PHANTOM BIBLICAL PASSAGES?

"God will never give you more than you can handle."

Christians quote this as scripture to each other all the time as a show of support without realizing that it's nowhere in the Bible.
 
23ska909red02 wrote:


a682546eba992a192e2ef8537e89de6be924b77.gif
 long time no see
 
laugh.gif


Hardly ever in General anymore. Mostly just stick to S&T.
 
laugh.gif


Hardly ever in General anymore. Mostly just stick to S&T.
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Jwill JR

The title makes it seem as if the actual tempting of Eve by Satan did not occur, which it did..But I get the just of the artice... A lot of ppl do take the Bible out of context. Most of the things that frustrate me, is when a person dies, they say "God must of needed another Angel. Well, first of all, there are plenty of Angels in the Heavenlies, as well, a person does not become an Angel when they die. "The Lord works in mysteious ways" is another one. Ppl use that when they dont understand what God is "doing" in their lives. Usually its when something bad is going on in their lives, in which God didnt cause anyways. It all comes down to a lack of bibical knowledge. The more and more one studies the bible, and allows the Holy Spirit to teach them in all truths is when they will get a knowledge and understanding of the bible.


Is The Biblical Serpent Satan?

Is the Serpent in the Garden according to the Bible Satan?

Pro 14:15The simple believeth every word: but the prudent [man] looketh well to his going.

Short Answer: NO!

The Long Answer may shock you!

Here's a few things to consider:

    In Genesis 3:14 we read:

"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:"

As you can see, the Serpent is cursed for his trickery and has to crawl on it's belly forever and "eat dust". Metaphorically of course.. that is, his proximity is so close to the ground that dirt cannot help but get into his mouth. I think it's fair to call this one a metaphor. So.. what we have hear is a pretty good description of a snake. Serpents are snakes, in fact, the Hebrew word for snake IS "[size=-1]nachash[/size]" which is a snake. This word is found all throughout the Bible to refer to snakes. But has Satan been stricken with such a punishment? This is what we will find out in a moment.

    One big problem is that, if Satan was the serpent, why is God punishing him to be a snake.. and why would the Serpent be called a "[size=-1]nachash[/size]" a snake, if he wasn't one yet? The Serpent is called a Serpeant long before he actually became one. One is led to accept then that at one point snakes could walk around and had limbs. Yes.. I know it's getting a bit muddled already. This sounds very much like mythological retelling. Someone trying to explain why a certain animal has a particular attribute. Now, is Satan... a snake... that's slithering around? Or much more than that? If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.

    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.

    Some will retort, that the snake itself was metaphor for his sneakiness and crafty ways. Okay.. I would go with that except for a few problems. Is it metaphor to go "upon your belly"? Is "the Serpent" (many who believe is Satan) crawling around on it's belly forever or did the Bible make a mistake?

    We read in Job 1:7:"

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

     Satan was walking?! Did God's curse wear off over time? Did Elohim punish the Serpent, or did he not? Walking in this context is from the Hebrew word, Halak. Halak is used mostly to denote traveling with feet in the Hebrew. However.. even if not literally walking. Is Satan slithering to and fro? Again, what are you saying here? A spiritual being that needs to slither to move? If he's spiritual, why travel to and fro, up and down. Can't he go through the mountains? If this being was just a snake, that makes more sense as snakes do travel here as described. In that case, we can make the serpent's walking metaphor. However, how can this be Satan?

    Some at this point may try to argue that I'm picking and choosing. That I'm being inconsistent. That I'm chosing literal meanings arbitrarily. Those that say so miss the point of this inquiry. That's exactly the point! In fact, I am analyzing what many believers think about this Serpent's nature and who or what it is. These questions must be answered by the Biblical literalist. What's metaphor.. what's literal.. and how do you know it?

    Again, what does it mean to metaphorically state that the Serpent is crawling on it's belly? Isn't it obvious that this is just another myth? A Pandora's box story where ancient man is simply trying to explain how evil arose and how it was caused?

    Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan. But I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Serpent in the Garden could not have been Satan. However, in the Bible there are quite a number of places that associate the snake (serpent) in the Garden as Satan. We do know however that when the new testament came along. The writers injected their own ideas about what they thought they were reading. Many followers of Christ assume that the Serpent is Satan without much investigation. It truly doesn't add up.I challenge those that are skeptical. DON'T take my word for it. Visit blueletterbible.org and look up these words yourself. I challenge you to also copy and paste the Hebrew words into google. It will simply blow you away at how much the church simply isn't telling you. In fact, they can't. They don't know either.

