neeeel

people might think that I have no sense of humour, but I dont get it

I didnt say the stories dont matter. I didnt say anything about one choice, or one half of the tree. For the last time I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES THEMSELVES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON YOUR USE OF THEM TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT, WHICH RESULTS IN A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN YOUR STATEMENTS. NOT THE STORIES, BUT YOUR STATEMENTS do you get it now?

Its irrelevant to my point whether I equate evil with death (I dont, but its irrelevant) You are equating death as a bad outcome, I never mentioned evil. As I keep saying, its not about the story, or the genesis story, its about how you are relating the two with a logical contradiction

You are totally missing the point. I am finding it hard to comprehend how, since I have now repeated it two or three times again:- The story says we never know if an outcome will be good or bad You are using this story, and then claiming that we know that the outcome of something will be bad.

You keep missing the point. YOU are using a story who's point is that we can never know whether some action or event is a positive or negative thing, to highlight that eating the fruit was a bad thing. I really don't get how you are not seeing this

You keep missing the point. YOU are using a story who's point is that we can never know whether some action or event is a positive or negative thing, to highlight that eating the fruit was a bad thing. I really don't get how you are not seeing this

you are missing the point entirely you are pointing to a story that says we can never know whether an action or outcome is good or bad And then comparing that story to one where theres an outcome that you class as good ( and one outcome is bad) ITs a contradiction

no idea what this is, but unsurprisingly its not an answer to my critisism Edit to add: belief is not the same as action. And yes, atheism is the non belief in a god. You could claim, as some do that strong atheism is a belief, the belief in the non existence of god. But saying "I dont believe you" is not a belief

We can never know whats ultimately good or bad according to the story , but you are claiming that we know that its ultimately good to not eat the fruit, . Its a contradiction. You are using a story about how we cant know if something is good or not, to prove that an action is ultimately for the good

Right,and to not eat the fruit is to decide what is ultimately good or bad. You totally misunderstood the Taoist story and then shoehorned it into your Christian narrative in a way that makes no sense

Doesn't make sense. God made man good but by some mechanism that we never quite know, man somehow "becomes bad"? Come on, you need to do better than that. Gods creation became corrupted, but how,if God is all powerful and all knowing? You can't just say "man fell" and think that is an explanation for anything I have noticed that a lot of people do this, come up with some plausible explanation, and then use that as "proof" for the thing you are supporting. What ifs and maybes add absolutely nothing to the discussion, without evidence to back up your theories. It's just "cool story bro" otherwise. I have noticed people doing this quite a lot, come up with some plausible explanation and then use that explan to support the thing they are advocating for. But you have to realise that what ifs and maybes add absolutely nothing to the discussion without evidence to back up your theories. Anyone can come up with some plausible idea to explain something, doesn't mean it's true

How?

the fact that god made us the way we are, and then punishes us for being the way we are, is a pretty hefty one for me ( no, I dont care or accept that "free will" is a rebuttal to this)

I didnt realise that you were actually talking about your parents in the OP, that it was them you were having the conversations with. Its interesting that you state that you have no desire to talk to your brother and friends about it. I think that tells us something, since it seems obvious that your parents arent interested either. So it seems like "getting through" to your parents has more significance, which makes sense, but what significance does it have, what does it mean? Do you like/love your parents? Do you think they are nice people? Perhaps you believe that if you can get them interested and having conversations and learning self knowledge, they will become nice people?

Why would you want to marry someone who you cant speak your mind to? Why would you want to marry someone who finds you disgusting?

what is "the effort" that she wants you to make? What would that involve?

I was listening to a podcast the other day where stef was talking ( about parents or authority figures, but I think it applies here) about how if a reaction to something seems wierd or exaggerated or out of place, there is probably something going on for the person having the reaction. I wonder whats going on for you? How did your parents react when you tried to bring up some important ( to you) topic? Why is it important to you to talk to people about stuff other than trivialities? I would guess the "we cant all be clever" line is being used to try and bring you back into line, to socially control you and stop you from questioning things. It doesnt sound like they are giving you a compliment.

The question is not necessarily "was I abused" but "did I get what I needed when I was growing up". Did you get the love, support,advice and protection you needed in order to grow up confident and happy?

No. In a free society, people would be free to set up a state, and live under it. Obviously, they would have to have their own land, they couldnt just set up anywhere they wanted, and if they started using violence or coercion on people who hadnt agreed to be in their state, then that would be a problem.

he says they give the correct interpretation of the world, in that , they are reacting to light rays that are really there, and exist, and to chemicals and electric currents that are really there, and exist. So he is correct in that sense. but eyes dont interpret.

I would imagine everyone does this. I dont see how they dont. You carry the people you know, or who are important to you, around with you , in your head. In fact, you only relate to the people you carry around in your head, and not to the actual real people. But thats another thing. so yes, I often have conversations with people in my head, my therapist, my parents, my friends, Why would you fight it? Thats like fighting breathing. You can be aware of it, and acknowledge it, and let it be without attributing significance to it, if thats what you want.

no, objectively true means, its true whether or not anyone believes it As I said, objectively christian doesnt make sense, for the reason you state.

really? No one came forth, challenged your definition of objectively, and gave an alternative? It seems like you are just trying to claim someone ( and his "followers") and bring them into your in-group. Ie, you are trying to claim Stef ( and therefore FDR members) as christian. Objectively christian doesnt make sense. Objective describes something that is outside all minds, outside all "personal beliefs or feelings". This includes your beliefs and feelings. If something is objectively true, then its true whether or not anyone believes it. For someone to be objectively christian, it would have to be true whether or not anyone believed it. Dogs have some human traits, can we then claim that they are objectively human?

Whereas the "they are chosen therefore they are chosen" is not at all circular

I made arguments that werent refuted Tundras argument hasnt been refuted either.