|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Poor Satan, so misunderstood. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill writes:
quote: Why does it matter? The text simply says that the serpent is very intelligent. Why is this not enough?
quote: Because that isn't what "having dominion" means. Just because I have dominion over you doesn't mean I know what's going on. Dominion is about control, not knowledge.
quote: Perhaps, but that doesn't mean there was a previous creation that was somehow before the beginning (for there was no "previous" to the events listed in Genesis as Genesis makes clear). For all we know, the serpent ate from the tree and thus knew what it did. In the end, it doesn't matter. It is sufficient that the serpent didn't lie but told the truth. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: I never said otherwise. But the serpent in Genesis is not referred to as Satan. Therefore, there is no textual justification for thinking that the "serpent" of Revelation is the "serpent" of Genesis.
quote: Incorrect. You are imposing that the character in Revelation is the same one as in Genesis simply because the word "serpent" is used, as if all references to a "serpent" are necessarily a reference to the devil. Since there is no such thing as the devil in Genesis, then clearly the claim that the devil mentioned in Revelation is the a reference to the serpent in Genesis because of the use of the word "serpent" is a Christian imposition upon a Jewish text.
quote: Wait a minute. Now we're talking about "dragons"? I thought we were talking about serpents. Which is it? If you can't keep to the same story, then your argument necessarily falls apart. There were no dragons in Genesis 3.
quote:quote: No, it isn't. Adam and Eve think nothing of it. Nobody else thinks it's that bizarre. During the Exodus, god takes up residence with the Jews and they carry him around in the temple. So if isn't unusual for god to walk and talk with humans, why would a talking snake be so bizarre? Remember, we've got a talking ass later on and the owner doesn't even blink but gets into an argument with it.
quote: Right. Greed overwhelms a talking animal.
quote: It's not a question of belief. It's the fact that Judaism doesn't have a concept of the devil the way Christians do and the serpent certainly isn't it. The text does not refer to the serpent as anything but a beast. The text directly calls the serpent a beast. The punishment of the serpent is that of a beast. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?
quote: But Genesis clearly states that the serpent was nothing more than an animal. Therefore, your belief is an imposition upon the text. You are free to have whatever belief you wish, but you have no justification for it.
quote: I never said he was. The point behind an analogy is not to indicate that the two things being compared are exactly the same in every respect. The point is not that Adam was stupid. It's that he was innocent. He doesn't know any better because he doesn't understand what good and evil are. Disobedience requires knowledge of good and evil which he doesn't have. You can talk to him all you want about it, but he doesn't understand. Here you go, jaywill: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One of them will mean your salvation while the other will damn you forever. Which is it? Come on! You're an intelligent person, so why are you hesitating? Surely someone as sophisticated as you can tell the difference. Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
quote: Incorrect. The activity of Satan is to carry out god's will. Have you forgotten the story of Job? Satan is commanded by god to go forth.
quote: It's only confusing if you insist that there is something other than god. If you accept that there is only one source for everything, only one being that creates both good and evil, then there's no problem. Of course god is responsible for the fall of man. God is responsible for everything. The Jewish texts clearly state so. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. The idea of a separate entity from god is a Christian imposition upon Judaism.
quote: No, Satan is an agent of god, there is no devil, and god is responsible for everything. The text, however, clearly indicates that god was less than truthful in his description of the effects of eating of the Tree of Knowledge.
quote: Does it matter? What does my religious inclination have to do with anything? Either the text says what it says or it doesn't. One does not need to be a believer in order to understand what a text says and place it within its cultural context. You're treading into the territory of Pascal's Wager. You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: Right. Strange how none of the branches of Judaism come to this conclusion. Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?
quote: What was the lie? All the serpent said was: Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. That's it. No cajoling of Eve to actually go through it. All the serpent says is that you won't die if you eat of the tree, you will become as god knowing good and evil, and that god knows this. And all of that is precisely true. Adam and Eve do not die as god directly states they would, the do become as gods knowing good and evil, and god does know this. So where is the lie?
quote: Because they don't die. Adam lives for nearly 1000 years. Eve lives at least long enough to bear two children, have one reach some form of maturity, and bear another son after that. The idea that it is some sort of "spiritual death" or that Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate of the tree is not supported by the text. Adam and Eve were always going to die. That's the point behind the Tree of Life. What would god have done if Adam and Eve had managed to get to the Tree of Life or had eaten from it first? And the direct statement of god in Genesis 2 is that if you eat from the Tree of Knowledge, you will be dead before the sun sets. Again, Adam and Eve live on for years after that. Thus, that statement of god's was not true. And since he knows it isn't true, that makes it a lie.
