How come Huggy one of the very few capable of realising God was talking about a humanoid snake, when almost every other Christian doesn't realise this? If he is correct, that makes God a terrible communicator.

(August 6, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Huggy Bear, your arguments to back up the whole "serpent sexually reproducing with humans" thing are still absurdly thin. It's based on readings of verses that take so many absurd liberties, reinterpreted to support the conclusion you were using them to support (does the term circular reasoning mean anything to you?), and the closest thing to a solid allusion is still perfectly compatible (and certainly makes more sense) with the offending passage read as a metaphor than literal, and even that verse still states that Cain and Abel were full brothers.

*emphasis mine*

How about you post the verse that says Cain and Abel were and I quote "full brothers"

(August 6, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: If you want to make a David Icke-meets-Marquis de Sade OTP Bible fanfic, that's fine, but if you're claiming it's canonical with the Bible, you're going to have to give a better argument. And having your argument hinge on the KJV being the sole arbiter of textual accuracy, despite being based on a text that is, by this point, considered by the vast majority of scholars to be inaccurate.

And zeroing in on one small sentence fragment and using it as an excuse to ignore the rest don't make your position look any better.

If you recall, I gave 3 examples in the bible where It shows that Cain was not Adams son, you only chose to focus on one.

You refer to "serpent seed" as a theory yet the bible clearly stated that the serpent had a seed (offspring)

Quote:Genesis 3
14 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:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Furthermore, Cain is not mentioned in the genealogy of Adam, since the genealogy traces the bloodline through the firstborn son, Cain should have been included, except it skips him and starts with Seth. Cain has his own separate genealogy... explain that.

If all men descended from Adam, then why does the bible make a distinction between the sons of God and men?

Quote:Genesis 6 King James Version (KJV)
6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

(August 7, 2016 at 12:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: How come Huggy one of the very few capable of realising God was talking about a humanoid snake, when almost every other Christian doesn't realise this? If he is correct, that makes God a terrible communicator.

Quote:Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Quote:Luke 13
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

(August 7, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 7, 2016 at 12:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: How come Huggy one of the very few capable of realising God was talking about a humanoid snake, when almost every other Christian doesn't realise this? If he is correct, that makes God a terrible communicator.

Quote:Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Quote:Luke 13
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    Reaching for the top shelf, huh? I'll say this for you, Huggy: When you double down on your fanciful bullshit, you really double down!

Well, let's take all three verses one by one:

• Genesis 3:14-5: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, ...  I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." Notice that, while it does say the serpent does have a seed (it doesn't actually say that this seed existed yet; it is still consistent with the idea of a future seed), the verse takes pains to separate the Serpent's seed and Eve's seed, essentially saying that they are two separate things. There is no reason to assume from this verse that they shared seed. It is also worth noting that, in the verse before it, Eve's words heavily imply that it the temptation was not, in fact, sexual in nature: "And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."
  
• Genesis 5:1-5: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Where, exactly, does it say that these geneologies must be of the firstborn son like you say so? Bloodlines do not have to follow the firstborn son. Granted, they are usually given preferential treatment, but this isn't usually an iron law in cases like this. Even if things were as you say, why couldn't, after Cain spent his life walking the earth, Adam have considered Seth a de facto firstborn son, since Abel was dead, and Cain was elsewhere?
  
• 1 John 3:12: "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." Why can this not be a metaphor? It's pretty well established that the Hebrews in those days would call any sufficiently righteous man "a Son of God," without actually implying any real divine parentage. Indeed, it was fairly common to use 'Sons of God' as shorthand for the offspring of Seth. Why is it so impossible to believe that saying Cain was 'of that wicked one' is a similar metaphor? I've asked this question before and have not received an answer.
  

Also, note that, in any mentions of Cain in the Bible, none imply any other parentage. One would expect that Cain and Abel having separate fathers would be mentioned at some point; it would certainly give Cain a more interesting motivation. But, of course, you just said God is willing to hide crucial so they can only be found using insane troll logic like yours. In this case, I may ask: what would be the point of even bothering to make claims like this that require some really wonky ways of looking at things just to understand what the evidence is meant to be? A wise man once said 'The invisible and non-existent look very alike.'


