Freethought & Rationalism Archive

excreationist · 11-11-2003, 06:58 AM

Doctor X / Jim Larmore :

Yeah... I had a quote about that several posts ago...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat3.htm

Quote:

Isaiah 14:12-24 is interpreted by some as referring to Satan by the name "helel" in Hebrew. This is often translated as "Lucifer" or "Morning Star." The passage describes how he had fallen from heaven, was thrown to earth, expressed a desire to sit "on the mountains where the Gods assemble", wished to be like God, and had attacked many cities, leaving them in ruins. At first glance, this looks like a description of some of the activities of Satan. However, verse 4 clearly states that the passage refers to the King of Babylon, not to Satan. Isaiah was simply showing "sarcastic contempt for the mighty Babylonian monarch that had recently fallen, vanished as does [the morning star] Venus from the daytime sky." 1

I didn't remember to respond to Jim Larmore's reply though, so I'll do that now...

Quote:

....The dualism is present in the passage in Ezek. and Isaiah where it talks about the king of Tyre, but it plainly is also speaking of Lucifer and his fall in heaven....

Actually, the Isaiah passage is talking about the king of Babylon (not Tyre).
Verse 12 in the NIV says this:
"How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!"

Besides that religioustolerence.org quote, there are many sources that say that "the morning star" means Venus...

e.g.
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/eve_morn.html
"Actually, "evening star" or "morning star" nearly always refers to Venus, which is by far the brightest celestial object in the sky after the sun and moon."
"In other words, when the sun sets in the evening they might be in the west, near the sun as an evening star. Or they could be in the morning sky before sunrise, again, near the sun."

This agrees with the part "son of the dawn" since "the morning star" is visible at dawn.

Apparently Venus (the morning star) falls (or vanishes?) daily... it falls from "heaven" (outer space)... and the king of Babylon could have fallen from a kind of metaphorical heaven - as a parallel. You're claiming that some of those verses have a third meaning, which describe Satan.

BTW, this is the only time when the morning star aka "lucifer" is mentioned in the KJV... (the KJV translates "morning star" as "lucifer" for some reason...) So if this passage doesn't apply to Satan that means that Satan's name isn't Lucifer! (Since Lucifer isn't mentioned elsewhere in the Bible)

BTW, what about verse 16 in the KJV? (I'm using the KJV because it actually uses the word "lucifer" instead of "morning star") :

"They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;"

Is Satan as "man"?

In verse 22 it mentions Babylon again implying that that whole passage had been about the king of Babylon.

Jim Larmore · 11-11-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
Yeah... I had a quote about that several posts ago...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat3.htm

But I guess Jim Larmore doesn't really care (since I've already written this and he seemed to ignore it).

I haven't ignored it, I can only do so much and teach at the same time. Lucifer became satan after he was kicked out of heaven, this is even the conclusion of many of the critics who say this is all a myth. Whats the big deal here?

excreationist · 11-11-2003, 07:39 AM

Jim Larmore:
Sorry... after reading an earlier post of yours I've edited my previous post.
BTW, like the Ezekiel passage, Isaiah 14 doesn't mention *anything* about this person deceiving Adam and Eve and having a war in Heaven where a third of the angels were cast out. It just talks about a morning star that falls from heaven - which may be talking about outer space...

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStu...tr&language=en

If you click on the word "heaven" in that passage you see that the possible meanings are:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...64&version=kjv

Quote:

1. heaven, heavens, sky
a. visible heavens, sky
1. as abode of the stars
2. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
b. Heaven (as the abode of God)

Isaiah also mentions many other things that don't seem to apply to Satan at all, which people like to conveniently ignore.

In answer to your question "what's the big deal here?" - I'm interested in things like accuracy. Perhaps those that don't believe in Satan might say that passage talks about Satan partly due to laziness. I mean it is easier to just give up and let Christians hold onto their traditions. (Even though Isaiah was written quite a while before the Christians came along)

BTW, do you believe that there was a war in Heaven where Satan had a third of the angels on his side and they got thrown out of Heaven? Did this happen before or after the snake (who supposedly was controlled by Satan) tempted Eve?