quote: No, they didn't. Adam lived for nearly 1000 years after and Eve lived long enough to bear at least two generations of children. How did they do that if they were dead?
quote: It's called "text analysis." Everybody should be capable of it.
quote: Why not? Simply because I disagree with you? I've been quoting the text left and right. You have yet to indicate where the problem is.
quote: You've moved the goalposts. The request was not to find someone "perfect in all his generation." The request was simply to find someone who was perfect. The text plainly states that Noah was: Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah wasn't the only one. There's Asa: 2 Chronicles 15:17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days. And Abraham: Genesis And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
quote: And thus, you move the goalposts. But that's OK...Asa was perfect.
quote: That's not what the text says. Thus, you impose upon it.
quote: Incorrect. Just a short list: AbibaalHiram I Baal-Eser I Abdastratus Methusastartus Astarymus Phelles Eshbaal I Baal-Eser II Mattan I Pygmalion Eshbaal II Hiram II Mattan II Elulaiois Abd Melqart Baal I And note, Tyre was under the rule of Alexander the Great for a while. Since Ezekiel is referring to a period about the late 500s BCE, that would put the specific king in question in the rule of Eshbaal III (591 - 573 BCE). But at any rate, it is irrelevant. The text calls him "king": Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Are you saying the text has an error?
quote: Not for this point. The text reads: Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. The statements in 28:13 are directed at the king of Tyre. Are you saying the king of Tyre was the devil? Hint: The original Hebrew words that are translated as "prince" and "king" in Ezekiel 28 really aren't that different. Solomon is also referred to as "prince" and "king" without anybody thinking there's something mystical going on. You seem to think that the text was written in English.
quote: Indeed. But when the text says that this particular verse applies to this specific person, it is inappropriate to suddenly claim that it isn't referring to that person at all.
quote: Except it's referring to specific people and specific events. It makes reference to King Jehoiachin, therefore we know what time period it is placed in.
quote: Indeed. It's a metaphor. The lamentation is not that the king of Tyre was an actual resident of Eden. It's that the king of Tyre had every advantage and luxury. To drive the point home, the text uses a common literary device: Hyperbole.
quote: And you're perfectly free to do so. Just be honest and admit that you're imposing this interpretation on the text, reading into it things that it does not say. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: And who is more likely to know the god of the Jews and said god's truth: Jews or non-Jews? The Torah was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
quote: That in direct contradiction to god's claim that in the day that Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam lived for nearly a millenium after.
quote: So? Adam wasn't immortal. Why bother with the Tree of Life if he were? The claim of god was not that Adam would lose immortality. The claim of god was that before the sun set on the literal day that Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he would be physically dead. Instead, Adam lived for nearly a thousand years. Where was the lie of the serpent?
quote: I never claimed that my comments about god's actions are the basis of Judaism. I'm simply pointing out that your claims about who the serpent was are not shared by the people who wrote the text. There's a lesson to be learned there. Hint: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
quote: Then why did he destroy nearly all life on the planet? Why does god order the destruction of entire cities? And the people who were living in the Promised Land? And all the other wars and battles that were demanded by god? The god described in the Jewish texts is not a god of peace.
quote: Nice try, but that was my argument to you. Genesis 5:5 clearly shows that god was not telling the truth back in 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." Adam did not die on the day he ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Instead, he lived for nearly a thousand years. So how did the serpent lie?
quote: Huh? God has no problem killing people. And god made a definitive and clear statement: 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. Nowhere in the text do we find a statement that god changes his mind. That isn't to say that god never does (Abraham and Moses are constantly arguing with god and getting god to rethink the rash action he is about to undertake). Instead, the text would say if god changed his mind. Since it doesn't, any claim that god did is an imposition upon the text.
quote: Except that isn't what god said. God said that Adam would be physically dead by the time the sun set. Instead, he lives for nearly another thousand years.
quote: Which means they were never immortal. Else, why bother with the Tree of Life? What would god have done had Adam and Eve eaten from it first? After all, god panics upon learning that Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. The only thing standing in their way of achieving complete apotheosis is eating from the Tree of Life.
