A slight amendment to your smug retort would be, I got nothing . . . for you. You get that? It isn't an arrogant smart *** reply, it's my personal statement to you made while fully aware that you got nothing . . . for me as well.
Our argument isn't conducive to anything other than our propagandist agenda furthering nothing more than our apparent ability to promote our world views resulting in nothing more than, a. insulting any merit those views may have had in the first place and b. more importantly, our egos.
It's a debate for the sake of debate.
So let's recap...
You posed a question: "God gave us every plant for food. What about Canabis sativa
? Is it okay to eat (or smoke) that plant? How about the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum
), coca plant (Erythroxylum coca
), or the peyote cactus (Lophophora williamsii
)? Did God give us these plants to eat too? It would seem that he did, since there are no exceptions given in Genesis 1:29
I answered by saying that we can conclude that the Bible's claims about what God said about all the plants being for food is incorrect.
You said that this isn't necessarily the case, and go on to talk about another claim from the Bible, specifically, that it could have been the case that we were meant to develop the world. At this point, it seemed to me that you are just trying to find excuses to hold the position that the Bible's claim about all the plants being for food was correct.
I point that out, and I point out that the position that the Bible's claims are INcorrect is just as valid.
You take issue with my statement that you are starting with the assumption that the Bible's claims are correct, despite the fact that your initial question was treating the claims as a given. You also claim that you know the Bible is mistaken, and you also say you know where it is mistaken. Then you say the point is to get me to do the same. This is despite the fact that I have already stated that the Bible is mistaken, and specified that the claim about all the plants being used for food is one such example. So I have pointed out the Bible is mistaken, and pointed out where, yet you think you need to teach me this. Not only are you telling me something I already know, but you are acting like you are the only one with some great, world-changing knowledge, perhaps hoping that we'll be amazed when we finally figure it out.
Now, when I said that the claim that the Bible's claim was incorrect, you said it was a possible conclusion, not a premise (despite the fact that you seemed to be treating it as a premise). I pointed out that it is a conclusion that does not hold up to scrutiny. After all, there are lots of plants around that are dangerous or even deadly for humans to consume. Since this conclusion does not hold up to scrutiny, it should be abandoned. I also pointed out that you seemed to have started this thread solely for the purpose of walking us through your reasoning, apparently to reach the conclusion that many of us (including me) have already reached, and I asked why you were doing this.
You responded to my claim that the conclusion that all plants were intended as food doesn't hold up to scrutiny by telling me that I just didn't have a clue. So apparently I didn't reach the same conclusion that you wanted me to, but you didn't try to explain where I was mistaken, you just resorted to immature behaviour. And in response to me asking why you are trying to walk us through your reasoning to reach a conclusion we have already reached, you start talking about passages that weren't in the originals but were added later. Non sequitur.
In my next post, I asked you to explain your assertion that I just don't have a clue, and I ask you to get to the point of your non sequitur.
You then resort to immaturity again, as well as passive aggressive behaviour with the old chestnut, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."
At this point, I conclude that you're just blowing smoke, since you can't seem to get to whatever point you were trying to make, and you don't actually have anything of substance.
And now here we are.
So, you have said that you know the Bible is mistaken. You asked me for my opinion on a particular claim from the Bible, and when I answered that we can conclude that this particular Bible claim is wrong, you say that I am wrong, and that deciding that the claim is wrong is one of the conclusions we can reach, despite the fact that I had already presented it as a possible conclusion.
And I'm doubting you had anything of merit to begin with.