Thoughts, Your checkmate christianity post made no point at all against any of the fundamental teachings of the religion itself. You don’t throw loosely quoted facts that are not in the Bible to disprove the Bible. You take parts of the Bible that are fallible and tear it apart at the seams. How about this one: In Genesis, the Tree of the Life and the Tree of Knowledge are separated. So how can you expect to learn any knowledge at all about life from it?

Your checkmate christianity post made no point at all against any of the fundamental teachings of the religion itself. You don't throw loosely quoted facts that are not in the Bible to disprove the Bible. You take parts of the Bible that are fallible and tear it apart at the seams. How about this one: In Genesis, the Tree of the Life and the Tree of Knowledge are separated. So how can you expect to learn any knowledge at all about life from it?

They may be “loosely” quoted, but they are facts of the bible. God did kill 50 kids with bears. God did split the languages. etc.

If parts of the bible are fallible, then accepting it as a whole is fallible. Sure, there are some good things like “don’t steal/rape/murder” but I’m attacking the god story they are suggesting, not every moral teaching.

You say “from it”. I can only assume you’re referring to “the tree of knowledge”. If this tree were to grant knowledge, what problem would the TOL (tree of life) being separate from the TOK (tree of knowledge) present? The TOK just gives knowledge in this case. The TOL gives life. Their functionality isn’t dependent on unity.

kellylove90 liked this
keysle posted this