Freethought & Rationalism Archive

darstec · 11-08-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

I don't recall Job seeing Satan. Maybe YHWH...

You are of course correct. That will teach me not to post after staying up around the clock. I'm confusing the biblical passages with some of the Jewish tales, wherein Job knew Satan and they confronted each other.

CJD · 11-08-2005, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Snakes don't eat dust. The story was obviously written by someone to explain why snakes [were thought to] eat dust.

I doubt it was that simplistic, like the one about how the giraffe got its long neck. Read Micah 1:10; 7:17. Judging the serpent had more to do with humiliation than with mere 'explanation'.

CJD

Equinox · 11-08-2005, 09:29 PM

rhutchin

Quote:

To clarify, I agreed with the statement, “The Christian god has done, is doing and will do as [He] pleases.�? I also agree that human concepts of morality don't apply to God given that human concepts of morality derive from the selfish desires of people.

I disagree that God tortures people, kills babies and encourages soldiers to rape virgin girls, so this is not part of His nature.

To disagree witht that you must be stating that you think the Bible is a load of hooey. The Bible says over and over that God does exactly those things.

There are tons of examples. For instance, in 2Sam12, God is mad at King David because David killed a man so David could sleep with the man's wife. So, what is God's justice against David? God makes a baby suffer for SEVEN DAYS, then finally puts the baby out of his misery by killing him. Hey, two birds with one stone - that story has God both torturing someone (an innocent person no less) AND killing a baby. Or the flood - how many babies did God intentionally kill there? Thousands? Millions?

More torture - Isn't Hell torture? Doesn't everything (including Hell) happen according to God's divine plan? Also, there is the time God requests dozens of kids be killed and their heads delivered in baskets (in 1 Kg 21:21 - god plans the murders, 2 Kg 10:6-10 - the murders happen, 2 Kg 10:30 - god rewards his hitman for the kids' murders). There are plenty more cases of God killing, torturing, and such. We can get into more of them if you'd like.

Maybe it's better to just save time and review many of these yourself. I highly recommend this book for anyone who will talk with Atheists - it's important to both know the same Biblical stories:

http://www.reasonworks.com/BS_Book.html

My Bible has plenty of stories of God doing all those things, regardless of which translation I read. We are all reading the same Bible, right?

Take care-

-Equinox

rhutchin · 11-09-2005, 05:00 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
In Jude we read,
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

There are three events identified. If we take the events to be in chronological order, then the angels were "reserved in everlasting chains" after the destruction of Sodom and before the time that Israel left Egypt.

That would allow Satan and the angels to roam the earth and be the cause of the wickedness of the people that led to the flood and to that wickedness that led to the destruction of Sodom. After Sodom, the influence of the angels would have been diminished, so we should have seem less wickedness on the scale of Sodom. There are some who think that Satan was still free until Christ died on the cross at which point he was bound. The impact on the world is that we are told of relatively few people being saved in the OT and great numbers of people being saved in the NT.

pharoah
From what I can gather above, you have committed yourself to the position that the demoms were bound in chains after the destruction of Sodom, and that Ol' Snatch himself was bound at the death of Christ. That's not how I read the Jude passage, but let's see where your interpretation takes us.

Quote:

# Matthew 7:22
Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
...

Every one of these verses clearly depict post-Sodom demon activity. Now which is wrong, all of these verses or your theory that all demons were bound after Sodom?

Now here's a passage from Revelations concerning Satan:

Quote:

Revelations 20
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

If Satan was bound at the death of Jesus, then why he is being depicted here as being bound again in the future?

Face it Rhutchin, the Bible's teaching about Satan and demons is hopelessly muddled and contradictory. These creatures are simply the result of the understandable Jewish desire to shift the onus of evil from God to other supernatural creatures. There's simply no way to reconcile the Satan of Job who's an angel of God only doing his bidding with the Satan of Paul who's the god of this world and the embodiment of all evil with the Satan of Jude who's supposedly bound in chains.

Good research.

I am not sure that the Bible's teaching about Satan and demons is hopelessly muddled and contradictory. Certainly, our understanding of what the Bible says tends to be muddled.

That demons are in chains must have some effect on them yet it still seems to allow them some freedom. There is much room for investigation here.

Revelation is a difficult book to understand, but the passage you site can be describing an event that occurred at the cross. The nature of Revelation is to describe ordinary events in flamboyant language.

rhutchin · 11-09-2005, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Vestal

Actually, when viewed as a myth, there is ample information and no unanswered questions. Since your particular additions to the story raise many questions and answer none, there is no reason to accept them.

Your speculations are unsupported and transform an easily-understood story into one so rife with problems that you yourself are powerless to resolve them, as demonstrated by the fact that your post completely ignored all the issues I raised with your interpretation. Ergo, your additions to the story are less than worthless.

