Fallacies in Christianity

[Aesir]

Thank you first off for not saying i twisted scripture there.
Next, remember the verse you quoted Matt 5:17(“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.) christ says i fulfilled the law. If i fulfill a contract its null and void correct? I 'm not breaking it, nor am i doing away with it. But it served its purpose. Christ introduced a new covenant, or contract/law(Luke 22:20)(john 13:33) that his followers were to follow which paul described as "law of the Christ,".

Yes however later on Jesus goes on to state in Matthew 5:18-19 I'm going to paraphrase here if you don't mind. Until heaven and earth are no more the law remains. So more a less he's saying the laws stay until heaven and earth are no more, basically until the second coming or the rapture.

So why is Paul advocating it's abolishment?

This is true: Galatia did have that problem. They felt they needed to follow the law in order to gain eternal life in heaven. This included mandatory circumcision. Paul was explaining that because Jesus died, these customs of the Jews weren't necessary anymore. He's not 'appeasing', he's teaching.

Which seems to beg the question, was he abolishing the law? or rather was he abolishing the obsessive practice. Basically were the Galatia more worried about up holding the law rather then looking good in god's eyes.

I would say it's the latter especially since Jesus not once says the Old Laws are no more he reinforces them.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Which seems to beg the question, was he abolishing the law? or rather was he abolishing the obsessive practice. Basically were the Galatia more worried about up holding the law rather then looking good in god's eyes.

I would say it's the latter especially since Jesus not once says the Old Laws are no more he reinforces them.

Looking good in God's eyes sounds like work righteousness, a false doctrine.

 

[Peeze]

Yes however later on Jesus goes on to state in Matthew 5:18-19 I'm going to paraphrase here if you don't mind. Until heaven and earth are no more the law remains. So more a less he's saying the laws stay until heaven and earth are no more, basically until the second coming or the rapture.

Keep reading Aesir. Jesus gives his own rendition of the law.(also paraphrasing if you dont mind) vs 21 "you heard it was said dont murder", then christ expounds on the law and says dont even hold a grudge against your brother. vs 27 "you heard it was sed" dont commit adultery then christ says however dont even look at a woman longingly. vs 33 "you heard it was sed" dont swear a vow without paying it. christ says dont even swear. the entire chapter goes on that way concluding with vs43 "you heard it was sed love your neighbor hate your enemy" christ sed however "love your enemy".
What do we discern form this aesir(this is not me twisting rather a logical conclusion drawn out)? That christ obviously believed the principles of the law still applied but his followers(christians) were to go beyond the law if you will. This obviously caused some confusion(as it still does today) which is why paul simply sed" you are no longer under law"

 

[Eor]

EDIT2: Eor, you post these passages, you tell what they say, and then *you* drop off the scene, leaving the extensive backdrop and context to each of the stories in limbo.

Why should I waste my time copying/pasting entire chapters of the Bible, when I already summarized them? I presented my arguments and I provided all the sources I need. I'm not going to waste my time copying/pasting entire parts of the Bible just because you refuse to provide an argument. I asked you many questions, please answer them.

And yes, you are right that the passage was a parable. I was at fault.

edit: woah, I totally misread what you said. My bad. Editing this post now

edit2: Drop off the scene? I'm right here. I don't know what you expected me to do, post your argument for you? Don't dodge this. Answer my questions, respond to the scripture I showed you.

 

[Peeze]

Why should I waste my time copying/pasting entire chapters of the Bible, when I already summarized them? I presented my arguments and I provided all the sources I need. I'm not going to waste my time copying/pasting entire parts of the Bible just because you refuse to provide an argument. I asked you many questions, please answer them.

And yes, you are right that the passage was a parable. I was at fault.

edit: woah, I totally misread what you said. My bad. Editing this post now

edit2: Drop off the scene? I'm right here. I don't know what you expected me to do, post your argument for you? Don't dodge this. Answer my questions, respond to the scripture I showed you.

