Ubercat

Considering that we primates seem to have an instinctive fear of snakes, it's no wonder that this animal would be used as the bad guy in an old myth. I've read that chimps are fearful of even toy snakes, that look real enough; even chimps raised in captivity, who have no experience with real snakes. I imagine that our small, tree dwelling ancestors must have had a problem with predatorial tree snakes in ages past.

-Ubercat

Wayne Delia

You're just as wrong as always, but at least you're consistent. An omniscient God refutes human free will by logically eliminating all other logically available alternatives from any possibility of being selected. Without an omniscient God, that restriction is not in effect, and free will appears to be in effect.

You have a deterministic system if you assume an omniscient God. All things are determined to turn out the way God knows it will.

Short version: Free will is irrelevant. I had to throw out the rest of your word salad.

Nope. You're still stuck on this "desires" schtick. Desires are irrelevant. The actions are deterministic because God knows how everything will turn out, and God can't be wrong - regardless of what men desire or not.

Your premise is wrong, so your conclusion is flushed.

WMD

Wayne Delia

I'm not sure why this is, but I've never been afraid of snakes. Not overly enthusiastic about them, but never repulsed by them either, I can take 'em or leave 'em. I don't know why that's always been the case; probably because I made a pact with Satan, or something else.

WMD

Ubercat

WTF? Bible god doesn't offer a ticket to the unsaved. It's his decision that they not be saved in the first place. What's the point of offering a ticket to someone if you're not going to allow them to take it? Thats akin to me tiptoeing up to you while you're sleeping, and whispering "Hey want a ticket to the big game?" Hmmm... he didn't answer. Guess he's not interested. His loss. If I'm too much of a fucktard to WAKE you up before making the offer, how dare I blame it on you?

Oh and Rhutchin, please don't try to wiggle your way out of this. You've already proudly proclaimed your Calvinism in other threads.

-Ubercat

Ubercat

Or the poor orcs. Don't forget that sad lot.

-Ubercat

rhutchin

The ticket is offered and the terms understood. All one has to do is read about it in the Bible (I suspect even you know those terms). God does not prevent you from accepting the terms and conditions required to get into heaven. Do you really think that you are asleep or have you been told that the Bible is a fairy tale and you have bought into that?

rhutchin

A deterministic system is one in which the choices a person makes are determined by some factor. I think you and I agree that a person's desires determine the choices they make. If we define "free will" as the ability of a person to choose that which he desires, then we have a deterministic system with free will. Whether a god is omniscient does not change the outcome of the deterministic system -- the choices one makes are determined by one's desires -- and it does not matter who knows it or when they know it.

James Madison

Good job Pharoah. I never said it was "clear cut". Rather, the Revelation verse was but one piece of several. Additionally, the fact no other spiritual entity is called "the Serpent" in the bible but Satan, then it allows one to infer if anyone was using the Serpent or appeared as a Serpent in Genesis, it was Satan.

I have already mentioned it is not "explicitly" spelled out. However, it does not have to be "explicitly" mentioned in order for it to be true or concluded.

Despite the seemingly discrepancy the fact remains there exists a verse in the bible which identifies "Satan" and he is the one tempting David to do wrong.

Biblically speaking there does not exist any precedent for snakes to talk on their own volition. Being "crafty" does not mean it can "talk". Your equivocation of the two is in error. Since I cannot find any biblical precedent for any animal to talk on their own volition, nor do they do it in reality (at least not in a language we can understand).

James Madison

Nice try Amaleq. You could perhaps benefit from re-reading my post. I never used the word "must".

The fact is I said there does not exist a biblical precedent for the word to be used in any other way other than to characterize a relationship between persons. Given the persistent use of how the word is used in the bible leads to the existence of a "habit". Are you familiar with "habit" evidence? Well if not visit a local law school library or bookstore, chekc out a book on evidence, and research the "relevance" and "persuasiveness" of habit evidence, aka "consistency" evidence.

Additionally, I have not shifted the burden. This demonstrates to me you either misunderstand my argument, which I have already illuminated, and this lead to your ridiculous idea I have shifted the burden. Nice try. I have not asked the opposing side to "prove" a claim they have not made. Rather, I admitted to them a weakness in my argument and if they "could" find such evidence in the bible, seeing as I have not, then I would have to rethink my argument. They are, after all, seeking to weaken my argument and consequently, it is there burden to find evidence that does so, not mine. It is not my job to destroy my own argument but the opposing sides since they object to it.

