptions about the ransom to be true, it must first be shown that Adam and Eve were perfect and would have lived on earth forever had they not sinned. You have no argument whatsoever if you cannot provide scriptural proof that Adam and Eve were 1) perfect and 2) would have lived forever had they not sinned.

  Assumptions don't count. Facts do. Can you meet that challenge, my friend?

  Farkel
• 

  Schizm

  Farkel, my friendly foe:
  

  There's just no way that you can be pleased short of someone agreeing with you, is there?

  Why hell-fire man, you don't even agree with a dictionary's definition of the word "reply"!
  

  View Reply Edit Delete View IP ____________________________________________________________________ Action :: Jump to: :: New Topic :: Reply

  Do you recognize the above? Each and every time a person supplies an "answer" to someone else's challenge it is referred to as a "reply". Out of courtesy I had left a message for you saying that I would be back to reply to what you'd said. But instead of appreciating my act of courtesy , you chose instead to be picky, even making a huge issue out of the simple word "reply". If this is the demeanor you exhibit when it comes to such a minor issue as this, others have to wonder if you can be reasoned with at all ... no matter what point is being discussed. If I may be so frank, you strike me as being an idiot. That's not meant in the sense of calling you a name, it's simply the impression I get of you when I read your essays and argumentation on just about every subject you discuss. So while your "words of wisdom" might sound impressive to a number of those who post here, other than the times when you make a "funny" I rarely am impressed with much that you have to say. You really leave me with no logical reason for continuing this discussion. I'm sure that you'll have some sort of a comeback to my having said all this; afterall, you do have to look out for your image. Why hell-fire, what would it look like if the "Farkel" himself actually failed to meet the challenge of someone else saying that his ideas are idiotic? So, have at it my friendly foe. At all costs, maintain that "image"! That's what it's all about with you, isn't it? I mean like, "hell-fire man"! No wonder you can't get anyone to debate with you (which pretty much leaves you talking to yourself ... other than those times when people are swooning over your magnificent sayings and giving you pats on the back). Since YOU refuse to agree with a dictionary's definition of a simple word, I have no reason to discuss ANYTHING with you. You're obviously not a man that can be reasoned with. Schizm
• 

  Farkel

  schizm,

  There was no real reason to call me "hell-fire man" unless it made you feel good.

  : If this is the demeanor you exhibit when it comes to such a minor issue as this, others have to wonder if you can be reasoned with at all

  It is not I who cannot be reasoned with. It is you.

  Actually it is not a minor issue at all. It is a major issue. I presented arguments that shows the difference between an answer and a reply. You ignored them, and assumed that readers on this board are so stupid they couldn't tell the difference. They CAN tell the difference, and I gave a good example that SHOWS the difference.

  Moreover, by your using this red-herring to bolt from this argument, you show yourself not only unworthy of argument, but unworthy of understanding even simple things. "Reply" is different from "Answer." Reply is saying something, even if it comes out of your ass. Answer is actually addressing (to the best of your ability) the challenge set before you. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. Changing the subject or deflecting away from the subject is a reply. Dubs are known to reply when cornered. Get used to we here who know the difference and go scurry away in your cave of lies.

  OR, stick around and listen to debates that you will NEVER have in your little WTS world. We don't play and you are not used to it.

  We don't disfellowship people who disagree with us, either.

  Don't feel bad. I used to think like you think (so far). Unlike you, I learned better.

  Farkel
• 

  Schizm

  Yawn.
• 

  Farkel

  schizm,

  : Yawn.

  THAT is a :reply!: THAT is not an "answer" to my rebuttal. Thank you for showing the entire world who reads this board that you are clueless as to the difference between the two.

  So far you are a LOSER DUB. You've proved my arguments beyond any shadow of a doubt by virtue of your one word "reply.".

  REAL truth seekers should REJOICE when any of their cherished beliefs are shown to be false. Why should they rejoice? Because they have found that one of their paths to truth has been shown to be false. That eliminates one possibilty and creates others in that quest for truth.

  Idiots just get pissed off when any of their cherished beliefs are shown to be false. They forever remain to be idiots and die as idiots. And they cling unto lies unto their death. Sad. May they die in the pathetic lies in which they lived in those same pathetic lies.

  Farkel
• 

  Schizm
• 

  AlanF

  Schizm,

  You replied to Farkel, "Yawn".

  That's why I don't have time for you or your arguments. Do you understand why an intelligent human being has no time for such evasion?

  Probably not, which is why it's as useless to converse with you as it is to converse with someone who, despite all evidence to the contrary, professes to believe that the earth is flat or that tooth fairies abound.

  You have nothing of substance to say in reply to intelligent posters such as Farkel. Wth you it's all smoke and mirrors, just a little bit removed from the Watchtower Society's rantings. In fact, your ideas are a good deal far removed from reality than are the Watchtower's. Think about it. You're not stupid, but you are a bit misguided.

  AlanF
• 

  outbutnotdown

  Farkel,

  I don't think it's fair to call Schizm an idiot because he is a dub, you bad boy, you.

  I think you should call him an idiot only because he has proven that he has very little or NO reasoning powers whatsoever............. lol

  As far as the question originally posted here........... great question!!!!!!

  At least it makes us think about how illogical JW reasoning is and most/all of Christianity's reasoning even.

  Brad
• 

  Abaddon

  My, is this thread still going?

  Schism

  I'd be interested in a reply to my last post.

  To me it seems you have the misplaced excitement of a 4 year-old being taught to play cards and having a King in his hand.

  Just as a 4 year-old might not be aware there are four kings in a pack, you seem blissfully unaware that you are dealing a 'hand' that many religonists play.

  Your arguments are indistinguishable from the majority in terms of their verifiability.

  You, just as other religionists, have what you think is proof, but then so do they.

  In this particular discussion you are again dealing a hand many religionist play; the 'making it up as one goes along hand'.

  You fabricate unsupported flights of fancy to try and make the Bible fit in with modern science. Just like Muslims do with the Q'uaran. Just like Mormons do with the Book of Mormon.

  If that's a belief structure, then so is a discussion about whether the Orc of Mordor are harder to kill than those who follw the White Hand... that would be a flight of fancy based upon an unsupported book.

  The only difference is you claim the bible is in a special catagory... yet another claim you cannot support.

  I'd be happy to discuss any of the above points in detail.
• 

  LittleToe

  Schizm:Don't feel bad. Such conversations are the wind that blows the chaff of our ill-conceived ideas away.
  Feel free to retain your assailed ideas, if you wish to continue in a fantasy (which some prefer to retain, and isn't necessarily all a bad thing), but don't expect to convert others to that viewpoint.

  As for the "Yawn"'s, you might want to try getting some more sleep at night (say's the pot calling the kettle back ).

  Gyles:
  You're a very naughty boy!!!
  You know fine well that Orcs are bl**dy difficult to kill.
  But if I throw a treble six, using my +3 Dwarvian Battle Axe, I might just manage to cleave a few of their skulls.

  LT "once Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master, many, many moons ago" class.