Ok i''l prove you wrong on another one at "random" lol. 2 sam 24:1 god did not order david to count the people. The king james version renders it as "he"(suggesting god) incited david to count the people. This is a translation error and is corrested in the 21st century king james version to read"
1And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he [Satan] moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
This makes more sense seeing that ? First Chronicles 21:1(the parallel account) says “Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.”
Also Joab resisted when david told him to count the people. If god told david to do it joab wouldnt have resisted.

Another one at "random"!

genesis 4:24(which you sed yourself you didnt understand):
The account does not explicitly state whose life was in danger. However, we can reasonably conclude that it was not Moses’ life, for he had just received a divine commission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. (Exodus 3:10) It seems unlikely that on his way to fulfill that assignment, Moses’ life would have been threatened by God’s angel. It therefore would be the life of one of his sons. The law given earlier to Abraham regarding circumcision stated: “An uncircumcised male who will not get the flesh of his foreskin circumcised, even that soul must be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:14) Moses had apparently neglected to circumcise his son, and thus the boy’s life was threatened by God angel. Thus how touching his childs foreskin saved his life.

 

[Aesir]

Go beyond the law does not mean you are beyond the law, I think you're getting this confused as he states in 20:

20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

He clearly wanted Christians to up hold the old laws, all he did was make revisions of other laws.

 

[Peeze]

Uphold the PRINCIPLES of the law. member what he told the pharisees at Matt 23:23
"Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness." They paid more attention to every little detail in the law when christ said look at the big picture what the law taught.
He kept emphasizing it was important, however love(for god and nieghbor)is what the law really stressed and what he taught his disciples to have among themselves as part of his new law to them john 13:33 again

 

[Eor]

Ok i''l prove you wrong on another one at "random" lol. 2 sam 24:1 god did not order david to count the people. The king james version renders it as "he"(suggesting god) incited david to count the people. This is a translation error and is corrested in the 21st century king james version to read"
1And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he [Satan] moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
This makes more sense seeing that ?

It does. But unfortunately, that is just about the only bible translation that has it. Every other Bible clearly states that it is God who ordered. A lot of them don't even have the ambiguity of "he", instead they mention the "anger of the Lord" commanding David to make a census. That 1 Chronicles contradicts this is just another contradiction. But, the purpose was not just that God has argued for it, which isn't the point. The point was the 70,000 innocents that God slaughtered as a result.


First Chronicles 21:1(the parallel account) says “Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.” [/QUOTE]

Also Joab resisted when david told him to count the people. If god told david to do it joab wouldnt have resisted.[/QUOTE]

genesis 4:24(which you sed yourself you didnt understand):
The account does not explicitly state whose life was in danger. However, we can reasonably conclude that it was not Moses’ life, for he had just received a divine commission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. (Exodus 3:10) It seems unlikely that on his way to fulfill that assignment, Moses’ life would have been threatened by God’s angel. It therefore would be the life of one of his sons. The law given earlier to Abraham regarding circumcision stated: “An uncircumcised male who will not get the flesh of his foreskin circumcised, even that soul must be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:14) Moses had apparently neglected to circumcise his son, and thus the boy’s life was threatened by God angel. Thus how touching his childs foreskin saved his life.

Correct! It was his first born that was in danger, not Moses himself. And it was because his son was uncircumcised, as Zipporah was against it. But you still didn't answer why it is moral for God to kill uncircumcised children.

 

[Aesir]

why do you people offer the most strangest quotes? =\

Uphold the PRINCIPLES of the law. member what he told the pharisees at Matt 23:23
"Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness." They paid more attention to every little detail in the law when christ said look at the big picture what the law taught.
He kept emphasizing it was important, however love(for god and nieghbor)is what the law really stressed and what he taught his disciples to have among themselves as part of his new law to them john 13:33 again

Actually no, Jesus is saying the teachers have fallen into worldly indulgences rather then up holding the law. When they speak they up hold it but their actions do not, later in that chapter Jesus warns them do as they say, but not as they do.

This doesn't say don't obey the law it's just saying don't follow the actions of the teacher follow the message. This doesn't say don't obey the old laws. All Jesus has done is expand on the laws from the previous forms I can't grasp where you get the idea that Jesus is all for the abolishment.

