120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[DBT]

The serpent in the garden, the most cunning of all beasts in the garden, is clearly not a reference to Satan the fallen angel. Nor does the punishment, the serpent being forced to crawl on its belly, crushed under heel, relate to a supernatural Satan, a son of God, walking up and down upon the earth, present in heaven in the book of Job, relate to the latter.

 

[Lion IRC]

The serpent in the garden, the most cunning of all beasts in the garden, is clearly a reference to satan the fallen angel. And the punishment, the serpent being forced to crawl on its belly, crushed under heel, also relates to satan, a son of God, walking up and down upon the earth, present in heaven in the book of Job.

 

[DBT]

The serpent in the garden, the most cunning of all beasts in the garden, is clearly a reference to satan the fallen angel. And the punishment, the serpent being forced to crawl on its belly, crushed under heel, also relates to satan, a son of God, walking up and down upon the earth, present in heaven in the book of Job.

No, punishing the beast for the actions of a supernatural entity is not justice. Plus, Satan, while in the presence of God is given permission by God to act against Job in specific ways. Therefore Satan is portrayed as an agent of God and not a free agent. Without permission Satan had no 'licence' to act against Job.

 

[Learner]

The book of Job doesn't suggest that Satan is a fallen angel expelled from Heaven and the presence of God, more like an angel - 'son of God' - playing the role of provocateur.

Regarding Job, I agree and a good point, as known by the scripture, this "adversary" was able to walk freely about on the earth doing a particular task.

(brb)

 

[Lion IRC]

A casual perusal of John 12:31 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Ephesians 2:2 and etc etc will show that satan has free will and is capable of hating and lying and murdering. This is nothing new.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the alternative (unbiblical) hypothesis that some random snake just so happened to take an interest in whether or not Eve would eat a particular piece of fruit. And how it is that this snake already has prior knowledge about God.

 

[Lion IRC]

If this snake is not satan, who then is this entity that;
- can supernaturally talk,
- already knows of Gods existence,
- takes an astonishing interest in whether or not Eve should eat a certain fruit,
- is vastly unlike all the other animals in Eden, smarter.

ETA - oh yeah...and whose actions are pivotal in leading to the Fall - arguably the most significant part of Christian theology.

 

[Learner]

I and practically everyone (believer or non believer) has always known the serpent in the garden of Eden to be known and referred to as Satan.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the alternative (unbiblical) hypothesis that some random snake just so happened to take an interest in whether or not Eve would eat a particular piece of fruit. And how it is that this snake already has prior knowledge about God.

It's a 'just so' story about why people hate snakes. The snake started it.
Many cultures have stories about animals that talk or used to talk. Raven's feathers are black because it stole fire, Kangaroo got a pouch as her Joey scrambled at her fur, trying to hide, Zebra's stripes were a fashion statement but the paint dried and they look that way to this day, animals that mate while looking at striped sticks have striped offspring, all sorts of silly rationalizations like that.

Or, in simple terms, made up shit, handed down and eventually written down.

- - - Updated - - -

I and practically everyone (believer or non believer) has always known the serpent in the garden of Eden to be known and referred to as Satan.

You've also 'known' the first five books of the Bible to have been written by Moses.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If this snake is not satan, who then is this entity that;
- can supernaturally talk,

Not an especially new idea in myths about 'the before time.'

- already knows of Gods existence,

God used to walk around the Garden. I imagine everyone there knew about God.

- takes an astonishing interest in whether or not Eve should eat a certain fruit,

It's the animal that gets the blame for how things are in the world.

- is vastly unlike all the other animals in Eden, smarter.

I wonder how many animals talked in stories at the time this one was crafted?

ETA - oh yeah...and whose actions are pivotal in leading to the Fall - arguably the most significant part of Christian theology.

Almost all cultures have stories about how Man used to live in paradise, then someone fucked everything up. Sometimes Man gets the blame, sometimes a Titan, a Trickster, or maybe an innocent mistake by someone who thought they were improving things.

It really doesn't stand out all that much in the way such stories go.

 

[Lion IRC]

And what's with this (atheist) fixation on just the first five books - the Torah?
Who says the Torah is the sole source of biblical theology? If you want to argue about Jewish hermeneutics that's fine. But something happened to Judaism in 4BC and to talk of biblical theism purely (and artificially) in terms of the Torah looks suspiciously like myopia.

