Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 106 of 477 (548594)
02-28-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by purpledawn
02-28-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Satan is Not a Fallen Angel
Exactly! It isn't taking about a being named Satan
Indirectly it is. There are times when things are best understood when taken in a broader context. The story of God is not about God and the King of Babylon, God and Einstein. God and Euler, God and bengal tigers. Its about God and his adversary (give him whatever name you like). Taken in a broad context especially with regards to Israel and its history (which is what Isaiah's context is), we see that God is trying to tell Israel that He is great. That His enemies will be defeated. Does it make sense for the King of Babylon to be God's archenemy? No, it doesn't. The guy was human. Obviously, there's a supernatural power working through the King. And that power was once great, really great. Hence the morning star imagery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by purpledawn, posted 02-28-2010 12:23 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 02-28-2010 4:27 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 107 of 477 (548595)
02-28-2010 1:29 PM


Hyroglyphyx writes:
So in other words, your choice is made before the fact and I am wasting my time?
I filter out redundant illustrations and focus on claims and facts. That's what I meant.
Apologies if that came across as rude. I do want to listen to you, do want to have a civil conversation and hopefully to a good end.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : second statement...felt it necessary

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 108 of 477 (548599)
02-28-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Blue Jay
02-28-2010 2:01 AM


Re: Clarification, please?
Hi Bluejay!
Chill, my brother. We're friends here.
Bluejay writes:
ZenMonkey writes:
The point I was trying to make is that God's damnation game is inherently unfair.
I know what your point was. But, that point was just back-peddling after I provided an obvious and logical solution to the original question you asked, which was:
quote:
What is just or loving about a God that delivers people to eternal torment who, by reason of chronology and/or geography, have had literally no way at all of hearing about Christ, even though Christ is the only way to eternal life?
After I answered this, you redirected the discussion into a completely different point about Original Sin (which I find to be as morally repugnant as you do).
You asked for X.
I gave you X.
Then, you said that what you were really looking for was Y.
And, I justifiably complained.
I didn't at all mean to be evasive, and I didn't think that I was. Do you at least agree with the original premise of my question - that God sends people to eternal torment who never had a chance to gain salvation?
I agree that 1 Corinthians 15:29 does refer to some act of baptism performed by the living in order to benefit the dead, though I still contend that exactly how this is supposed to work isn't clear, seeing as how it's the living being baptized, not the dead. However, if baptism by proxy is LDS doctrine, then so be it. But it's still doctrine that's been sifted and refined out of a single verse, and it's a practice that's unorthodox, even heretical.
But far more importantly, even if baptism by proxy were valid and accepted, how does that help? It doesn't work if you don't have the unbaptized dead person's name! If all you really care about are LDS members and their ancestors, I suppose that that's not so big a problem. You can even be charitable and try to catch as many other dead non-Mormons as you can, though as we've seen, family members of Holocaust victims haven't been so thrilled to have their folks turned into non-Jews in the afterlife. But that's still just a drop in the bucket. Unless you can find a way to get full names of every human being who lived in China before 600 CE, for example, then they all still get to burn. Not many more people are going to benefit from this loophole than missed out in the first place.
My point still stands. The Christian god's damnation/salvation game is inherently unfair. Christians know this, as evidenced by all the efforts to make excuses or contort some exceptions out of scripture. And yet they continue to call this God good and loving. How's that work, again?
Edited by ZenMonkey, : A bit of rhetorical emphasis added.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2010 2:01 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 03-01-2010 9:57 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 109 of 477 (548605)
02-28-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Pauline
02-28-2010 1:02 PM


Re: Satan is Not a Fallen Angel
quote:
Indirectly it is.
There is no indirect reference to an evil angel in the text. It is all about the human king.
This thread is supposed to be straightforward. You're writing fiction. The text does not support your position.
quote:
Taken in a broad context especially with regards to Israel and its history (which is what Isaiah's context is), we see that God is trying to tell Israel that He is great. That His enemies will be defeated. Does it make sense for the King of Babylon to be God's archenemy? No, it doesn't. The guy was human. Obviously, there's a supernatural power working through the King. And that power was once great, really great. Hence the morning star imagery.
I've shown you that the Satan/Lucifer association is a later creation.
Edited by purpledawn, : Addition

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 1:02 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 4:56 PM purpledawn has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 110 of 477 (548609)
02-28-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by purpledawn
02-28-2010 4:27 PM