What I really think Paul and Jesus are saying here is to use your judgement on these laws. He goes on to expand on many of the practices in the OT. Such as the bit on murder and what have you, they're in no way black and white like the laws perscribed in the early works of the OT.

Which is rather interesting when you compare the OT which is derived and heavily edited for the Torah. In Judaism Jews kept to themselves and didn't impose their beliefs on others all so much, while the Christians purpose is to spread "the good news". So Jesus more a less had to create a Grey area because there's no way those current laws would have been ideal for a religion that strived to spread it's word.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Why should I waste my time copying/pasting entire chapters of the Bible, when I already summarized them? I presented my arguments and I provided all the sources I need. I'm not going to waste my time copying/pasting entire parts of the Bible just because you refuse to provide an argument. I asked you many questions, please answer them.

And yes, you are right that the passage was a parable. I was at fault.

edit: woah, I totally misread what you said. My bad. Editing this post now

edit2: Drop off the scene? I'm right here. I don't know what you expected me to do, post your argument for you? Don't dodge this. Answer my questions, respond to the scripture I showed you.

I'm not asking you to copy and paste the entire chapter. You're only summarizing what the verse itself says; there is so much left to be desired from the context of said verses, for example the case of the parable I pointed out.

 

[Eor]

I'm not asking you to copy and paste the entire chapter. You're only summarizing what the verse itself says; there is so much left to be desired from the context of said verses, for example the case of the parable I pointed out.

In which case I admited that I was wrong about it. I could go on about how the parable of ten minas/talents was a reference to God giving knowledge to the Jews and that they fail by not spreading the knowledge, which would make the King in the parable God and so the king's quote God's quote, but that's not important. I listed around 30 examples of God slaughtering and killing people. All you did was find a single quote, post about it, then act like it somehow means I made the others up. I didn't take single quotes, I took full passages and full stories.

 

[Peeze]

why do you people offer the most strangest quotes? =\



Actually no, Jesus is saying the teachers have fallen into worldly indulgences rather then up holding the law. When they speak they up hold it but their actions do not, later in that chapter Jesus warns them do as they say, but not as they do.

This doesn't say don't obey the law it's just saying don't follow the actions of the teacher follow the message. This doesn't say don't obey the old laws. All Jesus has done is expand on the laws from the previous forms I can't grasp where you get the idea that Jesus is all for the abolishment.

What I really think Paul and Jesus are saying here is to use your judgement on these laws. He goes on to expand on many of the practices in the OT. Such as the bit on murder and what have you, they're in no way black and white like the laws perscribed in the early works of the OT.

Which is rather interesting when you compare the OT which is derived and heavily edited for the Torah. In Judaism Jews kept to themselves and didn't impose their beliefs on others all so much, while the Christians purpose is to spread "the good news". So Jesus more a less had to create a Grey area because there's no way those current laws would have been ideal for a religion that strived to spread it's word.

I think we agree here. I never said jesus was all for abolishment, ever. I think you said it best
"they're in no way black and white like the laws prescribed"...meaning the principles of the law still mattered, which harmonizes with what paul said "you are no longer under the law"

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

In which case I admited that I was wrong about it. I could go on about how the parable of ten minas/talents was a reference to God giving knowledge to the Jews and that they fail by not spreading the knowledge, which would make the King in the parable God and so the king's quote God's quote, but that's not important. I listed around 30 examples of God slaughtering and killing people. All you did was find a single quote, post about it, then act like it somehow means I made the others up. I didn't take single quotes, I took full passages and full stories.

So all in all, from those passages, you're saying that its not ok for God to kill people who go against his will? For example, God was serious about only high priests carrying the ark of the covenant; when David ordered it moved, and the mover that touched on accident wasn't a high priest, he died because of God's former command.

 

[Eor]

So all in all, from those passages, you're saying that its not ok for God to kill people who go against his will? For example, God was serious about only high priests carrying the ark of the covenant; when David ordered it moved, and the mover that touched on accident wasn't a high priest, he died because of God's former command.