quote:quote: Yes, they were. What was the point of the Tree of Life if they weren't? The only thing standing in their way of achieving complete apotheosis is eating from the Tree of Life. What would god have done had Adam and Eve eaten from it first?
quote: And you are certainly free to do so. I merely ask that you be honest and admit it is because you are imposing your personal desires upon the text.
quote: I love being analyzed over the internet. I always learn such wonderful things about myself! You're practically accusing me of being a Satanist, jaywill, so stop beating around the bush and come right out and say it. It's a desire to be honest about what the text says and compare that to what people think it says. The quote from the remake of DOA is always helpful: "When I say something, that's implying; the way you take it, that's inferring." Inferral is not bad in and of itself. I merely ask that people be honest and not confuse the two.
quote: First, you're assuming that the author of Gen 1 is the same as the author of Gen 2. That would be a mistake. Gen 2 is written by a different author from Gen 1. Second, you're assuming that the word "yowm" has only one meaning. "Yowm" is very much like the English word, "day." It can mean various things depending upon how it is phrased. The context of the statement will tell you what is meant. "Evening and morning of the nth day" is phrasing indicating a literay, 24-hour day. "In the day," however, is indicative of a nebulous, non-specific length of time.
quote: And it does. You seem to think that the Bible was written in English.
quote: Irrelevant. Gen 2:17 is referring to a physical death ("Dying, you will die," to use a more literal phrasing.)
quote: But you haven't shown any textual analysis to contradict it. All you've said is, "I reject it." That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't pretend it's based upon what the text says.
quote: No, you moved the goalposts. You demanded X thinking that it couldn't be shown and when it was, you did the typical creationist thing to claim that it wasn't an example of Y, hoping to high heaven that nobody would notice that you didn't ask for Y in the first place.
quote: So is Noah. So is Asa.
quote: Excuse me? You made a proclamation without bothering to do any research on the subject? And you expect anybody to take you seriously?
quote: So how is a direct statement to go to a real person and say something directly to him an indication that it isn't referring to a real person?
quote: But both of them are direct statements about specific people. Therefore, there is no connection to the devil...especially since there is no concept of the devil in Judaism as Christianity claims.
quote: Because, as I pointed out, the text is using a standard literary device: Hyperbole. You do know what hyperbole is, yes?
quote: Because the text clearly indicates so. Gen 2:17 is directly contradicted by Gen 5:5.
quote: As I have often said, have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: You are assuming Jesus even existed. There is no evidence of such. At any rate, the books of the New Testament were not written by Jesus nor were they written by any contemporaries of Jesus or anybody who knew him. They were written by Christians who were trying to justify their apostasy.
quote: Then what's the point of the Tree of Life? The only thing standing between Adam and Eve and complete apotheosis was the Tree of Life. What would god have done had they eaten of it first?
quote: Which flies in the face of Judaism and the very first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. There is no son because that would imply a second and there is no second. There is only one. God doesn't need a son.
quote: And I never said they were. The fact that my comments don't necessarily jibe with Judaism doesn't mean yours do. The only point regarding Judaism I have made is that Judaism doesn't have a concept of the devil the way Christianity does. The serpent in the garden is just a serpent. It cannot be the devil because there is no devil. Again, there is only one god.
quote:quote: The very complaint you are making toward me also applies to you.
quote: No, it isn't. You said that god hates death. And yet, there are myriad examples of god killing everything in sight. One of them quite literally.
quote: You cannot use the New Testament to try and justify its contradictions of the Old. If you could, then there wouldn't be any Christians for they would all be Jews as Judaism would recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The very point behind the New Testament is that it doesn't match the Old. The books of the Jews were written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
quote: Huh? First you're saying god changed his mind and rather than having Adam die like he said in Gen 2:17, he changed his mind and saved Adam's life. Now you're saying he didn't change his mind. They can't both be true. Either he changed his mind or he didn't. Nowhere in the text do we find a statement that god changes his mind. Since it doesn't, any claim that god did is an imposition upon the text.
quote: Stop beating around the bush, jaywill. If you're going to claim I'm a Satanist, just come right out and say it.
