Is Satan the Christian God of Knowledge?

[Tom Sawyer]

And yet, Adam and Eve were even more innocent than one of those children, and God punished them for disobeying him. What kind of a monster holds complete innocents responsible for being preyed upon?

The kind of monster which the Catholic Church patterns itself after?

 

[Learner]

And yet, Adam and Eve were even more innocent than one of those children, and God punished them for disobeying him. What kind of a monster holds complete innocents responsible for being preyed upon?

You sort of give the impression that Adam and Eve were punished in-the-same-vein as "tortured" e.g. having their thumbs being squashed in thumb-screws or being key-hauled. God is certainly not that monster!

God still helped them when they left Eden.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You sort of give the impression that Adam and Eve were punished in-the-same-vein as "tortured" e.g. having their thumbs being squashed in thumb-screws or being key-hauled. God is certainly not that monster!

Like thumbscrews, that's adorable.

Learner, Adam, Eve, and every single one of their descendents faces eternal torture in Hell, unless they meet God's requirements for forgiveness. The justification given for this doom includes the lasting taint of the Original Sin.

Not to mention every woman since Eve being expressly punished with the pains of childbirth.

Tell me, Learner, which would you choose? An episiotomy or thumbscrews?

So, even if he 'helped' them after, it's still kind of monstrous. Because niw we're all under the threat of Hell, for what two innocents did when they were without supervision.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And yet, Adam and Eve were even more innocent than one of those children, and God punished them for disobeying him. What kind of a monster holds complete innocents responsible for being preyed upon?

You sort of give the impression that Adam and Eve were punished in-the-same-vein as "tortured" e.g. having their thumbs being squashed in thumb-screws or being key-hauled. God is certainly not that monster!

God still helped them when they left Eden.

God committed genocide, like the Nazis and other monsters. How is this god different?

Also, clinging to an abusive guardian is a proven survival strategy. It is obviously not the best but it works. If this is god's best, god is an abusive lightweight.

 

[Lion IRC]

And yet, Adam and Eve were even more innocent than one of those children, and God punished them for disobeying him. What kind of a monster holds complete innocents responsible for being preyed upon?

You sort of give the impression that Adam and Eve were punished in-the-same-vein as "tortured" e.g. having their thumbs being squashed in thumb-screws or being key-hauled. God is certainly not that monster!

God still helped them when they left Eden.

Yes He did. Lovingly helped them.

God responded to them both in love, and made them garments to clothe their nakedness, or as Rabbi Meir put it, “garments of light”

http://rabbisacks.org/love-brings-new-life-world-rabbi-sacks-institution-marriage/

 

[excreationist]

Lion IRC:
Apparently Adam and Eve were clothed in animal skins involving the slaughter of an animal/s.

 

[Lion IRC]

God provides

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How is committing genocide and act of love? How did satan hurt anyone or anything in this garden?

 

[Lion IRC]

When oncology medicine destroys entire populations of cancer, it is justified in terms of the end justifies the means.

Should we strive to eradicate the Ebola virus? HIV? Malaria?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When oncology medicine destroys entire populations of cancer, it is justified in terms of the end justifies the means.

Should we strive to eradicate the Ebola virus? HIV? Malaria?

I didn't realize you were going to fold so easily, having to resort to equating cancer and ebola with human beings for the purpose of excusing genocide in the name of piety. Not even satan commits genocide, not even on cancer cells or ebola. I accept your surrender on the point.

 

[Lion IRC]

When oncology medicine destroys entire populations of cancer, it is justified in terms of the end justifies the means.

Should we strive to eradicate the Ebola virus? HIV? Malaria?

I didn't realize you were going to fold so easily, having to resort to equating cancer and ebola with human beings for the purpose of excusing genocide in the name of piety. Not even satan commits genocide, not even on cancer cells or ebola. I accept your surrender on the point.

I was trying to use a comparison that people like you and phands could relate to.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When oncology medicine destroys entire populations of cancer, it is justified in terms of the end justifies the means.

Should we strive to eradicate the Ebola virus? HIV? Malaria?

I didn't realize you were going to fold so easily, having to resort to equating cancer and ebola with human beings for the purpose of excusing genocide in the name of piety. Not even satan commits genocide, not even on cancer cells or ebola. I accept your surrender on the point.

I was trying to use a comparison that people like you and phands could relate to.