Just as Gods plan and His chosen people start with one person, Abraham, canon similarly starts with Torah. But doesn't stop there.

 

[abaddon]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the alternative...

If this snake is not satan, who then is this entity...

Is your stance that people have to explain the myth in a different way than you explain it or else your explanation is right or most likely right?

Talking snake = myth. These items are symbols. Snakes are closely associated with earth and earthly things like the body. For a people who feel at odds with earthly bodily nature, the snake makes a great symbol of something slinky and deceptive and dangerous. The rest of the story about how we became mortal and must struggle against nature to survive supports this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And what's with this (atheist) fixation on just the first five books - the Torah?

I'm sorry? How many times have i mentioned the Torah?

Who says the Torah is the sole source of biblical theology?

Um, no. That's completely not my point.

If you want to argue about Jewish hermeneutics that's fine. But something happened to Judaism in 4BC and to talk of biblical theism purely (and artificially) in terms of the Torah looks suspiciously like myopia.

You seem to have this chip on your shoulder that has little or nothing to do with my actual post...

Just as Gods plan and His chosen people start with one person, Abraham, canon similarly starts with Torah. But doesn't stop there.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say. And whatever the fuck you're on about. Okay.

 

[Learner]

ETA - oh yeah...and whose actions are pivotal in leading to the Fall - arguably the most significant part of Christian theology.

Absolutely.. there are not yet any fallen angels (slightly off the mark) hence parrallel to Job's adversary this serpent was freely roaming.(as I understand it sort of) I have come across ideas from other Christians of these roles of accusers or testers of humans and their obedience to God. Interesting because this wouldn't contradict the notion that people often point out and ask "how could God not see this happening especially with guards there? Guards that happen to face one direction is seemingly like a test.

Either way we know the result.

 

[Lion IRC]

If this snake is not satan, who then is this entity...

Is your stance that people have to explain the myth in a different way than you explain it or else your explanation is right or most likely right?

Talking snake = myth. These items are symbols. Snakes are closely associated with earth and earthly things like the body. For a people who feel at odds with earthly bodily nature, the snake makes a great symbol of something slinky and deceptive and dangerous. The rest of the story about how we became mortal and must struggle against nature to survive supports this.

I'm asking any of the 'experts' here who claim that this entity is definitely NOT satan to provide evidence in support of their claim. How do you know it's NOT satan unless you can otherwise demonstrate who else it is supposed to be. You can't just keep insisting over and over again that it's not satan when you can't say for sure who it IS.

It's like the supposedly anonymous writers of the Gospels. If nobody knows who they are then how do we know who they aren't?

This is what baffles me. You're quibbling over the biblical identity of this talking entity in Genesis 3:1 yet you neither believe in talking snakes nor satan. Why are you so adamant that it's NOT satan personified as a snake?

 

[bilby]

Is your stance that people have to explain the myth in a different way than you explain it or else your explanation is right or most likely right?

Talking snake = myth. These items are symbols. Snakes are closely associated with earth and earthly things like the body. For a people who feel at odds with earthly bodily nature, the snake makes a great symbol of something slinky and deceptive and dangerous. The rest of the story about how we became mortal and must struggle against nature to survive supports this.

I'm asking any of the 'experts' here who claim that this entity is definitely NOT satan to provide evidence in support of their claim. How do you know it's NOT satan unless you can otherwise demonstrate who else it is supposed to be. You can't just keep insisting over and over again that it's not satan when you can't say for sure who it IS.

It's like the supposedly anonymous writers of the Gospels. If nobody knows who they are then how do we know who they aren't?

This is what baffles me. You're quibbling over the biblical identity of this talking entity in Genesis 3:1 yet you neither believe in talking snakes nor satan. Why are you so adamant that it's NOT satan personified as a snake?

Because you have no evidence for the claim that it IS, and because no matter how much you dislike it, shifting the burden of proof remains a logical fallacy.

Your 'proof' is that it feels right to you. That's not proof; you claim fails (unless you have something better to offer; and 'you can't prove it's NOT' is most assuredly NOT better).

It's a story - a work of fiction. The plain text tells us what is canon; Your interpretation of that text is just fan-fiction. You have an idea what might have been intended by the author - but unless you can find evidence of your idea in the text, or you can ask the author directly, your idea is of no value.

