The Fall!

[POI]

Otseng stated "Yes, I believe the fall is a thing. As for why, it is out of scope for the current discussion, but can be addressed later."

Your wish has been granted.

For debate: Outside the claim being made from an ancient human writing, why is the assertion of 'the fall' a real thing?

[POI]

As I keep saying; we can all post videos supporting our positions...and I'm not falling down that rabbit hole. This is your thread and if you are gonna post it, at least articulate your stance and why you don't believe it (the fall) is logical.

LOL! I articulate plenty, all the time. I reckon you do not engage it because you already know why the given "fall" storyline is illogical. And that's that.

You are just throwing some bs out there (this thread) just to illicit a Christian response so you can pounce on it in true atheistic skeptical fashion... which, quite frankly, is your M.O.

More funnies. This is a debate forum. The fall has an illogical storyline. You know this, which is why you cannot and will not actually engage it. You instead provide a pivot, (or as you would say, a rabbit hole), by asking about 'morality'. It is quite frankly, not only the theist's M.O., but demonstrates to also be yours. If God also gives us our logic, then why does the storyline break "logic"?

That aside, I engaged the topic..you called it irrelevant (which I disagree), so that's that.

"Engaging", in this case, means you offered a reply. But the reply does not actually address the topic. Thus far, all you have offered are redirects (i.e. morality), tantrums (i.e. to illicit), and also assertions (i.e. when I stand before God).

*********************

So, the guy in the provided video states plainly (in short), WHY the storyline is dumb. Why is 'the fall' not actually a dumb one?

[SiNcE_1985]

LOL! I articulate plenty, all the time.

You do a lot of talking.

No doubt about that one.

I reckon you do not engage it because you already know why the given "fall" storyline is illogical. And that's that.

It is logical to me.

More funnies. This is a debate forum. The fall has an illogical storyline.

Opinions.

You know this, which is why you cannot and will not actually engage it. You instead provide a pivot, (or as you would say, a rabbit hole), by asking about 'morality'. It is quite frankly, not only the theist's M.O., but demonstrates to also be yours. If God also gives us our logic, then why does the storyline break "logic"?

The fall has every bit to do with morality.

If you can't see how the two coincide, then I can't help you.

"Engaging", in this case, means you offered a reply. But the reply does not actually address the topic. Thus far, all you have offered are redirects (i.e. morality), tantrums (i.e. to illicit), and also assertions (i.e. when I stand before God).

Yeah, and not only do I stand firm on everything I said there...but I'm also doubling down on it.

So, the guy in the provided video states plainly (in short), WHY the storyline is dumb. Why is 'the fall' not actually a dumb one?

Ok. The storyline is dumb, and illogical.

You win.

Moving on.

[POI]

It is logical to me.

How so?

The fall has every bit to do with morality.

This topic has nothing to do with what is actually "good/evil". For sake of argument, we can even assume (good/evil) is whatever this God says. It instead has to do with what is, and is not, logical. If you do not want your creation to "sin" against you, then the scenario in which God created, is an illogical one. The (less-than-1 minute-video) explains in very concise and simplistic terms. Why is the guy in the video off in his logic?

Remember, if you believe God both <1) created> 'morals' and also <2) gives> us our 'morals', then you likely also believe this with 'logic' too.

Ok. The storyline is dumb, and illogical. You win. Moving on.

Behind every "joke", is some truth. Like I stated previously "I reckon you do not engage it because you already know why the given "fall" storyline is illogical. And that's that."

[TRANSPONDER]

I would certainly agree that the Eden story is not actually to do with morality or good/evil. Not in any useful way. It is a fairy story and tells no useful or worthwhile information.

It addresses morality but in a childrens' story or a mythology/legend (1) and is not only at odds with everything we know of how the world works (never mind science and history) but makes no logical sense internally or from without. And even taken uncritically, not only is God utterly ungodlike (pushing through the Eden undergrowth not knowing where Adam was) but only makes even bad sense if the whole thing was set up to introduce evil into the world while offloading the blame for it onto Man's shoulders. But that is all the story was ever meant to do, wasn't it? .

(1) I always recall the profoundly irritating poster on my Other board who got into a dickering match about whether Eden was myth or legend. It would have been annoying enough just to have a semantic nit - picker waste our time, but it was intended to try to score a cheap and irrelevant point for the Bible apologetics side. Fortunately, the quality of the posters here is above such dishonest and snivelling cheats

[SiNcE_1985]

How so?

This is your thread...you articulate your position and I'll easily rebut it, and offer a counter argument for mines.

This watch the video stuff is for the birds.

This topic has nothing to do with what is actually "good/evil". For sake of argument, we can even assume (good/evil) is whatever this God says.

Great assumption.

It instead has to do with what is, and is not, logical. If you do not want your creation to "sin" against you, then the scenario in which God created, is an illogical one.

I don't see the illogic.

The (less-than-1 minute-video) explains in very concise and simplistic terms. Why is the guy in the video off in his logic?

I don't know. I didn't watch the video.

Not trying to be evasive...but I have a "don't watch videos" policy.

[POI]

Not trying to be evasive...but I have a "don't watch videos" policy.

Does this "policy" only apply to http://www.debatingchristianity.com, or everywhere?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #226]

Here.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #226]

Here.

Then your applied "policy" is completely inconsistent, as the reason you gave for not engaging them would apply to all arenas, (including other arenas of internet debate), and not just "here".

[SiNcE_1985]

Then your applied "policy" is completely inconsistent

Hmm.

Your other created threads: you state your position in the OP and why.

This created thread: Your position (and why) is not stated in the OP.

Now, how is that for inconsistency?

, as the reason you gave for not engaging them would apply to all arenas, (including other arenas of internet debate), and not just "here".

No, because I may have sufficient reasons as to why my policy is enforced here, as opposed to other areas of the internet.

[POI]

This created thread: Your position (and why) is not stated in the OP.

I produce the (why), where needed, in all arenas. You would have something IF I stated I have a 'policy' which states I cannot produce the (why) in my exchanges in this arena. But I do, all the time, as needed, as you have also acknowledged. I just feel the short video -- (explaining the why), in this particular exchange, cuts to the heart or core of the matter rather than to always provide text responses. It's a 55 second video. If I regurgitate the scenario, I would have to furnish a text wall. And people no likey.

No, because I may have sufficient reasons as to why my policy is enforced here, as opposed to other areas of the internet.

The founder of this arena has no problem furnishing videos, where he feels they are appropriate. Maybe it's time to augment your own "policy". No one is forcing you to participate here. If you do not like the "policies" here, no one is twisting your arm. But, if you say you are not going to engage them, fine. But do not give snarking responses, in it's place. tisk tisk.