Jim Larmore · 11-11-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist

Have you considered the possibility that the parts about him being in Eden, etc, were symbolic?

Jim's comment
No I believe lucifer who became satan according to the Bible was the originator of sin and his being in Eden was literal.

Excreationist comment:
Note that verse 17 only talks about one person being thrown to earth... it doesn't say anything about a third of the angels coming with him, which is an important part of the story. It seems that he was thrown to earth just because he was proud and not wise enough - it doesn't mention any kind of war in heaven (like in Revelation).
Note that it seems that was translated according to the belief that that passage is about Satan. In some other translations, such as the Contemporary English Version, it seems to assume that it was just a king.

Jim's Comment:
Just because it doesn't mention it here doesn't mean it didn't happen. Christians take the account in Revelation where it does say a third of the angels were cast out with lucifer to base their belief of this on, we take the whole Bible not just a few verses from one book and isolate them for their contextual meaning only. Like I said earlier common sense would preclude it being about a king only because an earthly king wouln't be walking amongst the stones of fire in the presence of God.

Excreationist comment:
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe satan wasn't involved? Also, remember that Genesis and Paul said that the serpent was crafty... it didn't say anything about Satan's craftiness being the root cause of all this.

Jim's comment:
Again no, I believe satan is the cause of sin's entrance into our world, Jesus did say satan was a liar and the father of them ( lies)

Excreationist comment:
That's a very curious argument... so what about in the NT when some of the Jews rejected Jesus? Did they suddenly stop being members of the church? But their beliefs and traditions basically remained the same... they just believed in the God of the OT and nothing else.

Jim's comment:
Does someone leaving the church do away with the church? Is that what you're asking? Man I thought I was debating some intelligence here. I hate to put you down but this is really over the edge with absurdity. You have obviously rejected your faith i.e. "excreationist" and left the church you used to belong to. Did that act of yours do away with your church? Uhhhummm!!!

Excreationist comment:
What is so virtuous about Eve? She was the one who was tempted first and who handed the fruit to Adam and she was cursed. She was the first human that led to the *entire* human race being cursed! And remember that Jesus isn't technically her offspring - Mary was a virgin.

Jim's comment:
I didn't say Eve was or wasn't virtuous, I said the church is symbolic of " a virtuous woman", and again your logic escapes reason with your comment about Mary being a virgin, Was Mary a human beingwas she not? Was she an offspring of Adam and Eve? That makes any child she bore an offspring of the woman no matter how it was conceived.

The fact that Jesus' had an immaculate conception does not change the fact that He was borne of a "woman" a direct decendent of the first humans and even of the tribe of Juday like the O.T. prophesied many many times.

Excreationist comment:
It says that the offspring of the woman would crush the serpent's *offspring*. So the church would be against Satan, and the offspring of the church would crush the offspring of Satan. So to be consistent it means Jesus crushed the head of the *offspring* of Satan... it doesn't say that the offspring of the woman crushed the head of the original serpent (it was the serpent's *offspring* that were involved)
Also remember that the curse involves 6 verses and you are just picking one of them that *very* loosely corresponds with one of the verses, assuming you ignore half of the verse.
And remember that it says that *God* put the enmity between the two parties (the church and Satan, and the offspring of the church and the offspring of Satan).

Jim's comment:
The offspring of satan is his works and the demons he deceived to follow him with his rebellion in heaven. Satan will die in the lake of fire along with all his demons and the humans who separate themselves from the giver of life ,,,, the creator. The rest of the curse does not apply to "great controversy" which exists between good and evil

Excreationist comment:
So besides being cast out of heaven, Satan's only punishment is to be destroyed? BTW, do you think the unsaved are destroyed or do they suffer eternally?

Jim's comment:
I believe what the Bible says when it comes to true death in Hell fire, It says "never shalt thou be anymore", eternal life is not given to anyone but the saved righteous people. In John 3:16 it says Whosoever believes in Him shall not PERISH but have everlasing life. It does't say whosoever does not believe in him shall spend and etenity in hell fire. The immortal soul doctrine is a lie brought in by the great deceiver long ago through paganism. The Bible says in Revelation that Jesus is going to create all things new after Hell fire burns out, how could He do this if there was still a fire burning? Romans 8:28 says the wages of sin is DEATH not roasting and toasting eternally in hell fire. There will be an end to sin and sinners and Hell fire will take care of it but it absolutely won't burn forever, even on the body of Satan.