Re: Satan is Not a Fallen Angel
Thanks for showing me. But that doesn't make me change my view that Is 14 refers to God's archenemy, satan when taken in a non-literal, broad sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 02-28-2010 4:27 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 03-01-2010 7:46 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 123 by Apothecus, posted 03-01-2010 10:08 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 111 of 477 (548632)
02-28-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2010 11:31 AM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
How can you blame Adam for being inquisitive when God created the man to be that way?
If inquisitiveness made adam eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the necessity for satan to tempt him vanishes. But you see, adam never ate the fruit even though he was an inquisitive creature all along. Satan was necessary to make him eat the fruit! Why? Because his inquisitive could not make him sin against God.
Think about this.
Desire to eat the fruit translates as desire to disobey God. If adam wants to disobey God, he wants to please someone else, correct? He would have had 2 options: 1. Please himself or his wife 2. Please no one else (no incentive to disobey) Note that Adam and Eve didn't sin up until this point even though they had option 1.
But here comes satan with alluring words and attractive promises and eve complies to his enticement (and so does Adam to hers) in a heartbeat!! What do you make of that? Adam and Eve never cultivated a desire to eat the fruit before satan arrived.
SUPPOSE THEY CULTIVATED THE DESIRE BEFORE SATAN CAME, they would have followed option 1. (which they didn't)
Interestingly, we notice that both of them act impulsively.
Therefore, I maintain that God never supplied Adam with a "flesh desire/nature". The proof for this claim is that fact that Adam and eve never sinned to please themselves. Sin nature was introduced to Adam by satan and Adam deeming it attractive, bought it from satan. And for a nasty price of course.
How can you blame Adam who didn't even know it was wrong to begin with until after-the-fact?
Wrong.
Gen 2:
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 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."
-God is not talking about physical death. Adam lived for 930 years. -God is referring to spiritual death. Adam communicated with God through his spirit.
-When Adam disobeys is when their communication/friendship ends is what God is saying to Adam in verse 17.
-What evidence do you present to argue that Adam was innocent/naive/tricked/deceived/helpless when he was given so clear a warning?
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2010 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 02-28-2010 7:39 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2010 4:12 AM Pauline has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 477 (548633)
02-28-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Pauline
02-28-2010 7:12 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
What evidence do you present to argue that Adam was innocent/naive/tricked/deceived/helpless when he was given so clear a warning?
Let's start with this thought: how would A and E possibly have any conception of what "die," or even "SURELY DIE!!!!" might mean, when, according to the story, death didn't yet exist? If I told you, Dr. Sing, to not type the word "weasel," or you would surely gomphrammitz, would you be impressed? Would it be a "clear warning?"
Oh, and the story has a snake tempting Eve and Eve tempting Adam. No Satan in there at all.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 7:12 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 7:53 PM Coragyps has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 113 of 477 (548636)
02-28-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
02-28-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
Let's start with this thought: how would A and E possibly have any conception of what "die," or even "SURELY DIE!!!!" might mean, when, according to the story, death didn't yet exist?
Which is exactly why I explained what "you will die" is interpreted. Perhaps you didn't grasp it? Here's it in sort of a mathematical mode: you will die=your spirit will die=you will have no means to have a relationship with me anymore. This information is easily grasped by Adam since there is no jargon in there; you will die=/=your heart will stop beating.
Oh, and the story has a snake tempting Eve and Eve tempting Adam. No Satan in there at all.....
Animals as we know them today don't go around chatting with humans unless you live in a different world than I do.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 02-28-2010 7:39 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coragyps, posted 02-28-2010 8:14 PM Pauline has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 114 of 477 (548638)
02-28-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Pauline
02-28-2010 7:53 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
Animals as we know them today don't go around chatting with humans.....
And they never did, in much the same way gods, demons, and boogiemen never did.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 7:53 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 8:32 PM Coragyps has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 115 of 477 (548640)
02-28-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coragyps
02-28-2010 8:14 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
My point was to say that satan never tucked himself into a random reticulated python dwelling in the garden of eden, he transformed himself into a snake so that he would appear tactful to eve since she knew the nature of snakes. I doubt if a bunny would have been effective in convincing Eve to sin. Satan is a clever dude, don't you think?
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coragyps, posted 02-28-2010 8:14 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 02-28-2010 8:42 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 117 by Coragyps, posted 02-28-2010 9:33 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 118 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-01-2010 12:25 AM Pauline has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 116 of 477 (548642)
02-28-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Pauline
02-28-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
he transformed himself into a snake so that he would appear tactful to eve since she knew the nature of snakes.
What was the nature of snakes pre-fall?