Of course it's not ok for God to kill people against his will, by that standard it's ok to murder everyone that doesn't believe in him or does anything else against him. Use that logic to explain how it would not be moral for you to go kill a Hindu.

And the priest who touched the ark was not the one that ordered it's moving. It was a random priest that went with them. Doesn't make much sense to punish an underling instead of the person who ordered it.

edit: and there is no "all in all", I present passages that clearly show God massacring indiscriminately people who had done no ill, but only had the misfortune of being in the country of someone who had. You also ignored my question about Jesus and slavery, as well as the contradictions between the story of David and the census between books, along with everything else. If you're going to do an actual response, do it point by point. Don't lump them all together, because they can't be lumped all together.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

I probably should have sent '*went* against his will', as God was clearly only instructing the Israelites those requirements. That's why not even the Pharisees of the NT did random things they read in the OT; its just common sense that when the OT recounts the killing of the Midianites or whoever was in Canaan when the Israelites were taking it over, its not telling us to do the same to non-believers.

 

[Eor]

I probably should have sent '*went* against his will', as God was clearly only instructing the Israelites those requirements. That's why not even the Pharisees of the NT did random things they read in the OT; its just common sense that when the OT recounts the killing of the Midianites or whoever was in Canaan when the Israelites were taking it over, its not telling us to do the same to non-believers.

So either your saying there is no code of morals and that God picks and chooses per race, or God commanded the Israelis to sin.

And again, you ignored everything else I said, and you have yet to mention about the morality of God slaughtering thousands of innocents. Unless I'm mistaken, God is not an Israeli.

 

[arrowhead]

Remember the bible describes god as just, and loving. it certainly wouldnt be just or loving to set adam and eve up for failure. He gave them a choice. Its not a matter of if he knows, its if he chooses to know. It would be against gods standard of justice to knowingly put adam and eve in a situation where they would only sin.

god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving
god chooses to create the universe
since he is all knowing, he knows everything that is going to happen in the universe before he creates it
he chooses to create a universe where adam and eve fail

how does this not demonstrate that god is not all knowing and/or all loving?

 

[Eor]

If anything, the God of the Old Testament is one who proclaims himself to be the only God and all loving/powerful, but then becomes jealous and short tempered, slaughtering thousands in rage. Sounds more like the Demiurge then an all-loving God to me.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Well, God himself says he is jealous, and for good reason. If someone who knew he existed and worshiped him fell away and worshiped another god, wouldn't that person just be asking for punishment? I think it says elsewhere in the bible that those who fall away from worshiping the one true God are gonna get even worse punishment.

Are the thousands he slaughtered in rage God's fault, or Noah's sons' fault for not keeping in the faith?

 

[arrowhead]

Well, God himself says he is jealous, and for good reason. If someone who knew he existed and worshiped him fell away and worshiped another god, wouldn't that person just be asking for punishment? I think it says elsewhere in the bible that those who fall away from worshiping the one true God are gonna get even worse punishment.

Are the thousands he slaughtered in rage God's fault, or Noah's sons' fault for not keeping in the faith?

god is all powerful and all knowing, yet he specifically created a universe where people would defy him? and then he gets jealous?

and i thought god was all loving. killing thousands of people for not worshipping him doesn't sound like love to me.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

God showed those people love, and they openly rejected that love. That is why God killed them. If God was completely *fair*, everyone would be in hell. It's only because of Jesus' sacrifice that Christians get to go to heaven.
Romans 10:2-4
2For I can testify about them [Israelites] that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

 

[Eor]

Well, God himself says he is jealous, and for good reason. If someone who knew he existed and worshiped him fell away and worshiped another god, wouldn't that person just be asking for punishment? I think it says elsewhere in the bible that those who fall away from worshiping the one true God are gonna get even worse punishment.

A jealous, egotistical prick.

Are the thousands he slaughtered in rage God's fault, or Noah's sons' fault for not keeping in the faith?