 

[Learner]

Because you have no evidence for the claim that it IS, and because no matter how much you dislike it, shifting the burden of proof remains a logical fallacy.

Your 'proof' is that it feels right to you. That's not proof; you claim fails (unless you have something better to offer; and 'you can't prove it's NOT' is most assuredly NOT better).

It's a story - a work of fiction. The plain text tells us what is canon; Your interpretation of that text is just fan-fiction. You have an idea what might have been intended by the author - but unless you can find evidence of your idea in the text, or you can ask the author directly, your idea is of no value.

The issue of the serpent is widely known as being satan. Even if we were to say satan is the translation of adversary this would still be correct. This is a logical assumption. Bringing in this particular issue is no different an issue than saying "there is no mention /proof that the serpent had green or yellow scales". But we are certain it will have one or the other of the scales by a logical assumption. Sure it makes an argument but as a "no value" to the debate but Lion wasn't wrong.

 

[bilby]

Because you have no evidence for the claim that it IS, and because no matter how much you dislike it, shifting the burden of proof remains a logical fallacy.

Your 'proof' is that it feels right to you. That's not proof; you claim fails (unless you have something better to offer; and 'you can't prove it's NOT' is most assuredly NOT better).

It's a story - a work of fiction. The plain text tells us what is canon; Your interpretation of that text is just fan-fiction. You have an idea what might have been intended by the author - but unless you can find evidence of your idea in the text, or you can ask the author directly, your idea is of no value.

The issue of the serpent is widely known as being satan.

Amongst a certain faction of fans of the work, perhaps. That doesn't make them right. It simply demonstrates that they don't understand what the word 'know' even means.

Even if we were to say satan is the translation of adversary this would still be correct. This is a logical assumption. Bringing in this particular issue is no different an issue than saying "there is no mention /proof that the serpent had green or yellow scales". But we are certain it will have one or the other of the scales by a logical assumption.

Your logic is broken, and your assertion here is equally flawed with the assertion you are struggling to defend. If you assert that the serpent had green scales, then you are WRONG - the assertion is un-evidenced, and you cannot justify making it based on the text.

Indeed, even your assertion "there is no mention /proof that the serpent had green or yellow scales ... But we are certain it will have one or the other of the scales by a logical assumption" is nonsense. It could have had black scales. Or brown. Or any other colour. You are reading into the text information that simply is not there. That is an error.

Sure it makes an argument but as a "no value" to the debate but Lion wasn't wrong.

Yes, he was.

 

[Learner]

Your logic is broken, and your assertion here is equally flawed with the assertion you are struggling to defend. If you assert that the serpent had green scales, then you are WRONG - the assertion is un-evidenced, and you cannot justify making it based on the text.

It is the understanding of what we know of snakes.

Indeed, even your assertion "we are certain it will have one or the other of the scales by a logical assumption" is nonsense. It could have had black scales. Or brown. Or any other colour. You are reading into the text information that simply is not there. That is an error. Yes, he was.

Well you've certainly made an issue for me here. A serpent that could have with a wide varied amount of colours across the spectrum. But you see ? I could have just mentioned all the other colours too within the analogy as it was not about the various choices and trying to guess which one.


He wasn't

 

[bilby]

It is the understanding of what we know of snakes.

What I know of snakes is that they come in many colours, and that they don't talk.

Indeed, even your assertion "we are certain it will have one or the other of the scales by a logical assumption" is nonsense. It could have had black scales. Or brown. Or any other colour. You are reading into the text information that simply is not there. That is an error. Yes, he was.

Well you've certainly made an issue for me here. A serpent that could have with a wide varied amount of colours across the spectrum. But you see ? I could have just mentioned all the other colours too within the analogy as it was not about the various choices.

So you are saying that the snake could be ANY colour. And, by analogy, that it could be ANY individual, or none, that the snake embodies or represents.

Congratulations, you just refuted your argument. Well done.

 

[Learner]

What I know of snakes is that they come in many colours, and that they don't talk.

Well I've not come across one that talks thank heavens.

So you are saying that the snake could be ANY colour. And, by analogy, that it could be ANY individual, or none, that the snake embodies or represents.

Congratulations, you just refuted your argument. Well done.

I'm saying I could have used a better analogy because we are now debating on the colour of snakes. i.e. no value