Biff the unclean · 11-11-2003, 09:50 AM

I'm not changing what the Bible says, I know God says He creates evil, He takes "responsiblilty" for all of creation and that includes the evil satan brought to the table, but to blame God for evil is ludicrous.
I see you are trying to promote the New and Improved God of Christian Apologetics instead of the God of the Bible. Because if you'll read the passages around the one where God says that he created evil you will see that he is not nobly taking "responsibility". God is boasting like a common bully, he is bragging that he created evil.

God and evil can't even exist together, thats why satan and his fallen angels were kicked out of heaven.
Have you actually read the Bible? At the beginning of Job Satan drops by God's place for a visit and is cordially greeted. He and God play a game together. At the end of which God once again indulges in a fit of bragging. Then there is Jesus and Satan spending time together in the desert.
If God can't be around evil then he is neither omnipresent nor is he omnipotent.
You seem to be confusing God with Superman and Kryptonite.
Thats why Adam and Eve were kicked out of paradise.
A & E are kicked out of Eden because after gaining the god-like power of the "knowledge of good and evil" God was afraid that they would �
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden�"
Apparently people were only this (holds thumb and forefinger tips close together) far from becoming Gods.

God and evil are opposites. God is Holy and as such can not abide sin.
No, he's not the "opposite" of evil as he clearly states. And what he cannot abide is competition not sin. Look at the Tower of Babel fable.
The plan of salvation provided a way for sinful man to be reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus Christ.
So human sacrifices are not your idea of evil?
Since God is the one who is making the rules then he was the one who decided that he needed torture and death so that he'd feel better about naughty man having the nerve to understand the difference between good and evil. He could have decided (the way I do when I forgive people) to just let bygones be bygones. He could have decided that he needed Jesus to spend two weeks on Maui drinking Mai Tais to forgive mankind.
The agony, the spikes through the hands, the humiliation and death�that was all God's idea. That was all what God wanted. That is evil.
Sin had to be allowed to run its course so all the unfallen worlds in the universe could see the nature of what sin is.
Is that what the UFO's are doing? Unfallen aliens checking out our sin nature? I'll tell Scully and Mulder to stop worrying.
Like I said before the Bible says sin was a mystery. Well, after all this time we know full well what sin has done to this world and those who live on it.
There is no such thing as sin. You are not fallen, you have no need of salvation. You are not guilty and the world is not a terrible place

Doctor X · 11-11-2003, 10:05 AM

Excreationist/Jim:

Just to unpack the whole Satan issue for clarity . . . the whole "fallen angel" thing is not in the Bible--the OT connection is to the bene elohim--sons of the god(s)--who mate with da wimmenfolk and found a race of heros . . . hardly anything bad there. As for Lucifer and his fall, let me quote from a previous thread Neil Forsyth's explanation:

Quote:

. . . the myth alluded to in Isaiah looks like a blending of the Ugaritic traditions with a story very much like the Phaethon myth; the three together look like variants, adapted to their several purposes, of one common rebel plot.
. . . . .
The ambitious thoughts of the rebel allude to some figure like the Ugaritic Athar, who also went up to the "reaches of Zaphon" to challenge the king (though Baal, not El, in the version we have), and the name of this mythological rebel, "Shining One, Son of Dawn," makes him an exact equivalent of the Greek Phaethon.