Obviously God's fault because God was the one who personally killed them for no fault of their own.

God showed those people love, and they openly rejected that love. That is why God killed them. If God was completely *fair*, everyone would be in hell. It's only because of Jesus' sacrifice that Christians get to go to heaven.

So you're saying it's ok to kill those who reject God. That is what you are claiming. No fair God would make a world where everyone that lives will get an eternity of punishment then say he is all loving. That is nothing more then an egotistical, jealous prick who thinks he's king. He's like the cartoon villains. Your God is openly evil and you don't see it. If a Hindu god claimed to love everyone, but then ripped twenty thousand people in half because someone offended him, what would you say? He's like the jealous husband who says "you're making me do this" when he beats his wife.

You still haven't even responded to anything I've asked. I said "defend this", not explain. You have just said that they rejected God, you have no said why that makes it ok to kill them.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

It was ok to kill them because they broke their covenant with God as Jews.
I give you Luther's explanation to the ten commandments:
The Close of the Commandments
What does God say about all of these commandments?
He says, "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments" (Exodus 20:5-6).
What does this mean?
God threatens to punish all who break these commandments. Therefore, we
should fear His wrath and not do anything against them. But He promises grace
and every blessing to all who keep these commandments. Therefore, we should
also love and trust in Him and gladly do what He commands.

Now from this, explain why it wasnt ok for God not to kill the people who broke his covenant with him in these OT accounts.

 

[Eor]

I know that scripture, I posted it in my earlier post as an example of God punishing people who have done no wrong, only had the misfortune of being born to the wrong person.

You are really asking me why it isn't ok to commit genocide against those who have different religious beliefs? Really?

Fine. Because God purposefully presents himself as mysterious and a liar (all loving, but then Jealous and murdering those who did no harm), and it's only natural for people to question this. Human life is life, and...wow, I really can't believe I'm arguing against something like the holocaust. How the **** can you be a reasonable person and think that type of **** is ok?

You present no evidence or reason, you only present an argument. He doesn't kill those who break his commands, he kills those who have nothing to do with it. He plagues and kills thousands who have done nothing, he indiscriminately kills those who do the slightest blight in his own mind, and you are really saying that it's ok to kill them. That is unbelievable.

Explain how an all loving God can kill those who cause no harm to others. Unless you think it's loving to murder someone then torture them for all eternity.

Also, you say we all belong in Hell, but God, being all powerful, could do anything, making that not a possibility. Explain how it is loving to have Hell, when he could change the fabric of the universe or anything to make it otherwise.

And you are still ignoring about 80% of all of my posts, but I'm expecting that from now on.

Edit: I'm sorry, I lost myself there. I'll try to be more reasonable and respectful.

Your quote does not explain why is would be ok to kill people, just that God will kill them if they do one of these things. Coupled with what I said earlier about an all-loving God not killing then torturing people for all eternity, this does not make sense.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Matthew 13:19

19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart.

You win, Eor. And I think you know what you've won.

 

[arrowhead]

luigi you still didn't respond to my question: why would god specifically create a universe where people would defy him and then punish the people in anger? it's like me purposely creating a video game where that's impossible to win, and then destroying my TV because i got angry for losing

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

Hopefully you wont resent that this one is based on Judaism, not Christianity. But considering Christianity's strong relationship to Judaism, it should still be acceptable in this thread.

During the exile of the Jews to ancient Babylon, the Jews were exposed to the current state religion of ancient Persia, Zoroastrianism. One of the characters in the Zoroastrian religion is a dark force called ****an. As a way to survive in this new culture, the Jewish people adapted their religion and added a similar dark force. Today, we know that force as Satan.

Considering most (if not all) religions rely of the belief that they are the only true religion, how can a religion maintain it's credibility if it mixes with other religions that can only devalue it as a whole? Judaism is therefore lacking credibility because it has mixed it's culture and teachings with another religion and by relation, Christianity is lacking credibility.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Jude 1:6

6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Jude is talking about the fall of Lucifer and his followers; which happened before Creation, and certainly before even the exodus from Egypt, much less the Jews in captivity in Babylon.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

Jude 1:6

6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Jude is talking about the fall of Lucifer and his followers; which happened before Creation, and certainly before even the exodus from Egypt, much less the Jews in captivity in Babylon.