OK

rhutchin · 11-09-2005, 05:08 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I do not see the contradiction (and you did not go into great detail about an alleged contradiction).

Jack the Bodiless
You claim that human concepts of morality don't apply to God.

And yet you ALSO disagree that God tortures people, kills babies and encourages soldiers to rape virgin girls: this is "not part of His nature".

Please explain how you can determine that this is "not part of his nature".

You lost me. Are you saying that the two claims that I make are in conflict? If yes, I do not understand the conflict. Are you also saying that I need to prove the second claim? Can you rephrase your argument to help me understand your point?

Jimmy Higgins · 11-09-2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowantree

Your hypothesis has a few hole in it though. If the Serpent didn't want Adam and Eve held back then why didn't he seek out the fruits for himself? (Granted it could be assumed he partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but why not the Tree of Life?) Is it not simple evolution to seek out perpetuity of one's race?

You are making alot of assumptions here with no basis for any of them. Who is to say the serpent didn't take of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? You then back this up by saying then that he didn't eat of the Tree of Life. To this I have two responses. First, the Tree of Life is mentioned only in two far apart sections. It seems to have no play in the story at all. One would have to assume that the serpent and man and woman would have eaten from the Tree of Life eventually while in the Garden. Oddly, there was no prohibition of eating from the Tree of Life. So to ponder that the serpent never had would sound odd seeing there was no reason to have not.

Quote:

Another problem was that man was created in God's image.

Check your Bible. Man is created in God's image in the "First" Story of Creation, not the story of The Garden. In the First Story of Creation, man is made in God's image and told to: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." In the Narrative of The Garden, man is formed from clay, born to be a servent to God: "to work it and take care of" the Garden of Eden... a far cry from being told to go out and multiply and do as they liked. You are confusing your Creation Stories.

Quote:

If that is the case and God is immortal then at this point man too would be immortal would he not?

In the Narrative of the Garden, man is made of clay. Does this mean God is made of clay? Your parallel isn't logical, nor is it hinted in the narrative. As the Narrative reads, man is not born a Demi-God.

Quote:

If so then did not God tell the truth since man is certainly mortal now and DOES die? (I would note here that some traditions do not view Adam and Eve as corporeal beings until AFTER they left Eden. Thus making them spirits and by taking the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge but not Life that they became immortal spirits with mortal bodies. And that those bodies would not be immortal until after judgment.)

And if we are going to make grand conclusions like that, then I can claim the IPU is the muse to God in the Narrative of the Garden. May be entirely wrong, but I can get to make things up too!

Quote:

Also, you used Eve's account of God's message to Adam as a condemnation of God.

Hardly a condemnation of God. Rather it raises a serious issue as to why two seperate prohibitions are in the Narrative. How many times do phrases get repeated in the Bible, word for word... a manner to make the scripture easier to remember? So the fact that there are two different prohibitions in the Narrative raises a serious issue regarding the cohesivity of the Narrative itself!

Quote:

In any court of law this would be considered hearsay.

Not when there are only two humans on the planet.

Quote:

It therefore cannot be assumed Eve even knew God's words.

Why not? Does the Narrative speak that the woman knew not what she spoke?

Quote:

And even if she WERE to have heard them it would be a game of telephone from God to Eve to Serpent. (Otherwise, it would be from God to Adam to Eve to Serpent.)

Game? Two people? Are you serious? That is a rather naive conclusion to come up with. You seem to come to this conclusion that the woman couldn't have been right, but you seem to have no scriptural evidence from the Narrative itself.

Quote:

Also there was mention previously that Adam and Eve were tricked because they didn't know good and evil before they ate the fruit.

I never made this claim. So why you choose to refute it against me is beyond my understanding.

Quote:

But that is not what the story was even about. The story was about a creator telling his creation not to do something and see if they would obey.

This is what Christians have told themselves over and over and they believe that now... kinda like how conservatives are convinced it was a Democratic Congress that put the US into the red in the 1980's. Neither would appear to be true.

Facts remain this:
1) The Narrative speaks of no muse for the serpent, nor does it speak of an anomosity towards man
2) Serpent is spoken as being the most cunning of creatures
3) Christians assume the serpent must be against man, but it is the serpent that sees through God's lie.
4) The serpent never lied to the woman... though the woman would later claim that she was deceived, over what, the story never tells.
5) God does not throw man from the Garden because he broke the prohibition (of which there are two listed in the story)
6) God throws man out because man had become like God.

This is clearly a jealous God's reaction.

Quote:

But just like a parent that told their child not to eat the cookie, man was punished. (It is also kinda funny that when God asked Adam what happened he immediately pointed the finger at Eve and said "SHE DID IT!" much like a two year old.)