Sahar, in various Hebrew contexts, preserves some of its old mythological meaning as a feminine dawn goddess, . . . Her son, Helel, may possibly be the sun itself, and indeed Sahar may mean the rising sun, . . or Helel may be an allusion to the planet Venus, as most modern commentators on the passage believe. Whether or not the composer of the Isaiah passage made this explicit identification, the Greek translators of the Septuagint certainly did, since their translation of Helel ben Sahar as Heosphoros ho proi anatellon clearly combines the astronomical identification with Hesiod's Heosphoros, son of Heos, the dawn-bringer, Venus. The Greek was in turn rendered by the Latin vulgate as Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris, and the name has stuck to the rebel ever since.
. . . . .
. . . the redactor of this test, the man responsible for its inclusion in the Isaiah scroll, has no doubts about who this [Babylonian king.--Ed.] is. He introduces the poem with the following prose words addressed to the Israelites: "When Yahweh has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon."
. . . .
It is generally agreed that the poem we are discussing does not come from the genuine Isaiah of Jerusalem, the great eight-century prophet. . . . Second Isaiah's grand vision, appear to come from the hands of later members of the school who kept the Isaiah tradition alive, even on into the postexilic period. Probably our poem comes from some sixth-century hand who would have had an immediate interest in the downfall of Bablyon, but was then reworked and incorporated into the general section in which it now stands, the oracles against the nations.

Hate to beat you over the head, Jim, . . . much . . . but you really cannot argue that the authors of the "Garden of Eden" account considered the serpent as the creator of evil. Forsyth's book is very well written. If you want to know how the concept of "Satan" as the cosmic rebel/fallen angel/raper of Mia Farrow grew from something you trip over--what stn actually is--this is the book to turn to.

--J.D.

Reference:

Neil Forsyth. The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton University Press.

Jim Larmore · 11-11-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Excreationist/Jim:

Just to unpack the whole Satan issue for clarity . . . the whole "fallen angel" thing is not in the Bible--the OT connection is to the bene elohim--sons of the god(s)--who mate with da wimmenfolk and found a race of heros . . . hardly anything bad there. As for Lucifer and his fall, let me quote from a previous thread Neil Forsyth's explanation:

Jim's comment:
This quote shows a correlation between the Biblical and helenistic or paganistic writings of the day. This is somewhat speculation to me. I could say any writings was influenced by the surrounding available literature of the times however the "flavor" may be coincidence only and not anything to put merit in. I'll need to research this further, there is also a debate over multiple authorship of Isaiah i.e. proto-Isaiah etc.

Hate to beat you over the head, Jim, . . . much . . . but you really cannot argue that the authors of the "Garden of Eden" account considered the serpent as the creator of evil. Forsyth's book is very well written. If you want to know how the concept of "Satan" as the cosmic rebel/fallen angel/raper of Mia Farrow grew from something you trip over--what stn actually is--this is the book to turn to.

--J.D.

Reference:

Neil Forsyth. The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton University Press.

I'll look at it and see Dr.X I can only do what I can do. I know time is an issue for me to do a decent job of studying these things.

excreationist · 11-11-2003, 07:24 PM

Jim Larmore:

Quote:

No I believe lucifer who became satan according to the Bible was the originator of sin and his being in Eden was literal.

Then have you considered that Ezekiel is just talking about a beautiful proud cherub rather than Satan?
Why does Paul say that it was the *serpent's* (or snake's) cunning that tricked Eve, rather than Satan's? i.e. Paul is saying that the serpent/snake conceived of those lies. Genesis also talks about the serpent/snake being very cunning.

Quote:

Just because it doesn't mention it here doesn't mean it didn't happen. Christians take the account in Revelation where it does say a third of the angels were cast out with lucifer to base their belief of this on, we take the whole Bible not just a few verses from one book and isolate them for their contextual meaning only. Like I said earlier common sense would preclude it being about a king only because an earthly king wouln't be walking amongst the stones of fire in the presence of God.

It could be a cherub who isn't Satan - after all it isn't named. It isn't called a great deceiver.... it just was too proud and lost some of its wisdom.

Quote:

Again no, I believe satan is the cause of sin's entrance into our world, Jesus did say satan was a liar and the father of them ( lies)

So then Paul is wrong when he says that Eve was tricked by the serpent's/snake's cunning - you seem to be saying that it was Satan who thought up those lies. BTW, why wasn't Satan mentioned at all in Genesis? Angels are mentioned quite a bit.... surely it is important to mention one of the major characters in the Bible right there in Genesis rather than rely on some verses elsewhere in the Bible to infer that he controlled the snake. I guess God did that for some mysterious reason that we might never know (I'm assuming he exists).

