120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[bilby]

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

Your presumption that there is any value in debating the contents of the Bible is yet another error on your part. It's trivia - Interesting, but ultimately valueless. If it makes you happy to cling to errors in your literary analysis, and to imagine that the serpent in Genesis is Satan; or that Superman comes from the planet Vulcan; or that James Bond worked for the KGB, then that's fine. But don't expect anyone else to agree with you, unless you can produce evidence that is part of the canonical tale, and that supports your assertions.

 

[none]

Hey now, you've gone too far. James Bond works for her majesty on the secret service

 

[Learner]

Your presumption that there is any value in debating the contents of the Bible is yet another error on your part. It's trivia - Interesting, but ultimately valueless. If it makes you happy to cling to errors in your literary analysis, and to imagine that the serpent in Genesis is Satan; or that Superman comes from the planet Vulcan; or that James Bond worked for the KGB, then that's fine. But don't expect anyone else to agree with you, unless you can produce evidence that is part of the canonical tale, and that supports your assertions.

I presumed in error that you understood that "value" was in relation to worthy a discussion for the thread.

Besides even Christians don't believe in Superman from Vulcan.

 

[bilby]

Your presumption that there is any value in debating the contents of the Bible is yet another error on your part. It's trivia - Interesting, but ultimately valueless. If it makes you happy to cling to errors in your literary analysis, and to imagine that the serpent in Genesis is Satan; or that Superman comes from the planet Vulcan; or that James Bond worked for the KGB, then that's fine. But don't expect anyone else to agree with you, unless you can produce evidence that is part of the canonical tale, and that supports your assertions.

I presumed in error that you understood that "value" was in relation to worthy a discussion for the thread.

Besides even Christians don't believe in Superman from Vulcan.

The thread is rapidly approaching the 2,500 post mark, and the OP has long since vanished. Most of the thread is long, rambling screeds which embody logical fallacies that have been pointed out and then re-iterated many times over. There cannot possibly be any further value in this thread. No discussion is unworthy.

 

[Lion IRC]

Looks like bilby is gonna bail.

 

[abaddon]

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?

For my part it’s that I don’t see anywhere that the Garden of Eden myth-makers said the snake was Satan. The connection looks entirely post hoc, in the way that later myth-makers suck older material into later stories in order to make it all seem more complete and coherent.

I’ve seen Christians claim things like “our sacred texts are different from the pagan myths because they’re so complete and coherent!” It only seems so from the strained connections they make, in the process of making new myths.

If you need an explanation of just exactly who the talking snake is if it’s not Satan, then read more world mythology and observe the number of talking animals. Generally they’re not individual persons but generic characters representative of something ... an owl is Wisdom or Death rather than specifically Barney the Owl... that help convey a lesson about how “man” relates with the rest of nature. Just exactly as you see in the Eden story.

 

[Learner]

The thread is rapidly approaching the 2,500 post mark, and the OP has long since vanished. Most of the thread is long, rambling screeds which embody logical fallacies that have been pointed out and then re-iterated many times over. There cannot possibly be any further value in this thread. No discussion is unworthy.

True of the seemingly endless pages however I do notice that arguments used many moons ago are moving away and not used today like the most obvious ones with errors (give or take a few now and then that pops in) I believe that both sides are debating better imo ,in addition the recent videos posted at least for atheists explaining and debating on a much better level than the old ways without the old usual habitual errors. There's still room for a little more to discuss adding to the thread.

Hopefully it continues with interest, or until you realize Lion ,Lumpy and I were right all along and you join us!

 

[Learner]

For my part it’s that I don’t see anywhere that the Garden of Eden myth-makers said the snake was Satan. The connection looks entirely post hoc, in the way that later myth-makers suck older material into later stories in order to make it all seem more complete and coherent.

There is blame according to some Christian scholars pointing to St. Jerome that came up with the Latin Vulgate. He had perverted the interpretations/translation of text about satan causing a lot of the confusion today for believer and non believer.

Fittingly the verse from the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 8:8

8 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

Would certainly cover and explain some of the scriptural contradictions in the bible imo. Possibly meant to mislead as Jesus too says of false teachings.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, but the problem is that that passage is actually a false teaching.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think the important question is if Satan and the snake were two different entities, would they be friends?

 

[Learner]

Ya, but the problem is that that passage is actually a false teaching.

It's a false teaching to you when you believe in something else and what is it if I may ask?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the important question is if Satan and the snake were two different entities, would they be friends?

far more important is the question, "For people who say they believe the Bible, do they believe what the book says or what someone has told them the book says?

- - - Updated - - -

Ya, but the problem is that that passage is actually a false teaching.

It's a false teaching to you when you believe in something else and what is it if I may ask?

Do we have to believe in something in it's place?
Can we not just say 'that's an addition to scripture, which the Bible itself forbids in a few places' as an interpretation?