That would be the most absolutely stupidest thing I could do. That would utterly destroy my argument. I do not want to make such an argument at all and any such evidence would just obliterate the point I am making. It would completely undermine my use of habit/consistency evidence. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Well your misguided remarks out of the way this is not necessarily true. The fact is based on habit/consistency evidence the word is not used to characterize a relationship between humans and animals. The word(s) is used to characterize a relationship between persons elsewhere in the bible. That is the overwhelming biblical precedent.

Additionally, this is one way in which texts are interpreted. From the legal profession to ancient literature one way of deconstructing what a text says is to look at how the word is "used" in other areas. This will tell us how the word is commonly used, at least what it meant to the author, and allow us to determine what the author is talking about. Similarly, the bible should not be treated any differently. The fact the word does not have a habit/consistency of being used in such a manner to characterize a relationship between animals and humans but rather between persons leads me to think the author of Genesis was not talking only about a "snake".

The bible also lacks some other precedents and they are relevant to the assumptions you and others make.

First, you assume animals can speak on their own volition. The fact there does not exist a biblical habit/consistency of animals talking on their own volition renders this assumption, well, let's say "questionable".

In addition to assuming animals can talk, you presume animals possess cognitive abilities necessary to render them capable of discerning biblical "right" from "wrong". The fact is there does not exist any biblical precedent demonstrating animals can discern Godly "right" from "wrong";

In the book of Revelations, God's adversary is identified as "the Serpent".

Biblical precedent exists that God's adversary, Satan, tempts humans to engage in rebellious acts against God.

This is enough evidence for one to conclude Satan, God's adversary, was using the serpent, speaking through the serpent, to advocate A and E engage in a rebellious act against God.

Why? To review. Based on the practice of how the word(s) is used elsewhere in the bible to characterize a relationship between persons as opposed to one between animals/humans; biblical practice exists where Satan tempts humans to rebel; the fact the bible does not have a practice of animals talking on their own volition (the other example is where God spoke through a donkey), the bible also does not have a practice of animals possessing the cognitive skills to determine what is right from wrong, Revelations identifies Satan as "the serpent" leads me to think perhaps more than just a "snake" was present tempting Eve.

Now is it iron clad evidence? No but then again this is one way to interpret the text and it is not as "flawed" as suggested.

Amaleq13

If you acknowledge there is no compelling reason to accept your conclusion, the debate is over before it begins.

The fact is you've offered no reason to think that this "biblical precedent" is relevant let alone capable of altering the meaning of the word the way you want. Please provide linguistic evidence to support your assertion. Counting the uses in the Bible is entirely insufficient.

Yes, the word is used "habitually" to describe enmity or hatred between two individuals or groups. This is entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of the word. Your conclusion, on the other hand, appears to go well beyond the evidence.

Of course you have. You set requirements for others to alter your conclusion. In addition, those requirements are based on your faulty assumption about the relevance of word counts in interpreting the passage so you are actually shifting the burden to a wild goose chase.

That would be more an example of a straw man than shifting the burden. You essentially asked for your position to be disproven by the work of others.

Your argument certainly has a weakness but this isn't it. There is no reason to look for this "evidence" because there is no reason to think that we need to introduce your nuance to the word for hatred/enmity.

No, it would be entirely consistent with your argument. You are claiming that the biblical author considered the relationship between snake and humans to be person-to-person not person-to-animal. Finding an example of a different word being used to describe hatred between humans and animals would lend support to your claim that the author has something else in mind. Get it? If he thought the snake was just an animal, he would have used this other word you found that was used for that purpose.

Bet you wish you hadn't copped such an attitude now, eh? Should have sniffed your own coffee, I guessl.

Even if there was some reason to suspect such a nuanced meaning for the word (and there isn't), you certainly cannot consider the handful of examples in the Bible to constitute a meaningful sample.

Where is this nuanced meaning included in a dictionary? Where is the scholarly acknowledgement of this "overwhelming biblical precedent"?

The answers to these questions would constitute the support you need for your contention but have yet to present.

No, I assume talking snakes are a clear indication I am reading a fable.

This is entirely irrelevant to understanding how the author of a much earlier text intended his words to be understood.

I'm glad you worded it this way because it makes your error more apparent. You have offered no evidence for "opposed to" because you are mistaken in thinking that your frequency count constitutes evidence for it.

The evidence suggests the word is used to characterize a relationship between persons in addition to one between animals/humans.