Quote:

Does someone leaving the church do away with the church? Is that what you're asking? Man I thought I was debating some intelligence here. I hate to put you down but this is really over the edge with absurdity. You have obviously rejected your faith i.e. "excreationist" and left the church you used to belong to. Did that act of yours do away with your church? Uhhhummm!!!

I'll explain it again... say there were some Jews living just before Jesus was born. Say they were used to going to their local temple and making sacrifices and praying and whatever. They probably came across a few false teachers in their lives that are based on Judaism but twist it. (Even today there are a lot of sects of Christianity and other religions that diverge a lot from its original teachings) You said that since they were worshipping God, they were members of the church. Now say it was a few years later and Jesus did his teaching and died and rose. Let's say those Jews at the original temple had heard some stories about Jesus, but like most Jews they dismissed them as being from yet another false teacher. BTW, apparently the risen Jesus was only seen by a few (maybe a 100+???) believers - so the other Jews wouldn't have good evidence that he did in fact rise again. So say the people in that original temple rejected this dead teacher (who alledgedly rose again) teacher called Jesus... would that mean that that former church of believers (that pre-Christian temple) suddenly stops being a church of believers? I just think that's odd since their lives have been continuing on the same... to them, Jesus wouldn't seem very different from other teachers who they'd believe are false teachers.

Quote:

I didn't say Eve was or wasn't virtuous, I said the church is symbolic of " a virtuous woman",

Ok... though 3:15 is talking about a woman who is being cursed. (The surrounding verses are the other curses) Also, the curse is something that the woman deserved... i.e. she wasn't virtuous. I just don't think it makes much sense to insert the church there. BTW, what about the nearby verse that talks about the woman having increased pains at childbirth? Does that also apply to the church? Or does the woman=church thing only work in that isolated verse. Maybe it works with the thing about the husband ruling over the woman and the woman desiring the husband... though Jesus was supposed to be the woman's offspring, not her husband... well I guess he could be both.

Quote:

and again your logic escapes reason with your comment about Mary being a virgin, Was Mary a human being was she not? Was she an offspring of Adam and Eve? That makes any child she bore an offspring of the woman no matter how it was conceived.

Ok, I guess Jesus could be considered her offspring, even though he doesn't really contain her DNA...

Quote:

The offspring of satan is his works and the demons he deceived to follow him with his rebellion in heaven.

So you're saying that the works of Satan struck Jesus's symbolic heel, and Jesus crushed the works of Satan symbolic head... (rather than the head of Satan himself...)

Quote:

I believe what the Bible says when it comes to true death in Hell fire, It says "never shalt thou be anymore", eternal life is not given to anyone but the saved righteous people. In John 3:16 it says Whosoever believes in Him shall not PERISH but have everlasing life. It does't say whosoever does not believe in him shall spend and etenity in hell fire. The immortal soul doctrine is a lie brought in by the great deceiver long ago through paganism. The Bible says in Revelation that Jesus is going to create all things new after Hell fire burns out, how could He do this if there was still a fire burning? Romans 8:28 says the wages of sin is DEATH not roasting and toasting eternally in hell fire. There will be an end to sin and sinners and Hell fire will take care of it but it absolutely won't burn forever, even on the body of Satan.

Well people like those at "Answers in Genesis" believe in eternal punishment. They have a link to this article:
Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell - Part 1
Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell - Part 2

Some of the highlights are:

Matthew 25:41, 46
[v. 41] "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire [to pur to aionion] which has been prepared for the devil and his angels....' [v. 46] And these will go away into eternal punishment [kolasin aionion], but the righteous into life eternal [zoen aionion]."

Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10
[14:9] "...If anyone worships the beast and his image... [14:10] he will be tormented [basanisthesetai] with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. [14:11] And the smoke of their torment [basanismou] goes up forever and ever [eis aionas aionon]; and they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and his image,...[20:10] And the Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented [basanisthesontai] day and night forever and ever [eis tous aionas ton aionon]."

BTW, if the punishment involves Satan and non-believers soon being destroyed that seems like no big deal. I'm expecting to eventually no longer be conscious (i.e. no afterlife) anyway.