 

[Learner]

Do we have to believe in something in it's place?
Can we not just say 'that's an addition to scripture, which the Bible itself forbids in a few places' as an interpretation?

I just assumed by the phrase "actually a false teaching " meaning there was. But as you say, is reasonable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do we have to believe in something in it's place?
Can we not just say 'that's an addition to scripture, which the Bible itself forbids in a few places' as an interpretation?

I just assumed by the phrase "actually a false teaching " meaning there was. But as you say, is reasonable.

Assuming anything around Tom is a dangerous practice, anyway.

 

[Learner]

.Assuming anything around Tom is a dangerous practice, anyway.

I do recall some tough moments.

 

[DBT]

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.

The Lord God was said to take evening strolls through the Garden of Eden, so presumably recognized by the inhabitants.

Genesis 3:8 “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day''

Plus Satan was not turned into a snake in order to crawl on his belly and be crushed by a heel. That refers to 'the most cunning of animals in the Garden' which is not Satan.

Apart from the book of Enoch (apocryphal), there is no mention of the fall of Satan in the OT.

The view of Judaism being:

''To reiterate, in the Jewish bible, everything was created by G-d, both good and evil and everything is under G-d’s control. Only one force, not two, whereas, in Christianity Satan is not under the control of G-d but is rather, a competing force against G-d. Christian theology makes Satan so powerful that he is given the title, “the god of this world.”

This sets up a situation in Christian theology whereby Jesus must come and accomplish something to help us get out of the difficult situation – to overcome Satan, since he is at war not only with G-d, but with us. However, Judaism teaches that what is to be overcome is not Satan, but the “satan” in our path, the obstacle which has been put there for our growth.

So, to reiterate, in Judaism Satan is an agent of G-d, who provides opportunities for us to grow, to respond to our passions and desires by producing things of value in this world and to become stronger spiritual people.''

http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-2566/the-jewish-view-of-satan/?p=2566

 

[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.

The Lord God was said to take evening strolls through the Garden of Eden
Genesis 3:8 “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day''

satan already knows of Gods existence before this.

Plus Satan was not turned into a snake in order to crawl on his belly and be crushed by a heel.

Agreed. satan wasn't turned into a snake. satan became snake-like in appearence of his own volition.

That refers to 'the most cunning of animals in the Garden' which is not Satan.

I accept that is your opinion. Now justify it.

Apart from the book of Enoch (apocryphal), there is no mention of the fall of Satan in the OT.

Needless to say, I think you are wrong.
But even if you were correct, do you agree that (biblically) satan already exists prior to his mention in any particular chapter/verse? Or do you claim that the biblical satan doesn't come into existence until he is mentioned.

I argue that satan exists prior to whatever scriptural line in the sand you draw.

Even if satan first appears in Enoch or Psalms or Job are you really going to claim that he did not (theologically) exist prior to that point? So if satan already exists at Psalms or Job or Matthew or Enoch why object to his existence at Genesis 3:1?

In other words, your claims that satan first appears in scripture 'here' or 'there' don't preclude his existence long before then. Can you show from scripture when satan was created?

The view of Judaism being:

''To reiterate, in the Jewish bible, everything was created by G-d, both good and evil and everything is under G-d’s control.

Well duh!
But does blaming everything on God really get you anywhere?
Adam and Eve can blame the snake. The snake can blame satan. satan can blame God.

Only one force, not two, whereas, in Christianity Satan is not under the control of G-d but is rather, a competing force against G-d. Christian theology makes Satan so powerful that he is given the title, “the god of this world.”

Yep. Christians give autonomous, thinking beings the credit for being able to decide for themselves between good and evil.

"So, to reiterate, in Judaism Satan is an agent of G-d, who provides opportunities for us to grow, to respond to our passions and desires by producing things of value in this world and to become stronger spiritual people.''

I don't think this sort of gnostic, abstract 'goodness' of satan is a tenet of Jusdaism, Islam or Christianity

 

[DBT]

The Lord God was said to take evening strolls through the Garden of Eden
Genesis 3:8 “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day''

satan already knows of Gods existence before this.

The verses in Genesis make no mention of Satan. It's not stated or implied in the description and punishment of the animal, the serpent, which was not described as a 'son of god' or angel.

Agreed. satan wasn't turned into a snake. satan became snake-like in appearence of his own volition.

That interpretation has no support. There is not a hint of it.

I accept that is your opinion. Now justify it.

It's not my opinion. It's what it says in Genesis. The reference to a cunning animal, which was punished in a specific way for its role in the drama.

Needless to say, I think you are wrong.
But even if you were correct, do you agree that (biblically) satan already exists prior to his mention in any particular chapter/verse? Or do you claim that the biblical satan doesn't come into existence until he is mentioned.

Your interpretation is flawed. The role of satan as a 'son of god' - playing the role of provocateur - in the book of job is clearly described and named. Just as is the animal in the garden.