You see, Huggy Bear, there's a reason I didn't bother talking about the other two verses. It's very difficult for me to see how they could square with your interpretation. I have read writings by people who claim that governments are corporations, people are legally equivalent to boats, and you can get a 'get out of the Rule of Law free card' with semantics and putting random punctuation in your name, and they still make more sense than your arguments.

(August 7, 2016 at 7:25 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 6, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Huggy Bear, your arguments to back up the whole "serpent sexually reproducing with humans" thing are still absurdly thin. It's based on readings of verses that take so many absurd liberties, reinterpreted to support the conclusion you were using them to support (does the term circular reasoning mean anything to you?), and the closest thing to a solid allusion is still perfectly compatible (and certainly makes more sense) with the offending passage read as a metaphor than literal, and even that verse still states that Cain and Abel were full brothers.

If you want to make a David Icke-meets-Marquis de Sade OTP Bible fanfic, that's fine, but if you're claiming it's canonical with the Bible, you're going to have to give a better argument. And having your argument hinge on the KJV being the sole arbiter of textual accuracy, despite being based on a text that is, by this point, considered by the vast majority of scholars to be inaccurate.

And zeroing in on one small sentence fragment and using it as an excuse to ignore the rest don't make your position look any better.

Aaaand, welcome to the mind of Huggy.  Happy to shout "context!" When it supports his position, and just as happy to completely disregard it when it doesn't.  I honestly think he makes this stuff up as he goes along.  I'm still waiting for answers on my point of the injustice of universal punishment (sexual slavery for all women) based on the deeds of one person.  Guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

He'll get to your question as soon as he can. He's too busy not answering mine.

(August 7, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 7, 2016 at 12:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: How come Huggy one of the very few capable of realising God was talking about a humanoid snake, when almost every other Christian doesn't realise this? If he is correct, that makes God a terrible communicator.

Quote:Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Quote:Luke 13
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

What a horridly unjust being your God must be to create an entire planet of humans, and then make his message so difficult to understand that the majority of his precious lambs end up burning in hell for eternity.  It's a point I brought up a few pages ago actually (because, ya know, it relates to the OP) that you have ignored in favor of arguing about snake sex that obviously never happened except in your own imagination.  Thanks for playing though.  

(July 30, 2016 at 1:02 am)Thena323 Wrote:

(July 29, 2016 at 10:45 am)Drich Wrote: Yeah, that called being a hypocrite.

Like "protesting" how veal is raised and eating it twice a week.

Or saying you do not believe is spanking,  but you beat the crap out of your own kids.

You can't say you are against slavery if, EVERY Aspect of your life depends on it.

If you like and will not willingly give up the life you live that is provided by modern slavery, that is the same as you endorsing it despite how you might protest.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslav...dual-consu

The above website agrees in that being complacent about your current goods and life style.

But the real question you should be asking is what would the current slaves do if they did not have their slave jobs? how would they support themselves and live?

Very compelling questions, but pretty misleading...and you know why. Slavery in the American South and modern-day human trafficking would be a more accurate and honest comparison to the enslavement of non-Israelite slaves i.e., chattel slavery.

I assume muddling indentured servitude or being paid slave wages with stealing people, and forcing them to engage in manual labor or literally fuck until their bodies give out, is probably done as much for the apologist's personal benefit, as it is with a mind to confuse/mislead others. I get it: defending your god's affirmation and/or approval of the practice is probably a bit difficult to stomach.

Not really fair or accurate to accuse folks of hypocrisy, when you've made such an effort to conflate two vastly different issues, though...Unless you've got a link to a website demonstrating how the average individual is unavoidably complicit in the practice of chattel slavery, of course; such as benefiting from the trafficking of captive sex-slaves. 

Have you got something like that?

I actually haven't muddled anything... Slavery is what I've been describing for the beginning, and as you rightfully pointed out "chattle" slavery is a whole nother level of slavery. However most people wrongfully assume Chattle slavery and slavery are the same thing. I have many times in the past pointout the difference between the two all to fall on deaf ears/blind eyes as for those who are arguing against me,to simply call me evil, than to recognize the differences between slavery and chattle slavery. So what I've done since then is to simply make my opponet proove their idea of slavery extends to the situation they are trying to describe.

Soundgarden=automatic kudos.