Jim Larmore · 11-12-2003, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
Jim Larmore:

Then have you considered that Ezekiel is just talking about a beautiful proud cherub rather than Satan?
Why does Paul say that it was the *serpent's* (or snake's) cunning that tricked Eve, rather than Satan's? i.e. Paul is saying that the serpent/snake conceived of those lies. Genesis also talks about the serpent/snake being very cunning.

It could be a cherub who isn't Satan - after all it isn't named. It isn't called a great deceiver.... it just was too proud and lost some of its wisdom.

Jim's comment:
Again I don't find anywhere in the Bible where it attributes the origination of evil to anyone but Lucifer who became Satan. Just because this "Cherub" wasn't named doesn't mean we don't know who he is. Paul knew who influenced the serpent too.
I don't know why theres no mention of satan in Genesis other than his work with the serpent. Theres a lot of questions I would ask about why something was done the way it was in the Bible but it doesn't mean I'm throwing it out and calling it a "myth".

Excreationist comment:
I'll explain it again... say there were some Jews living just before Jesus was born. Say they were used to going to their local temple and making sacrifices and praying and whatever. They probably came across a few false teachers in their lives that are based on Judaism but twist it. (Even today there are a lot of sects of Christianity and other religions that diverge a lot from its original teachings) You said that since they were worshipping God, they were members of the church. Now say it was a few years later and Jesus did his teaching and died and rose. Let's say those Jews at the original temple had heard some stories about Jesus, but like most Jews they dismissed them as being from yet another false teacher. BTW, apparently the risen Jesus was only seen by a few (maybe a 100+???) believers - so the other Jews wouldn't have good evidence that he did in fact rise again. So say the people in that original temple rejected this dead teacher (who alledgedly rose again) teacher called Jesus... would that mean that that former church of believers (that pre-Christian temple) suddenly stops being a church of believers? I just think that's odd since their lives have been continuing on the same... to them, Jesus wouldn't seem very different from other teachers who they'd believe are false teachers.

Jim's comment:
The fact that they rejected the one who fulfilled the plan of salvation would put them outside the church but again it would not affect the existence of the church. As long as there are any people at all who believe then the church exists. Jesus said where two or more are gathered in my name there I will be also.
I believe you are wrong on your numbers I think it says in one of the gospels that HUNDREDS witnessed Him after His resurrection. I mean He was around for forty days before He ascended it only makes sense that there would be a lot of people to see Him.

Excreationist comment:
Ok... though 3:15 is talking about a woman who is being cursed. (The surrounding verses are the other curses) Also, the curse is something that the woman deserved... i.e. she wasn't virtuous. I just don't think it makes much sense to insert the church there. BTW, what about the nearby verse that talks about the woman having increased pains at childbirth? Does that also apply to the church? Or does the woman=church thing only work in that isolated verse. Maybe it works with the thing about the husband ruling over the woman and the woman desiring the husband... though Jesus was supposed to be the woman's offspring, not her husband... well I guess he could be both.

Jim's comment:
The verse is multi-dimensional and dualistic as I said earlier in another post. When you consider the Lord was laying out the fact that "A great controversy" was started at that time when the two first humans fell, He used the symbology that would be employed throughout the Bible for the "Church" . This controversy has existed and will exist until sin and death are destroyed in the lake of fire. The rest of the verses that outline the curse on the woman could be considered symbolic of the curse sin has brought on all mankind church members and all. The pain of child birth just happens to be mentioned here but you gotta admitt there are many more aspects of the curse of sin on mankind, you only have to look at the current events of the world to see how chaotic and depraved it is.

Excreationist comment:
Ok, I guess Jesus could be considered her offspring, even though he doesn't really contain her DNA...

Jim's comment:
Unless you know somthing I don't concerning the way human reproduction occurrs this comment is way out. First thing first , if Mary got pregnant immaculately or otherwise she would have had an egg that developed into a blastula and so on..... to an eventual embryo. Jesus was a man just like you and I to an extent so theres nothing to indicate He wasn't DNA and cells just like us. So I think we can say He DID have Mary's DNA since it was Mary egg that got fertilized by the Holy Spirit.