quote: OK, first, a spelling flame (yeah...I know): It's "panicking," with a "k." In English, "c" before "i" is soft as in "icing." "Panicing" would be pronounced "PAN-ih-seeng." Similarly, "c" before "e" is also soft, so it's "panicked." Second, the text clearly states that he does: Genesis 3:22 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:3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. What's god afraid of? Why does god care if Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Life? You just said that god hates death, so why would god condemn Adam and Eve to death? God is clearly panicking, doing everything he can to get rid of Adam and Eve lest they achieve apotheosis.
quote: And yet, you just said:
I think surely this teaching is sourced in demons. I think that possibly some people who espouse this teaching are the unwitting pupils of evil spirits. ... It is a demonic teaching to teach that the serpent was the trustworthy one in Genesis and that Yahweh God was the untrustworthy lying one. You should drop this teaching. That you're feigning modesty and claiming that I'm "unwitting," you're still insisting that I'm spreading the word of the devil. So just come out and say it.
quote: So I'm playing the Devil's Advocate?
quote: According to Genesis 1, heaven was created on the second day: Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Earth was created on the third: Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.[...] 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. quote: But Genesis 1 is where we find the specific days on which things happen. You're trying to say that "day" only means one thing and it does not. If you phrase it in a certain way, it means a literal, 24-hour day ("evening and morning"). If you phrase it another way, it means a nebulous, non-specific length of time ("in my day.") And in Genesis 2:17, the phrasing is very specific: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote: The text has been redacted, yes. But the two stories are contradictory. A single author writing both as if it were a coherent, single story makes no sense. This is even more apparent in the story of Noah. It is literally two stories shuffled together. That's why Noah enters the ark twice, why the animals come in two different sets of numbers, why the ark lands twice, etc. It's two different stories by two different people.
quote: No, we're talking about what is meant by "on the day you eat" means. You seem to think it means that it's not really a day. And since you brought up the "day" reference from earlier in Genesis as an example of how "day" can mean something other than a literal, 24-hour day, I responded that you seem to be indicating that "yowm" only means one thing. Instead, "yowm" means different things and the contextual phrasing surrounding it will tell you what is meant. And in Genesis 2:17, the context is quite clear: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote: I never said it was any kind of Judaism let alone Orthodox. How did we land upon Orthodox? I am simply reading the text. The fact that I am not speaking for the Jews doesn't mean you are, though. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
quote: You're the one who brought it up. If you don't like the fact that you're being shown up, then perhaps you should retract your statement. You're trying to say that the word "day" in Gen 2:17 doesn't mean an actual day and you're using Gen 2:4 as justification. All I'm pointing out is that "day" can actually mean a literal, 24-hour day as well as a nebulous, non-specific length of time and that the way you determine which is meant is by looking at the contextual phrasing surrounding the word. And in Genesis 2:17, the context is quite clear: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote: No, not "beginning." If I had meant "beginning," I would have said "beginning." If the text meant "beginning," it would have said "beginning." Since neither I nor the text say that, it is clear we don't mean that. The phrase, "dying, you will die," means something very specific. It isn't implying that you're going to linger for another thousand years or that you will lose your immortality. It means that you're going to drop dead on the spot.
quote: Jesus isn't mentioned anywhere in the Jewish texts. The fact that Christians are obsessed with him is irrelevant when discussing the Old Testament. Asa and Noah, however, are mentioned and both of them are declared to be perfect.
quote: Jesus Christ is irrelevant when approaching the Old Testament. You're still trying to impose Christian sensibilities upon a Jewish text.
quote: Since the notions of "hyperbole" and "metaphor" were invented. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it?
quote: You misunderstand. I am comparing Judaism's concept of the devil with Christianity's. The concept of where evil comes from is different in Judaism than it is in Christianity. There is no devil the way that Christians claim there is.
quote: How does one feel "pity" for something that doesn't exist, according to the text? The serpent in the garden was just a serpent. It wasn't the devil. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: And the fact that you can't see that this question requires understanding the text and the context in which it was written shows that you really don't want an answer to it. You're trying to use quotations of Christian texts to justify a Jewish passage. You're trying to use a Christian persona to justify a Jewish passage. You're trying to use a claim of a person who might never have existed to justify a Jewish passage. Genesis 3 was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Thus, there is no such thing as the devil, at least not in the way Christians think, and any claim that the serpent was anything other than a serpent are impositions upon the text. Are you capable of justifying your statement that the serpent was the devil without invoking Christianity? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: What an anti-Semitic thing to say.
