God is cruel

FaithYou state here that And in a previous post you atate Now at the beginning of this post you also state this Now what is actually written? In the DAY thou eatest thou shall surely die.This is contradicted by the fact that banishment from the garden required that they did not die. But the word of God was that they would die and IN the day that they eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.So tell me what crazy idea are you NOT going to present that allows for death to be guaranteed on the same day when the rest of the story contradicts that position.

riVeRrat Bullshit obfuscation, rr, since this is directly in conflict with the rest of the sentence"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.as the present tense implied of the eating of the fruit indicates the punishment to be immediate.It would not be a punishment to ultimately perish since they were doubtless going to die anyway. This is made plain by the fact that hey had not eaten of the tree of life.You grasp at straws to support an invalid position.This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-04-04 07:31 AM

BrianSince there is no valid inference to be made though from the sentence in genesis that would constitute invoking her "own crazy ideas for which there is no support."We shall see what method of arguement this must entail to maintain a semblence of honest discourse on her part.

riVeRrat The literal translation of the hebrew according to info provided by the blueletter bilble is a follows`ets da`ath towb ra` 'akal yowm 'akal muwth muwthtree knowledge good evil eat day eat die diePlease inform us of the sentence you would construct from the literal will you? Since when is the promtion of an unfalsifable hypothesis {God} a product of scientific thinking rr? "If God exists" is implicative of personal bias as to what constitutes the nature of God. The sentence could therefore be correct as stated and simply be a contradiction to which the lack of clarity on your part arises from emotional investment you have made into the notion of God.
Now, if "He would not be a liar" then at the very least God is inept and vague. That I find this situation to be a product of human agendas is,to me, the more likely scenario. This also helps to explain in sweeping scope the vast array of need for Christian Apologetics.The defense of a weak position is always best served by providing the illusion of strength.This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2006-04-05 09:10 AM

riVeRrat No, because many possibilities have already been eliminated by science. My point was that the hypothesis you put forward has to have a means of falsification{even if only in principle} in order to allow science to eliminate it from the field. Failing this,it cannot be resolved by scientific means. Did you want a chance to edit this statement or are you serious? So you say.This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2006-04-05 11:19 AM

riVeRrat Such as flat earths, fixed stars, perpetual motion machines, etc. That is how science works though. We put together models such as the theory of evolution, theory of relativity, and never once try to "prove" it right but only attempt to produce an experiment or view an observation that deinitively falsifies it.As Einstein once said. ""No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."Thus we advance science by attempting to falsify the model. Your model that includes God has no means by which it can be falsified.