Excreationist comment:
So you're saying that the works of Satan struck Jesus's symbolic heel, and Jesus crushed the works of Satan symbolic head... (rather than the head of Satan himself...)

JIm's comment:
Yes, but remember the outcome for satan and his demons is assured since the cross.

Excreationist comment:
Well people like those at "Answers in Genesis" believe in eternal punishment. They have a link to this article:
Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell - Part 1
Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell - Part 2

Some of the highlights are:

Matthew 25:41, 46
[v. 41] "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire [to pur to aionion] which has been prepared for the devil and his angels....' [v. 46] And these will go away into eternal punishment [kolasin aionion], but the righteous into life eternal [zoen aionion]."

Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10
[14:9] "...If anyone worships the beast and his image... [14:10] he will be tormented [basanisthesetai] with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. [14:11] And the smoke of their torment [basanismou] goes up forever and ever [eis aionas aionon]; and they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and his image,...[20:10] And the Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented [basanisthesontai] day and night forever and ever [eis tous aionas ton aionon]."

BTW, if the punishment involves Satan and non-believers soon being destroyed that seems like no big deal. I'm expecting to eventually no longer be conscious (i.e. no afterlife) anyway.

Jim's comment:
I'm aware of what most religions believe. I think they take a few texts and make God a tyrant and scare many to become church members. The verses in the Bible which seem to say Hell will be forever are confusing to most but if you take the whole Bible it says it will go out. There are many places where the Bible uses the word "forever" and it has already ended, i.e. in Jonah 2:6 "forever" is three days and three nights, in Deut. 23:3 it means 10 generations, in 1 Sam 1:22 it means as long as he lives. In Jude 7 it says Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of what will happen when the world burns up. Is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? It says the two cities were given to "eternal fire". We need to realize its the effect thats eternal not the punishment. "The smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever"? Have you ever watched smoke? It just keeps going and going even afte the fire is out.

The REAL HELL is going to be knowing we had a chance to be in heaven and we blew it. We chose to believed a lie. The flames of hell fire will be merciful at that time and true death will be an actual blessing.

My faith is based on the life I see all around me , common sense to me says this all couldn't have just happened. Life is too complex to have just happened by evolution no matter how long they say it took. It just doesn't make common sense. I've studied the present theories and as scholarly as they are they still propose life came from inanimate molecules. There are too many unanswered questions that don't add up. The existence of protein alone makes evolution impossible in my opinion and they are just a small part of what we call life or living systems. The cell........ well just say it couldn't have just happened... NO WAY!!!

The Bible has many descrepancies, I know this and I'm finding more and more as I study but its the best we have and I believe it to be the inspired word of God. Even if I was to prove the Bible is nothing more than a myth to myself I would still believe in God because of the complexity of nature.

excreationist · 11-12-2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Again I don't find anywhere in the Bible where it attributes the origination of evil to anyone but Lucifer who became Satan.

The snake in Genesis is an example... though you keep on insisting that Satan was behind that.

Quote:

Just because this "Cherub" wasn't named doesn't mean we don't know who he is.

Well in Ezekiel it just says this cherub was in Eden - and it doesn't mention anything about the main aspect of Satan - that he is a great deceiver. Do you know of any other verses saying that Satan was in Eden - besides that NT one about Satan being the father of all lies? I guess the Revelation verse about Satan being "the ancient serpent" counts...
I guess if you use some verses from various authors from all over the Bible a semi-plausible case could be made that Satan was somehow involved with the serpent. But I think that the author of Genesis was unaware of this connection. If they were they would have written about it in an obvious way since it is such a major thing.

Quote:

Paul knew who influenced the serpent too.

Do you have any Biblical evidence of this? i.e. specific verses?

Quote:

I don't know why theres no mention of satan in Genesis other than his work with the serpent

I'm saying that there is no mention of Satan in Genesis - at all... I mean where in Genesis does it say that Satan worked with the serpent?

Quote:

The fact that they rejected the one who fulfilled the plan of salvation would put them outside the church but again it would not affect the existence of the church. As long as there are any people at all who believe then the church exists. Jesus said where two or more are gathered in my name there I will be also.