quote: The Old Testament says it wasn't. And since the Old Testament was written by Jews for Jews, who do you think better understands what a Jewish text means? Can you justify your claims about Genesis without resorting to Christianity? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: The fact that you are incapable of discussing a Jewish text without trying to cram Jesus into it means you're obsessed. Can you justify your claim that the serpent was the devil without invoking Christianity? Since Judaism doesn't really have a concept of the devil, how could the serpent possibly be the devil? Remember: Nothing out of the New Testament is relevant. Genesis was written by Jews for Jews and can only be understood in a Jewish context. Can you justify your claim without invoking Jesus or anything connected to him? And you misquoted the text. 2 Chronicles 15:17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days. "Nevertheless," not "otherwise." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: And yet, you immediately jumped to Revelation. So let's try again. Can you justify your claim without referencing anything in Christian dogma?
quote:quote: Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion? The passage is from a Jewish text, written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context. If you cannot justify your claim without referencing Christian dogma, what does that say about your claim?
quote: I say a lot of things. For one, it shows the lie of your insistence in injecting Jesus into this as if he has anything to do with it. What part of "no one else" do you find difficult to understand? There is no "son of god." But that said, you neglected to indicate the entire passage: 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Note the source of evil: God. There is no one else. There is no devil because everything, including evil, comes from god. So since god is the source of evil, the serpent in the garden cannot be the devil for there is no such thing.
quote: What makes you think it isn't? Don't presume to think you understand anything about my religious orientation. Now, lets go back to your supposed voluntary restriction: Can you justify your claim without referencing Christian dogma? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: Which means, effectively, "No." Without any way to justify your assertions outside of Christian dogma, we're left wondering why you think a Jewish text should be so bastardized.
quote: I mean tenets of Christian theology. Christianity is not the same thing as Judaism. They do not worship the same god. Christianity makes claims that Judaism doesn't. To pretend that a Jewish text should twist itself to appease Christian sensibilities is disingenuous at best.
quote: I'm not surprised. Your interpretation has no justification to be found anywhere within the Jewish texts. Therefore, the only way to do it is to insist upon non-Jewish impositions upon a text that was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood within a Jewish context. And even then, there isn't much there to justify it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: But it's the Jewish god. What makes you think Christianity understands the word of the Jewish god?
quote: Yes. The Jewish god. What makes you think Christianity understands the word of the Jewish god?
quote: Ahem. The gospels were not written anywhere near the time of Jesus.
quote: But it has no connection to it. Christianity does not recongize the same god as Judaism does. Therefore, what makes you think Christianity could understand the word of the Jewish god? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: No, please don't. Leave it as it is: What makes you think Christianity could understand the word of the Jewish god?
quote: Yep. And according to the Jews, it's the Jewish god. Christians do not worship the same god as the Jews. Therefore, what makes you think Christianity could understand the word of the Jewish god?
quote: ...who hasn't shown up yet. If he had, then all would have been fulfilled. It hasn't, therefore the Messiah hasn't arrived. Which means Jesus wasn't the Messiah. So we're back to the same question: What makes you think Christianity could understand the word of the Jewish god?
quote: You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to your facts. The texts of the New Testament were written decades if not centuries after the time of the events they supposedly document. Not a single first hand account exists.
quote: Not according to Judaism. And who would know better about the god of the Jews than the Jews? The god that said, "Let there be light," was the god of the Jews. What makes you think Christianity could understand the word of the Jewish god?
quote: BZZZZT! I'm so sorry, jaywill. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has! Well, Bob, jaywill has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, jaywill gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations. But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat. You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote:quote: What makes you think he wasn't? He appears in a book that was written by Jews for Jews. How can he possibly be understood except in a Jewish context?
quote: You think Enoch doesn't share Adam's knowledge of god? What about Elijah? Oh! You were trying to make a comment about Jesus, weren't you! You need to stop trying to impose your Christian dogma upon Jewish texts.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jaywill responds to me:
quote: That it was written by Jews, for Jews. Thus, it isn't a reference to Jesus.
quote: When you start to say that Jewish texts are predictions of Jesus, you've crossed over.
quote: When you think it's a reference to Jesus and the Christian god, yes. The god of Genesis doesn't know Jesus from Adam.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024