Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pharoah · 11-10-2005, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

FFT, I concur in your assessment Satan was not the "serpent". Which is to say Satan did not transform himself into a "serpent".

However, there is some evidence Satan used the "serpent".

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"....You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Now you have a serpent, an animal, talking about good and evil and advocating rebelling against God's commandment. Animals, from a biblical view, do not inherently possess an interest in expressing a view, if they have one of their own, on good and evil or in being obedient to God and his commandments. But angelic beings do and so does God's adversary, again from a biblical point of view. The serpent here is being used by God's adversary to subvert A and E's obedience to him.

There have been other examples in the bible where supernatural powers have caused animals to speak but it was the "supernatural" power speaking through the animal and not the animal speaking on it's own volition. For example God caused a donkey to speak to a prophet in one of the other Old Testament books.

So if the serpent is talking it is doing so because of a supernatural cause using it as a mouthpiece and since this serpent is advocating rebelliong against God we can assume it is an adversary of God speaking through the serpent.

I have to disagree with you. There is absolutely no evidence in this story that Satan or any other third party was controlling the serpent.

The serpent was craftier than any beast.
The serpent originally walked upright, because part of god's curse on it was to crawl on its belly.

Given the above attributes that the writer gave to the snake, why would it be hard to believe that the writer also meant for the snake to talk? The only reason to place Satan in this scene is to make apolegetics easier.

Quote:

God also said the following: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel." Who is God talking to here?

Let's get the full quote here:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

He's talking to the snake, telling him that:

He will crawl upon his belly.
He will east dust.
Humans will kill snakes by cutting off or stepping on their heads.
Snakes will kill or injure men by biting their feet.

rhutchin · 11-10-2005, 04:30 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
If by free will, you mean the freedom for Pharaoh to choose consistent with his desires, I do not see where God violated Pharaoh’s free will.

If by free will, you mean libertarian free will, I think there is some debate about Pharaoh having this.

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to accomplish His purpose as stated here--

Romans 9
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

John A. Broussard
So the pharaoh chose to do what god hardened his heart to do. And you still insist that pharaoh had free will? That he "chose consistent with his desires?"

Could he have chosen to do other than what his hardened heart had directed him to do?

You have a strange view indeed of free will, if your god can make you choose one path rather than another.

Please explain.

The Jews were slave labor for Pharaoh. It seems reasonable that he would not want them to leave. When God relaxed His grip on Pharaoh, Pharaoh sought to keep the Jews from leaving.

Pharaoh could have chosen otherwise had he desired so. He was constrained by his selfish desires (as all people are).

Under free will, a person chooses his own path. God does not choose that path for the person. God can intervene and influence some people to go in a different direction (which He does for the elect). People are free to do as they desire otherwise.

rhutchin · 11-10-2005, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Why are you all still discussing this topic with a guy who doesn't even know his own failed apologetics?

Even backwards fundamentalists know that the company line is that Moses supposedly wrote the pentateuch. When someone posits that Adam actually wrote it, he demonstrates even an ignorance of the uber-conservative position (of Mosaic authorship).

Please stop, my head hurts. STOP

Where did you get this idea? The company line is that Moses was the editor of Genesis and used historical documents written by Adam and others to do so. Moses then oversaw the writing of Exodus, etc. (whether Moses physically wrote the books or others wrote what he said is not known). Obviously, someone other than Moses (a likely candidiate is Joshua) wrote the section on the death of Moses. Why is it ignorant to think that Adam would have had the ability to write?

rhutchin · 11-10-2005, 04:45 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
In the case of David, the child was born sick. David could not get God to intervene to heal the baby because of his unconfessed sin (at least, that is the way I read it).

Hell may be torture, but that torture results from lack of action by God not action by God; God will not be torturing those in hell. If you think God will torture people in hell, what do you see Him actually doing to torture people?

David Vestal
By that logic, I'd be innocent of murder if I buried you alive. By that logic, if I stab you, it is the knife that is guilty of the crime. Of course, that is absurd; since god made hell, and since it takes an act of god to send you there, god is guilty of torture with regard to those in hell.

Surely you jest. Let’s see. People build a football stadium and only let those people enter who buy a ticket. You then accuse the owners of torturing those people who do not buy a ticket because the owners do not let them watch the game. How do you come up with this logic??

JPD · 11-10-2005, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Under free will, a person chooses his own path. God does not choose that path for the person. God can intervene and influence some people to go in a different direction (which He does for the elect). People are free to do as they desire otherwise.

Then free will does not exist for the elect. They are programmed. It doesn't matter that for, say, 95% of the time, they are free to do as they choose. That 5% renders the idea of free will obsolete for them.

JPD · 11-10-2005, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Surely you jest. Let’s see. People build a football stadium and only let those people enter who buy a ticket. You then accuse the owners of torturing those people who do not buy a ticket because the owners do not let them watch the game. How do you come up with this logic??

Different thing entirely. Those who do not have a ticket just don't get into the game. They don't suffer beyond missing the game. They aren't punished - beyond missing the game - for missing the game.

David Vestal · 11-10-2005, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Surely you jest. Let’s see. People build a football stadium and only let those people enter who buy a ticket. You then accuse the owners of torturing those people who do not buy a ticket because the owners do not let them watch the game. How do you come up with this logic??

To complete the analogy, suppose the owners then set on fire everyone who didn't buy a ticket--precisely as god does. If the owners did that, they'd be guilty of torture, just as god is.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-10-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As I understand the verse, that which God said was that death would be certain but not necessarily immediate (although the process of death began at that time). The fruit of the tree was not poisonous as to cause immediate death (since everything God had created was good).

God did not lie as far as I can tell, notwithstanding your efforts to show otherwise.

...Then I suggest you re-read the relevant verses. God said that death would ensue on the day that the fruit is eaten: it would be toxic within hours, at most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Previous thread on this: Adam and Eve: there was no "spiritual death"

rhutchin · 11-10-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Under free will, a person chooses his own path. God does not choose that path for the person. God can intervene and influence some people to go in a different direction (which He does for the elect). People are free to do as they desire otherwise.

JPD
Then free will does not exist for the elect. They are programmed. It doesn't matter that for, say, 95% of the time, they are free to do as they choose. That 5% renders the idea of free will obsolete for them.

If you are talking about libertarian free will, I agree (but LFW is a theoretical construction that does not exist). However, the person does not have to be programmed to act. For example, let’s say a man is sleeping in his easy chair and a fire starts in his house. You run into the house, wake the man and point to the fire. His actions from that point are not programmed (predictable maybe, but I would not call that programmed). He responds to the situation and acts freely which means that he can go back to sleep if he wants and let his house burn down.

rhutchin · 11-10-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Surely you jest. Let’s see. People build a football stadium and only let those people enter who buy a ticket. You then accuse the owners of torturing those people who do not buy a ticket because the owners do not let them watch the game. How do you come up with this logic??

JPD
Different thing entirely. Those who do not have a ticket just don't get into the game. They don't suffer beyond missing the game. They aren't punished - beyond missing the game - for missing the game.

You are quibbling over nothing. The point here is that one must obtain a “ticket�? (forgiveness for sin) in order to get into heaven. Otherwise, one resides outside (in hell). God is not responsible for people who refuse to take a ticket when offered (even when the ticket is essentially free).

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.