I was talking about whether individual people were members of the church... I agree that the church would exist the entire time. (Although I still find it odd to call something that existed before Jesus "the church" - but I'll go along with it anyway)

Quote:

I believe you are wrong on your numbers I think it says in one of the gospels that HUNDREDS witnessed Him after His resurrection. I mean He was around for forty days before He ascended it only makes sense that there would be a lot of people to see Him.

Well 100+ (which I guessed) could mean hundreds... There still would have been many thousands of Jews that didn't witness it and didn't believe the witnesses... they'd be former members of the church (due to them believing in the OT God, but then rejecting Jesus)... like you said.

Quote:

The verse is multi-dimensional and dualistic as I said earlier in another post.

I know that's what you think, but I disagree for most of the reasons stated earlier. I guess I've run out of new objections now.

Quote:

....So I think we can say He DID have Mary's DNA since it was Mary egg that got fertilized by the Holy Spirit....

Ok... though I was under the impression that Christians thought that Mary was just a "surrogate mother" (i.e. she hosted a fertilized egg that completely came from God)

As far as the meaning of eternal punishment goes, in Matthew 25:46 it seems to use the same word for "eternal" when talking about "eternal punishment" and "eternal life"....
I was just under the impression that different authors of the different books had different beliefs about things... but I guess if you wanted to harmonize them all together maybe it makes more sense if the punishment isn't truly eternal.

As far as the likelihood of evolution goes, if the Multiple Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics is correct then it would be inevitable that all physically possible things would happen in at least one of the alternate histories, no matter how unlikely...

(see the transcript)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...alleluni.shtml
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...A5809EC5880000
Also, maybe in the future scientists might have more plausible theories about how life emerged that seem fairly likely.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-11-2003, 09:50 AM	#35
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I'm not changing what the Bible says, I know God says He creates evil, He takes "responsiblilty" for all of creation and that includes the evil satan brought to the table, but to blame God for evil is ludicrous. I see you are trying to promote the New and Improved God of Christian Apologetics instead of the God of the Bible. Because if you'll read the passages around the one where God says that he created evil you will see that he is not nobly taking "responsibility". God is boasting like a common bully, he is bragging that he created evil. God and evil can't even exist together, thats why satan and his fallen angels were kicked out of heaven. Have you actually read the Bible? At the beginning of Job Satan drops by God's place for a visit and is cordially greeted. He and God play a game together. At the end of which God once again indulges in a fit of bragging. Then there is Jesus and Satan spending time together in the desert. If God can't be around evil then he is neither omnipresent nor is he omnipotent. You seem to be confusing God with Superman and Kryptonite. Thats why Adam and Eve were kicked out of paradise. A & E are kicked out of Eden because after gaining the god-like power of the "knowledge of good and evil" God was afraid that they would � "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden�" Apparently people were only this (holds thumb and forefinger tips close together) far from becoming Gods. God and evil are opposites. God is Holy and as such can not abide sin. No, he's not the "opposite" of evil as he clearly states. And what he cannot abide is competition not sin. Look at the Tower of Babel fable. The plan of salvation provided a way for sinful man to be reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus Christ. So human sacrifices are not your idea of evil? Since God is the one who is making the rules then he was the one who decided that he needed torture and death so that he'd feel better about naughty man having the nerve to understand the difference between good and evil. He could have decided (the way I do when I forgive people) to just let bygones be bygones. He could have decided that he needed Jesus to spend two weeks on Maui drinking Mai Tais to forgive mankind. The agony, the spikes through the hands, the humiliation and death�that was all God's idea. That was all what God wanted. That is evil. Sin had to be allowed to run its course so all the unfallen worlds in the universe could see the nature of what sin is. Is that what the UFO's are doing? Unfallen aliens checking out our sin nature? I'll tell Scully and Mulder to stop worrying. Like I said before the Bible says sin was a mystery. Well, after all this time we know full well what sin has done to this world and those who live on it. There is no such thing as sin. You are not fallen, you have no need of salvation. You are not guilty and the world is not a terrible place

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.