    In closing. It's obvious that something is not right here. Could it simply be that man's fear of this creature generated such a fairy tale? Thousands of years ago a snake bite would have been even more fatal than it is today. Makes sense to base such a story on such a slithery (crafty) creature that can end lives with a single bite. Truly sounds like a mythological story bred from fear and ignorance. Amazing how such a story could be believed by even some the most intelligent people. Wake up people, mythology has you!

A little more about Satan is here, some errors by Bible writers and reinterpreters. Is Lucifer Satan?


   posting to reply later..
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Jwill JR

The title makes it seem as if the actual tempting of Eve by Satan did not occur, which it did..But I get the just of the artice... A lot of ppl do take the Bible out of context. Most of the things that frustrate me, is when a person dies, they say "God must of needed another Angel. Well, first of all, there are plenty of Angels in the Heavenlies, as well, a person does not become an Angel when they die. "The Lord works in mysteious ways" is another one. Ppl use that when they dont understand what God is "doing" in their lives. Usually its when something bad is going on in their lives, in which God didnt cause anyways. It all comes down to a lack of bibical knowledge. The more and more one studies the bible, and allows the Holy Spirit to teach them in all truths is when they will get a knowledge and understanding of the bible.


Is The Biblical Serpent Satan?

Is the Serpent in the Garden according to the Bible Satan?

Pro 14:15The simple believeth every word: but the prudent [man] looketh well to his going.

Short Answer: NO!

The Long Answer may shock you!

Here's a few things to consider:

    In Genesis 3:14 we read:

"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:"

As you can see, the Serpent is cursed for his trickery and has to crawl on it's belly forever and "eat dust". Metaphorically of course.. that is, his proximity is so close to the ground that dirt cannot help but get into his mouth. I think it's fair to call this one a metaphor. So.. what we have hear is a pretty good description of a snake. Serpents are snakes, in fact, the Hebrew word for snake IS "[size=-1]nachash[/size]" which is a snake. This word is found all throughout the Bible to refer to snakes. But has Satan been stricken with such a punishment? This is what we will find out in a moment.

    One big problem is that, if Satan was the serpent, why is God punishing him to be a snake.. and why would the Serpent be called a "[size=-1]nachash[/size]" a snake, if he wasn't one yet? The Serpent is called a Serpeant long before he actually became one. One is led to accept then that at one point snakes could walk around and had limbs. Yes.. I know it's getting a bit muddled already. This sounds very much like mythological retelling. Someone trying to explain why a certain animal has a particular attribute. Now, is Satan... a snake... that's slithering around? Or much more than that? If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.

    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.

    Some will retort, that the snake itself was metaphor for his sneakiness and crafty ways. Okay.. I would go with that except for a few problems. Is it metaphor to go "upon your belly"? Is "the Serpent" (many who believe is Satan) crawling around on it's belly forever or did the Bible make a mistake?

    We read in Job 1:7:"

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

     Satan was walking?! Did God's curse wear off over time? Did Elohim punish the Serpent, or did he not? Walking in this context is from the Hebrew word, Halak. Halak is used mostly to denote traveling with feet in the Hebrew. However.. even if not literally walking. Is Satan slithering to and fro? Again, what are you saying here? A spiritual being that needs to slither to move? If he's spiritual, why travel to and fro, up and down. Can't he go through the mountains? If this being was just a snake, that makes more sense as snakes do travel here as described. In that case, we can make the serpent's walking metaphor. However, how can this be Satan?

    Some at this point may try to argue that I'm picking and choosing. That I'm being inconsistent. That I'm chosing literal meanings arbitrarily. Those that say so miss the point of this inquiry. That's exactly the point! In fact, I am analyzing what many believers think about this Serpent's nature and who or what it is. These questions must be answered by the Biblical literalist. What's metaphor.. what's literal.. and how do you know it?

    Again, what does it mean to metaphorically state that the Serpent is crawling on it's belly? Isn't it obvious that this is just another myth? A Pandora's box story where ancient man is simply trying to explain how evil arose and how it was caused?

    Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan. But I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Serpent in the Garden could not have been Satan. However, in the Bible there are quite a number of places that associate the snake (serpent) in the Garden as Satan. We do know however that when the new testament came along. The writers injected their own ideas about what they thought they were reading. Many followers of Christ assume that the Serpent is Satan without much investigation. It truly doesn't add up.I challenge those that are skeptical. DON'T take my word for it. Visit blueletterbible.org and look up these words yourself. I challenge you to also copy and paste the Hebrew words into google. It will simply blow you away at how much the church simply isn't telling you. In fact, they can't. They don't know either.