Funny you make that comment when you previously said: "Also there was mention previously that Adam and Eve were tricked because they didn't know good and evil before they ate the fruit." That would have been somewhat like a 2 year old as well. Make up your mind who's commentary you are trying to believe please.

rhutchin · 11-09-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
This need not imply that the serpent was the mastermind but only that the serpent was a very suitable animal for Satan (the true mastermind) to use.

Jimmy Higgins
So was Satan merely the muse? It would seem odd that the story would introduce the serpent as being unique, only to have a third party control the serpent (which the story never even comes close to alluding to).

The story was recorded by Adam and is a record of that which he saw. Adam saw the snake; he was not aware of the third party involvement of Satan.

Quote:

Jimmy Higgins
That aside, the story has too many holes. For one, there are two Prohibitions:

Prohibition 1: And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prohibition 2: The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'

1: Can't eat from "tree of knowledge of good and evil"
2: Can't eat or touch tree in the "middle of the garden"

Not only does the rule change, so does the identification of the tree as well.

You have identified the confusion on the part of Eve as to the rule that was in effect. Eve, apparently, was not the sharpest person.

Quote:

Jimmy Higgins
It goes on when the woman claims the serpent "deceives" her. Problem is, where is the deception? The serpent says: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Absent the efforts of the serpent and a reason to do so, Eve would not have eaten the fruit. The serpent clearly was instrumental in getting Eve to eat the fruit and Eve (properly, I think) attributes deception to the serpent.

Quote:

Jimmy Higgins
After God ponders about the act of the man and woman, the story tells us: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

So the woman is claiming of a deception that never exists. The serpent said that they wouldn't die, they didn't, and that God would see that their eyes had opened, which he did. Ironically, it is for this reason that God throws man out of the Garden... not because they broke the prohibition, but because man had become like God himself. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

It doesn't take a scholar to see jealousy in God's actions. He isn't throwing them out because they broke the rule but because if they stayed, they'd become Godly. The story tells us that the serpent is cunning. Some people want to automatically assume that means the serpent was against man. But from the story, the cunning of the serpent would apparently see right through God's lie. If anything, it could be argued that the serpent was freeing man from God's false prohibition. That the serpent wanted to lead man to all knowledge, while God wanted to keep it to himself. God was jealous of what man could become. The serpent was cunning enough to see this and didn't want man to be held back by God's jealousy.

This could help explain God's rage against the serpent. The serpent exposed God for the liar he was, because when the moment the woman ate the fruit, she did not "surely die." That man is banished from the garden because man would become like God only emphasizes that jealousy is God's motive. For God did punish the man and woman and serpent from the transgression of eating the fruit, however, that punishment did not include banishment. That was decided afterwards when God realized that his monopoly was gone.

Adam/Eve did not become godly (how does one’s sin make one godly). I don’t see any jealousy on God’s part. Banishment from the Garden meant that Adam/Eve would have to die even as God had told them. Life was tied to access to the tree of life. God had said that Adam/Eve would die (be denied access to the tree of life) if they ate the forbidden fruit. Adam/Eve ate; God denied them access to the tree of life with the consequent result that they died.

rhutchin · 11-09-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Rhutchin: Where do you stand on that claim that, due to being born with the curse of original sin, we are all more sinned against than sinning?

Doesn't make sense to me. The term, "original sin," refers to the effect that Adam's sin had on himself that was then passed on to his children. Adam's sin corrupted his nature. From that point, Adam's children were born with a similarly corrupted nature. Adam's children are still judged for what they do, and if they sin, they are judged for that sin.

rhutchin · 11-09-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
The reference to those who are blinded seems clearly to be unbelievers. There are two choices for the “god of this world.�? They are Satan and God (Christ).

post tenebras lux
So:

a) why did you substitute '[Satan]' for the 'god of this world' when you're now saying 'either Satan or Christ hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them'?

b) if the 'god of this world' could be a reference to the Christ, then what does the verse say about Jesus given that it says: Christ hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them?

c) if the 'god of this world' sometimes refers to Satan and sometimes refers to the Christ, then can you ever tell which is being referred to in each case? It would be helpful if this could be achieved without using some form of 'extra-biblical morality' (i.e. well that must be referring to Satan cos I know that Jesus would never do that sort of thing) as you admit that you don't (always) know why god - and I presume that includes 'god (christ)' - performs - or allows - certain actions.

a) It is my conclusion that the evidence points to Satan as the entity to whom Paul was referring. My point is that the term allows one to speculate that it could refer to Satan or Christ and not any other.

b) To me it does not make sense, arguing for the conclusion that Paul was referring to Satan.

c) The term only appears in this one verse, so we need to identify that entity to whom it refers in this one verse. The point is not that the term, 'god of this world,' sometimes refers to Satan and sometimes refers to the Christ, but that there are only two possible entities to whom it could refer.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.