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 8:32 PM Pauline has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 117 of 477 (548650)
02-28-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Pauline
02-28-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
Satan is a clever dude, don't you think?
Not as clever as Sauron.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 8:32 PM Pauline has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 118 of 477 (548682)
03-01-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Pauline
02-28-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
Dr. Sing writes:
My point was to say that satan never tucked himself into a random reticulated python dwelling in the garden of eden, he transformed himself into a snake so that he would appear tactful to eve since she knew the nature of snakes.
You're making up made up stuff.
Oh, and let's not forget Message 113 where you come up with this beauty:
quote:
Which is exactly why I explained what "you will die" is interpreted. Perhaps you didn't grasp it? Here's it in sort of a mathematical mode: you will die=your spirit will die=you will have no means to have a relationship with me anymore. This information is easily grasped by Adam since there is no jargon in there; you will die=/=your heart will stop beating.
Somehow this is supposed to be a clearer warning than just: "Don't eat touch that! It's Evil!"?*
Right.
You're defending the infefensible. It's mind-boggling how Christians ignore how clearly Adam was set up to fail in so many ways, and then still claim that God had nothing to do with it. The energy put out by all that cognitive dissonance must be enough to light up Los Angeles for a year.
So somehow the omnipotent, omnicient, omnibenevolent creator of the entire universe is so interested in testing his new creation just to see how much the man loves him that he 1) does everything he can to make sure that the man is going to fail the test (what's the necessity of even putting a tree of tasty fruit of forbidden knowledge in the garden in the first in the first place? and did the serpent somehow slip past God while God was getting some Cokes from the fridge?) 2) when the man has no way of knowing what the test is supposed to be about to begin with (no knowledge of either Death or Good/Evil, remember) and 4) God already knows how it's going to turn out anyway; 5) and thereby be so offended by this single offense that he condemns not only the man but every single one of his descendents to death and eternal damnation (Adam's sin = sin enters the world = everyone's guilty from birth). Wow.
Look, when you just read the story it's quite obvious that it was a set-up. The fact that you have to continue to make up stuff that isn't there in order to make your case should tell you something.
*Bonus point for whoever gets the movie reference.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Fixing a fumbled quote.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 8:32 PM Pauline has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 477 (548699)
03-01-2010 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Pauline
02-28-2010 7:12 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
If inquisitiveness made adam eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the necessity for satan to tempt him vanishes.
You keep glossing over my point that all these things need to be viewed in conjunction. I mentioned that Satan tempted him and that no one other than God allowed that to happen. Look at that in tandem with how utterly naive Adam & Eve were, which is no fault of their own, and of course they ate the damn fruit, which obviously seems like a huge set up.
Desire to eat the fruit translates as desire to disobey God.
Again, Adam could have no academic concept of disobedience before he ate the fruit. It was only after that he realized his nakedness (sin).
But here comes satan with alluring words and attractive promises and eve complies to his enticement (and so does Adam to hers) in a heartbeat!! What do you make of that?
I already told you what I make of it -- a set up in the Garden! Satan doesn't exist in a vacuum or void, he operates where God places him.
SUPPOSE THEY CULTIVATED THE DESIRE BEFORE SATAN CAME, they would have followed option 1. (which they didn't)
Interestingly, we notice that both of them act impulsively.
Yeah, exactly, impulsive like children. They're only crime is being stupid, which was God's fault. And their sentence? Life with the imminent possibility of all of humanity dying as a result.
What a raw deal.
Therefore, I maintain that God never supplied Adam with a "flesh desire/nature". The proof for this claim is that fact that Adam and eve never sinned to please themselves.
Even if you try and place the blame all on Satan, the fact that God failed to protect the world's two dumbest people, and having the foreknowledge of what would take place as a result, makes him irrevocably liable.
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 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."
Whether God is speaking about physical or spiritual death is of no consequence for the single fact that death of any kind did not exist until the Fall. I assume you would agree. That being the case, what sense does it make to threaten people with something they literally had no concept of? They didn't know what death meant, they didn't know what right and wrong meant, at no time did God warn them of the wiles of the Serpent in a way they could understand, he creates a tree for which the only expressed purpose is to abstain from it, etc, etc.
So where in there do you rightly see God absolved? Where in there do you see a sense of justness? Where in there do you rightly see A & E treated fairly?
It doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. People are so used to hearing the pastor's rehashing over their tired soundbytes, no one stops to think about what they're reading intellectually. All they hear is God told them not to do it, and they did it. So they automatically assume it's their fault. Normally it would be their fault were it not for taking all this extraordinarily compelling information in that indicts God as the instigator.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 7:12 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Apothecus, posted 03-01-2010 10:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 126 by Pauline, posted 03-01-2010 10:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 120 of 477 (548711)
03-01-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Pauline
02-28-2010 4:56 PM


Re: Satan is Not a Fallen Angel
quote:
Thanks for showing me. But that doesn't make me change my view that Is 14 refers to God's archenemy, satan when taken in a non-literal, broad sense.
Then you lose the probability of accurately understanding the scriptures. You are no longer pulling information from the scriptures (exegesis). Instead you are reading meaning into the scriptures (eisegesis). This tells me you aren't interested in what the text actually says, but are more interested in supporting current dogma or tradition.
The same problem occurs when you address the serpent in the A&E story. This is a very old story and the snake does not represent the later concept of Satan.
The snake is a foil.
Foil (1) A secondary or minor character in a literary work who contrasts or clashes with the main character; (2) a secondary or minor character with personal qualities that are the opposite of, or markedly different from, those of another character; (3) the antagonist in a play or another literary work.
The fact that the story has the snake talking tells us, as it does in any other story we read, that the story is not talking about an actual event or fiction has been added to an actual event. The A&E story is not about an actual event.
Apologetics defends the doctrine, not the Bible.
systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
The problem in both these cases is that critical interpretation of the text doesn't support your additions to the meanings of the texts.
IOW, you're putting the later concept of Satan where it doesn't belong. It's like putting the later practice of Lent in the NT.
I have no problem with religions developing doctrines and traditions, but I do have a problem with trying to convince people that the Bible supports the changes. I think they should just admit the reality behind the additions and changes.
That would be the truthful thing to do. No wool.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added line

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 4:56 PM Pauline has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024