    In closing. It's obvious that something is not right here. Could it simply be that man's fear of this creature generated such a fairy tale? Thousands of years ago a snake bite would have been even more fatal than it is today. Makes sense to base such a story on such a slithery (crafty) creature that can end lives with a single bite. Truly sounds like a mythological story bred from fear and ignorance. Amazing how such a story could be believed by even some the most intelligent people. Wake up people, mythology has you!

A little more about Satan is here, some errors by Bible writers and reinterpreters. Is Lucifer Satan?


   posting to reply later..
 
If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.

Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif
 
If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.

Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.
Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif



He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible. If you have something to add say it, no one is going to stone you for expressing your opinions. You keep acting like you don't want to bother with this thread, yet you keep making comments.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif
 
Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.
Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif



He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible. If you have something to add say it, no one is going to stone you for expressing your opinions. You keep acting like you don't want to bother with this thread, yet you keep making comments.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.
Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif



He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif



Lets be real though Adam was a simp
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.
Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif



He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif



Lets be real though Adam was a simp
 
^^^Yea dude messed up bad. The story of Adam and eve has perpetuated a lot of misogynistic views for good reason, but if the story is true.....this should be a lesson to all. Simpin is literally the reason for all human strife.
laugh.gif
 
^^^Yea dude messed up bad. The story of Adam and eve has perpetuated a lot of misogynistic views for good reason, but if the story is true.....this should be a lesson to all. Simpin is literally the reason for all human strife.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.
Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif



He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif



but you see he doesn't believe anything he can't logically put together or explain from his point of view and what he has seen in his life. Like 2 + 2 = 4. That is something he can explain and manipulate with his hands. Christianity is a faith based religion.
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

If Satan is now just a snake.. then how is he able to tempt man and just so happens to be everywhere in the world? A single slithering serpent crawling on the ground is ubiquitious? Something is wrong here.
    "Satan is a spiritual being", some may say. If Satan is a spritual being and not a physical one, what does it mean to be "turned into a snake" anyway? How could he "eat dust"? Isn't dust physical as well? So, even using such a term as "eat dust" metaphorically still wouldn't make any sense if a "spirtual" Satan were truly the culprit.
Let's be clear here. I don't believe in a literal Satan.
There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif



He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif



but you see he doesn't believe anything he can't logically put together or explain from his point of view and what he has seen in his life. Like 2 + 2 = 4. That is something he can explain and manipulate with his hands. Christianity is a faith based religion.
 
Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by Kramer

I knew most of those weren't, but I probably read it more then most people on here
laugh.gif
here's how my conversation went with my catholic cousin yesterday

Her: People need religion because they can't no what good and bad is without religion.
Me: What about the people who existed before religion was created?
Her: Religion has existed since the creation of man.
Me:  Your religion says that Adam and Eve didn't know what good and bad was when they were created by your God.
Her: I'm not that religious.
Me: 
indifferent.gif
roll.gif
I keeled over. Like how is that a response?
roll.gif
Statements like that let you know who you shouldn't discuss somethings with.
 
Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by Kramer

I knew most of those weren't, but I probably read it more then most people on here
laugh.gif
here's how my conversation went with my catholic cousin yesterday

Her: People need religion because they can't no what good and bad is without religion.
Me: What about the people who existed before religion was created?
Her: Religion has existed since the creation of man.
Me:  Your religion says that Adam and Eve didn't know what good and bad was when they were created by your God.
Her: I'm not that religious.
Me: 
indifferent.gif
roll.gif
I keeled over. Like how is that a response?
roll.gif
Statements like that let you know who you shouldn't discuss somethings with.
 
Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif
He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif
but you see he doesn't believe anything he can't logically put together or explain from his point of view and what he has seen in his life. Like 2 + 2 = 4. That is something he can explain and manipulate with his hands. Christianity is a faith based religion.
A faith based religion, based on a book written, edited, and interpreted by MANY MEN with many inconsistencies. His logical interpretation of the bible is no different from  many other literal interpretations of the bible.  Believing the bible is "faith", but it is still faith based on "evidence".  Judeo-christians quote and use the bible as final word ignoring certain scriptures when it's convenient and applying others when it benefits them.

For example if a religious person quotes a passage from the bible and uses it to justify slavery or war. And I a non-believer finds a random biblical quote about "loving thy neighbor". Who is more correct? Is my right to quote and interpret the bible any less valid because I don't believe the God in the Judeo-christian bible exists? 2 different completely different ideals justified using the same book.


The guy who wrote that piece is saying "IF" the Satan in the bible exists, this isn't him and here are the reasons. He's doing exactly what religious people themselves do with the bible but he's just a little more thorough about it.
 
Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif
He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.