This is in the old testament?

 

[arrowhead]

luigi you still didn't respond to my question: why would god specifically create a universe where people would defy him and then punish the people in anger? it's like me purposely creating a video game where that's impossible to win, and then destroying my TV because i got angry for losing

luigi it would be nice if you responded to this, unless you are not able to and admit that christianity is completely flawed

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

luigi it would be nice if you responded to this, unless you are not able to and admit that christianity is completely flawed

Tim_the_Enchanter prepares himself for the Christian super-excuse.......... get ready!!!!!!

Random Christian Noob: It is not ours to know, only God knows.

Tim_the_Enchanter shanks Christian Noob.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

This is in the old testament?

...Huh? Its the New Testament, talking about events that happend during the Old Testament.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

luigi it would be nice if you responded to this, unless you are not able to and admit that christianity is completely flawed

Well, not every juxtaposition is perfect...

The purpose of living is to spread the Word of God. If someone was unable to answer that question, it wouldnt be christianity that is flawed, but humankind. Which it is, as the account of Adam and Eve's fall into sin portrays that death is unnatural to humans, because God created humans to be perfect and live forever.

 

[Tim_The_Enchanter]

...Huh? Its the New Testament, talking about events that happend during the Old Testament.

Okay, and the New Testament was based on the Old Testament. Jesus was teaching about the Old Testament, the same Testament that was revised to include the Zoroastrian dark evil we call Satan.

 

[arrowhead]

Well, not every juxtaposition is perfect...

The purpose of living is to spread the Word of God. If someone was unable to answer that question, it wouldnt be christianity that is flawed, but humankind. Which it is, as the account of Adam and Eve's fall into sin portrays that death is unnatural to humans, because God created humans to be perfect and live forever.

if adam and eve were made perfect they wouldn't have been able to be tempted to sin

but really, i cannot believe your will to cling to christianity despite all of the logical fallacies even within ITS OWN TEACHINGS. i guarantee nobody will be able to answer my question in a way supportive to christianity. but since you say it's not god that is flawed, it's us, i would like to know exactly how we are flawed to be able to find contradictions in the teachings of christianity.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

They were given free will in order to glorify God and his commands, and by using their free will, they listened to Satan.

A lot of atheists should read the Bible before they make an argument. Some say they were Christian before they lost faith, but that doesn't necessarily mean they studied the Bible in depth, they just let people tell them what to do without looking to the Bible for consul.

 

[snex]

They were given free will in order to glorify God and his commands, and by using their free will, they listened to Satan.

A lot of atheists should read the Bible before they make an argument. Some say they were Christian before they lost faith, but that doesn't necessarily mean they studied the Bible in depth, they just let people tell them what to do without looking to the Bible for consul.

a lot of atheists HAVE read the bible, and thats why they are atheists. i would put money on you never having read the entire thing cover to cover.

the bible is just full of contradictions all over the place. you cant possibly have read it and not noticed a single one of them. to illustrate the point, i challenge you to describe to me, in exact detail, the story of judas' death. you must use every single verse in the bible that talks about it, and you are not allowed to use any extra-biblical sources. the story can be found once in matthew and one in acts of the apostles. do it if you can.

 

[arrowhead]

They were given free will in order to glorify God and his commands, and by using their free will, they listened to Satan.

if adam and eve were created perfect they wouldn't have been able to be tempted to sin, even with free will. because, you know, they were PERFECT.

 

[Chaco]

if adam and eve were created perfect they wouldn't have been able to be tempted to sin, even with free will. because, you know, they were PERFECT.

Christianity is not a submissive religion. It is possible he gave them free will. And nothing is perfect. Everything has it's flaws.

 

[arrowhead]

Christianity is not a submissive religion. It is possible he gave them free will. And nothing is perfect. Everything has it's flaws.

then the bible is wrong about god