What if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the apple? (1 Viewer)

ReBeL

The Jackal
Jan 14, 2005
22,871
#21
I thought Adam and Eve had kids AFTER they had been kicked out of the Garden of Eden?

Implying they weren't supposed to have kids? Implying kids came to earth along with evil? Birth is evil? Adoption (medical science) is a gift of God to mankind?
"Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter? And He found you wandering, and He gave you guidance. And He found you in need, and made you independent. Therefore, treat not the orphan with harshness, nor drive away a petitioner (unheard). But the bounty of the Lord - rehearse and proclaim!"
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,260
#22
"Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter? And He found you wandering, and He gave you guidance. And He found you in need, and made you independent. Therefore, treat not the orphan with harshness, nor drive away a petitioner (unheard). But the bounty of the Lord - rehearse and proclaim!"
Reference and relevance? (not meaning to be rude btw, just getting straight to the point)
 

ReBeL

The Jackal
Jan 14, 2005
22,871
#23
Reference and relevance? (not meaning to be rude btw, just getting straight to the point)
I just wanted to say that adoption is not needed itself, because God who created people, is capable to guarantee a good life to his slaves without being adopted...

Anyway, ignore it and go back to your topic...
 

Slagathor

Bedpan racing champion
Jul 25, 2001
22,708
#24
Au contraire; God's first commandment to Adam and Eve was to have kids:

What God said after Adam and Eve ate the fruit was that Eve would have labor pains.

Hope that clears it up for you.
Right... And this is supposed to be the being who forgives all?

The Bible contains too many contradictions to be of much use...

"Did He not find you an orphan and give you shelter? And He found you wandering, and He gave you guidance. And He found you in need, and made you independent. Therefore, treat not the orphan with harshness, nor drive away a petitioner (unheard). But the bounty of the Lord - rehearse and proclaim!"
That doesn't tell me anything.

I just wanted to say that adoption is not needed itself, because God who created people, is capable to guarantee a good life to his slaves without being adopted...
Slaves?
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,346
#28
Won't the planet Earth be totally overcrowded now since no one would've died in all of 2000 years, plus the number of million years between the first day God created man, and the birth of Christ?

The Chinese population for instance would've been hitting about ten billion no?

Won't the weight of all those people and animals, plants, etc spanning that time period not have affected the gravitational pull of the planet?

Again think about this in a pragmatic, scientific and logical way and not allow your religion or beliefs to influence your reasoning.

Let's also ignore the fact that I would most likely have been getting to see Beyonce's tatas for free.
A paradise isn't a paradise if it can get overcrowded.
 

ReBeL

The Jackal
Jan 14, 2005
22,871
#29
Sets a good example, that God of yours :lazy:
Well, if he created us to worship him, what can I call the relationship between me & him else than being a slave for him??

If you deny that there is a God, it is another issue...

And if you have another justification for our creation, I want to know it...
 

Slagathor

Bedpan racing champion
Jul 25, 2001
22,708
#30
Well, if he created us to worship him, what can I call the relationship between me & him else than being a slave for him??
That is merely one interpretation of the motives behind God's creation of man.

If you deny that there is a God, it is another issue...
I didn't say that.

And if you have another justification for our creation, I want to know it...
That's the thing: we don't know. None of us do. Neither religious nor atheist.

What bothers me is that people claim to know.

I could give you an odd hundreth of reasons why religious scriptures stand a good chance of being false. It's just as easy to tackle Darwin's theories on the existence of life as well.

If people wish to believe a certain theory on life, that's their business. But when they cross the line from stating they believe to stating they know, is when the discussion turns dangerous.

I don't know anything. Neither do you.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)