I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif
but you see he doesn't believe anything he can't logically put together or explain from his point of view and what he has seen in his life. Like 2 + 2 = 4. That is something he can explain and manipulate with his hands. Christianity is a faith based religion.
A faith based religion, based on a book written, edited, and interpreted by MANY MEN with many inconsistencies. His logical interpretation of the bible is no different from  many other literal interpretations of the bible.  Believing the bible is "faith", but it is still faith based on "evidence".  Judeo-christians quote and use the bible as final word ignoring certain scriptures when it's convenient and applying others when it benefits them.

For example if a religious person quotes a passage from the bible and uses it to justify slavery or war. And I a non-believer finds a random biblical quote about "loving thy neighbor". Who is more correct? Is my right to quote and interpret the bible any less valid because I don't believe the God in the Judeo-christian bible exists? 2 different completely different ideals justified using the same book.


The guy who wrote that piece is saying "IF" the Satan in the bible exists, this isn't him and here are the reasons. He's doing exactly what religious people themselves do with the bible but he's just a little more thorough about it.
 
Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif
He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.

I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif
but you see he doesn't believe anything he can't logically put together or explain from his point of view and what he has seen in his life. Like 2 + 2 = 4. That is something he can explain and manipulate with his hands. Christianity is a faith based religion.
That's why I say religious ppl should not engage in discussion or argument when the other side is using logic and reason to come to conclusions. If what you believe in does not have a basis in logic and reason it makes zero sense (not that it matters to them) to place it in that realm.

It's details like that that never dawn on some ppl. That's why in real life with certain arguments heading that way I stop and quickly introduce whether or not ppl want to approach this logically regardless of the issue that sparked the dispute.
 
Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

There's no need to even waste the keystrokes.
laugh.gif
He does a pretty good job playing devil's advocate (no pun intended). He addresses the issue as if Satan were both literal and metaphorical. I don't see how the fact that he doesn't believe Satan exists makes his argument any less sound. Definitely no less sound than other interpreters of the bible.

I wonder why Eve was so much easier to deceive than Adam. That couldn't have been an accident.
nerd.gif
but you see he doesn't believe anything he can't logically put together or explain from his point of view and what he has seen in his life. Like 2 + 2 = 4. That is something he can explain and manipulate with his hands. Christianity is a faith based religion.
That's why I say religious ppl should not engage in discussion or argument when the other side is using logic and reason to come to conclusions. If what you believe in does not have a basis in logic and reason it makes zero sense (not that it matters to them) to place it in that realm.

It's details like that that never dawn on some ppl. That's why in real life with certain arguments heading that way I stop and quickly introduce whether or not ppl want to approach this logically regardless of the issue that sparked the dispute.
 
Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ
here's how my conversation went with my catholic cousin yesterday

Her: People need religion because they can't no what good and bad is without religion.
Me: What about the people who existed before religion was created?
Her: Religion has existed since the creation of man.
Me:  Your religion says that Adam and Eve didn't know what good and bad was when they were created by your God.
Her: I'm not that religious.
Me: 
indifferent.gif
roll.gif
I keeled over. Like how is that a response?
roll.gif
Statements like that let you know who you shouldn't discuss somethings with.

I've had similar responses in religious arguments. What the hell was she supposed to say? Most religious people wouldn't have had an answer for that either so let's cut her some slack, she prolly just got tongue tied.
ohwell.gif


The irony is, people are in here saying you can't use logic in religious arguments when religious people themselves use it ALL the time. For instance many sects of the judeochristian religions don't necessarily share all of the same believes. But their own "logical" interpretations of the bible has led them to adopt from beliefs while rejecting others. People usually bring up the "you can't be logical" excuse when all their explanations fall apart. Figures
ohwell.gif
 
Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ
here's how my conversation went with my catholic cousin yesterday

Her: People need religion because they can't no what good and bad is without religion.
Me: What about the people who existed before religion was created?
Her: Religion has existed since the creation of man.
Me:  Your religion says that Adam and Eve didn't know what good and bad was when they were created by your God.
Her: I'm not that religious.
Me: 
indifferent.gif
roll.gif
I keeled over. Like how is that a response?
roll.gif
Statements like that let you know who you shouldn't discuss somethings with.

I've had similar responses in religious arguments. What the hell was she supposed to say? Most religious people wouldn't have had an answer for that either so let's cut her some slack, she prolly just got tongue tied.
ohwell.gif


The irony is, people are in here saying you can't use logic in religious arguments when religious people themselves use it ALL the time. For instance many sects of the judeochristian religions don't necessarily share all of the same believes. But their own "logical" interpretations of the bible has led them to adopt from beliefs while rejecting others. People usually bring up the "you can't be logical" excuse when all their explanations fall apart. Figures
ohwell.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom