Why Creationism

quote:

---

god is definetly the toughest but the thing here is that he created us and we simply obey him because in the end it will be good for us. Believing in the survival of the fittest is even sicker. this form of thinking leads to a lot of human rights violatons.

---

You won't be an effective debater in this arena until you can untangle your own inappropriate conflation of these two things:1. the unavoidable observation that in nature the fittest survive
2. advocating the artificial selection of people and/or animals that some subset of humanity has labeled as "the fittest."Do you still fail to realize how completely different these are?

quote:

---

Does there have to be a verse that spells it out for you ?

---

This is typical dogmatic arrogance. The implication is that anyone who has not been taught to interpolate meaning the way you do is a godless heathen blinded by unbelief. Either that or they have a mental deficiency. Which implication were you going for?The fact is, if you argue for a literal interpretation of the book, it is quite reasonable to expect that everything be spelled out. Especially since there are so many parts of the story which are, in fact, spelled out in detail.

quote:

---

They could eat from the TREE OF LIFE anytime when they were in paradise, but not when ejected. They were PROHIBITED eating from the tree of life when they were ejected because if they did , they would be IMMORTAL. By Immortal I am referring to a fountain of youth.

---

Zealot, explain this to me: why does God say that they need to be ejected from the garden, lest they also eat of the tree of life, and live forever? First of all, this strongly implies that they had not eaten of that tree yet. Second, what good is the tree of life if one must continuously eat of its fruit? The tree was clearly mortal and must have entered that state by the time the supposed fall occurred (unless you can tell us where it is located today), so their best hope at that time would have been a temporary delay in mortality if, as you insist, one bite did not have a permanent effect. However, I find it more appropriate to the narrative structure (and the only interpretation requiring an ejection from the garden) that the fruit of the tree of life was held by the author and early readers to possess the same quality as its counterpart - a one-time, full-effect, irreversible dose, regardless of quantity.To recap: the ejection was unnecessary, and the symmetry of the scenario destroyed, if continual consumption was required. Thus, from both a logical standpoint and from a poetic view of the story, it is a poor conclusion.

quote:

---

When you choose not to believe something because it doesn't explicity state it in your preferred terms, then should I take pity ? God mentiones NOTHING about abortion in the bible, so it is ok! Closing yourself to the obvious does not deserve empathy.

---

The point is that it is not obvious. I am open to any reasonable interpretation of the text, if it can be supported by logic. I don't need pity, but I do ask for respect.Abortion is a completely different issue. But, even as an aside, it can be used to illustrate that your concept of my approach to the text is wrong. If you believe a fetus is human at some point, then the prohibition of murder is obvious. If you don't believe it's human, it's irrelevant. I can accept this as a good inference from the text, and it is a scientific and/or philosophical question of defining humanity from there on.

quote:

---

You can also argue that pre-marital sex is not wrong. Afterall it does not state that it explicitly in the Bible does it ? You can ignore every other verse thrown at you if you're only going to accept "sex before marriage is sin".

---

Who said anything about ignoring verses? I am pointing out that the Bible, which is held to be an infallible historical document as well as a complete guide to life and everything, should be expected to tell us, explicitly, everything we are expected to take from it. Human interpretation CAN NOT be trusted to infer the proper meaning. Yet those who go to the extremes of literalism simply deny that their interpretation is even a factor.Premarital sex is another separate issue, by the way. I'll leave it alone.

quote:

---

They have just eaten from the Tree of Knowlege. Their eating of the tree of knowlege AND the Tree of Life is problematic. Not their eating from the tree of Life, which they were allowed to eat from.

---

The question is whether they had, not whether they could.

quote:

---

"also of the tree of life" : "also" is used as it it refers back to their eating from the tree of knowlege. Tree of Knowlege and ALSO Tree of Life.

---

This is nothing new. I say they had not yet eaten from the tree, you say they had. What I asked was why God said he must prevent them from "also" eating that fruit if they already had. In your scenario, you say its benefit was only temporary. But it is obvious the tree is no longer there, and was therefore mortal. So they would not have lived forever under ANY circumstances, even if they had been left in the garden, if the fruit did not have a permanent effect. I consider the only reasonable conclusion to be this: they had not yet eaten the fruit. That, and that alone, was my point in this area.

quote:

---

Can you tell me then. Why did they then not eat from the tree of life, if they were allowed to eat from any tree in Pariadise BUT the tree of knowlege ?

---

Don't ask me. By the narrative, it sounds like they had only been around a little while. Maybe they just hadn't bothered. Maybe, like so many unwritten details that are implied (or at least assumed by today's Christians), the same prohibition existed but is not in the text. Maybe the tree of knowledge gave them a new ability to recognize the tree of life. All speculation, all irrelevant. Your assumption that they had already eaten the tree is no better than these speculations, because nothing in the text backs it up.