It failed. Surrender accepted.

 

[Rhea]

And oddly, when modern humans decide they are no longer ashamed of nakedness, Christians punish them.

Cray cray.

 

[bilby]

Scripture is opaque.

[/Thread]

Scripture is opaque. And therefore valueless. So let's try a different path to understanding - perhaps we could employ the scientific method, for example. It appears to thrive on transparency.

 

[bilby]

Christians might say Adam and Eve died "spiritually" that day.

Yeah. And Truthers might say that the aircraft hitting the twin towers was just a distraction. And moon landing deniers might say that the reflectors left on the surface by Armstrong and Aldrin are just naturally shiny rocks.

When your claims lead you to keep back-pedaling about anything actually means, then those claims are pretty fucking weak.

 

[bilby]

God provides

How could you possibly know? I thought scripture was opaque? There's no other evidence that gods do anything, so how could you possibly know?

 

[Learner]

Lion IRC:
Apparently Adam and Eve were clothed in animal skins involving the slaughter of an animal/s.

Just had a quick look at discussions on one or two Christian sites about this and its interesting although not surprising there'd be people asking all types of questions (its a new one for me). There is no mention of animals killed but there are quite a few interesting ideas.

Obvious one is : God created man therefore a skin of sorts can also be created for clothing , or the wool of sheep and similar animals were used . Another suggestion: Adam and Eve commited sins and God gave the first sacrifice of animals for their sins and used the skins of the sacrificed animals and there is also the garments of light translation from some texts, in which I would need to read more on (if only I had the time). Quite a few theories on this particular verse.

 

[bilby]

Lion IRC:
Apparently Adam and Eve were clothed in animal skins involving the slaughter of an animal/s.

Just had a quick look at discussions on one or two Christian sites about this and its interesting although not surprising there'd be people asking all types of questions (its a new one for me). There is no mention of animals killed but there are quite a few interesting ideas.

Obvious one is : God created man therefore a skin of sorts can also be created for clothing , or the wool of sheep and similar animals were used . Another suggestion: Adam and Eve commited sins and God gave the first sacrifice of animals for their sins and used the skins of the sacrificed animals and there is also the garments of light translation from some texts, in which I would need to read more on (if only I had the time). Quite a few theories on this particular verse.

Nope. Not a single theory. Not even an hypothesis. Lots of pointless conjecture.

Such speculation is futile. Even if we make the huge ad argumentum concession that the source material might be true, it contains nothing that might guide the speculation, and no other possible evidence can exist or ever come to light. It's the blind leading those who cannot see anything.

And of course, as it is in fact a debate about a work of fiction, it becomes even more stupid.

"A tale told by an idiot; Sound and fury, signifying nothing".

 

[Learner]

Nope. Not a single theory. Not even an hypothesis. Lots of pointless conjecture.

Such speculation is futile. Even if we make the huge ad argumentum concession that the source material might be true, it contains nothing that might guide the speculation, and no other possible evidence can exist or ever come to light. It's the blind leading those who cannot see anything.

And of course, as it is in fact a debate about a work of fiction, it becomes even more stupid.

"A tale told by an idiot; Sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Sure ok fair enough... therefore then , the "speculation" that God is monstrous is futlile an argument to make.

 

[bilby]

Nope. Not a single theory. Not even an hypothesis. Lots of pointless conjecture.

Such speculation is futile. Even if we make the huge ad argumentum concession that the source material might be true, it contains nothing that might guide the speculation, and no other possible evidence can exist or ever come to light. It's the blind leading those who cannot see anything.

And of course, as it is in fact a debate about a work of fiction, it becomes even more stupid.

"A tale told by an idiot; Sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Hmm Sure ... therefore the "speculation" that God is monstrous is futlile an argument to make.

God is a character in a work of fiction. But there's enough material in the work to define his character as monstrous, even before consulting the fan-fic. It's not 'speculation', it's just 'reading comprehension'.

Darth Vader is also monstrous. He committed genocide at Alderaan, just as 'God' did on Earth.

Neither the question of what pets Vader had, nor whether Adam and Eve killed animals to make clothes, are addressed in the source work; So speculation on those questions is futile.

You are free to debate, with any fools you can enlist, the question of whether Darth Vader owned a dachshund, a cat, or a canary. But don't pretend that such wild speculation constitutes 'quite a few theories'. It's just pointless nonsense.