I argue that satan exists prior to whatever scriptural line in the sand you draw.

You are not arguing. You are stating a claim. Nor, in context of the narrative, does it mean that Satan did not exist prior to the creation of Eden, just that the role of the serpent and its punishment is not attributed to Satan.

Satan is said to be walking up and down, to and throe upon the earth in the book of Job....which would be difficult with no legs, being forced to sliver and risk the heels of men upon his head, aka, a literal serpent, the punishment for leading Eve astray.

Even if satan first appears in Enoch or Psalms or Job are you really going to claim that he did not (theologically) exist prior to that point? So if satan already exists at Psalms or Job or Matthew or Enoch why object to his existence at Genesis 3:1?
In other words, your claims that satan first appears in scripture 'here' or 'there' don't preclude his existence long before then. Can you show from scripture when satan was created?

That has nothing to do with the narrative. Genesis defines its main characters, as does the book of Job, which clearly names Satan and the role that Satan plays with permission from God.

Well duh!
But does blaming everything on God really get you anywhere?
Adam and Eve can blame the snake. The snake can blame satan. satan can blame God.

I'm not doing anything. The bible itself clearly states that its god is the author of evil.

 

[Atheos]

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.

Correction:

You and practically everyone you have ever known have always been taught that the serpent ... was Satan.

I'm not saying it was or that it wasn't. I'm only saying that the story as written tells of a talking snake, magical trees and ends with a cherubim with a flaming sword keeping people out of the garden. What later people did with this story in assimilating it into their culture(s) and religious beliefs is a different matter altogether.

I offer to you (and Lion IRC) the opportunity to consider an entire sect of Jewish people who did not share your interpretation: the Sadducees.

Acts 23:8

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Lion IRC has made the unwarranted claim that atheists have some obsession with the Torah, which I find laughable. Talk about not knowing ones adversary. But I digress. The Sadducees were known for their rejection of everything except the Torah when it came to religious matters.

Understanding this helps one understand the clever tale of Jesus encountering the Sadducees. They presented a story of a woman who sequentially married each of 7 brothers. One by one each brother left her widowed. Then they asked "Whose wife would she be in the resurrection?"

Jesus's answer (not that I believe that this story happened as written either by the way) studiously avoids appealing to anything but the Torah. Jesus refers to Yahweh answering Moses and claiming "I am the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." He then comments "God is not the god of the dead, but of the living."

His argument hinges on the tense of the verb I am. Since he doesn't say I was the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (people who would have been long dead by the time of Moses) it meant that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still alive somewhere..

This is a poor argument for several reasons, but it is the argument that was used by whoever fabricated that anecdote and placed those words into Jesus's mouth. And it was written precisely because of what many of us here on the skeptical side of this discussion have been arguing all along: The Torah does not teach that the snake was under the influence of a fallen angel nor does it teach of an immortal soul or resurrection. These are interpretations that are read into it by people who already believe in such things, not clear teachings that can be read out of it.

I also feel compelled to point out that the statement I responded to above involves the fallacy of appeal to popularity - a very compelling argument, but ultimately one that is based on the premise that truth is subject to majority vote.

 

[DBT]

Hebrew Bible
''The original Hebrew term satan is a noun from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose", as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6.[6] Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as "the accuser" or "the adversary". The definite article ha- (English: "the") is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus, this being would be referred to as "the satan".''

Rabbinical Judaism

In Judaism, Satan is a term used since its earliest biblical contexts to refer to a human opponent.[26] Occasionally, the term has been used to suggest evil influence opposing human beings, as in the Jewish exegesis of the Yetzer hara ("evil inclination" Genesis 6:5). Micaiah's "lying spirit" in 1 Kings 22:22 is sometimes related. Thus, Satan is personified as a character in three different places of the Tenakh, serving as an accuser (Zechariah 3:1–2), a seducer (1 Chronicles 21:1), or as a heavenly persecutor who is "among the sons of God" (Job 2:1). In any case, Satan is always subordinate to the power of God, having a role in the divine plan. Satan is rarely mentioned in Tannaitic literature, but is found in Babylonian aggadah.[20]

In medieval Judaism, the Rabbis rejected these Enochic literary works into the Biblical canon, making every attempt to root them out.[19] Traditionalists and philosophers in medieval Judaism adhered to rational theology, rejecting any belief in rebel or fallen angels, and viewing evil as abstract.[27] The Yetzer hara ("evil inclination" Genesis 6:5) is a more common motif for evil in rabbinical texts. Rabbinical scholarship on the Book of Job generally follows the Talmud and Maimonides as identifying the "Adversary" in the prologue of Job as a metaphor.[28]
In Hasidic Judaism, the Kabbalah presents Satan as an agent of God whose function is to tempt one into sin, then turn around and accuse the sinner on high.[vague] The Chasidic Jews of the 18th century associated ha-Satan with Baal Davar.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan