Christian answering questions too!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Generally, the "serpent" is taken by most Christians as a slur against Satan, in describing him by his nature instead of his physical appearance, not as a literal snake. Of course, the snake is a common theme in pre-Judaic religions of the region, so it's hardly surprising to us to find it in the Genesis tale, since so much else in Genesis appears to have been borrowed from the Sumerian myths.

Very similar theme in the Gilgamesh epic, by the way. The snake, the garden, the temptress. Hmm, wonder where the Israelites got that from. Same as the flood and the boat, which is almost the same to the letter in Gilgamesh.

It was one of the things (the main was an unquestionable conflict with known science) that triggered my investigation, while I was still a devout Christian, into the literalist/inerrantist claims of my church, and which eventually led me away from the faith... I noticed while reading the Epic that, in that story, Utnapishtim also sent out three birds to look for dry land, except in his case it was a dove, a swallow, and a raven. Guess the Hebrews didn't approve of swallows.

But in truth, it was the differences between the stories that made me really sit up and take notice. While it's pretty obvious that the Hebrews borrowed their version of the tale from the Epic, it does not involve only one Patriarch and one family. Also, it involves the gods themselves coming down and making Utnapishtim immortal, after he drinks and sacrifices to them the way Noah does in the other tale. It was obvious to me that the Hebrews were borrowing and editing the old tales in order to make it fit their narrow perspective. When I asked in church about this... well, you can guess the reactions!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Generally, the "serpent" is taken by most Christians as a slur against Satan, in describing him by his nature instead of his physical appearance, not as a literal snake. Of course, the snake is a common theme in pre-Judaic religions of the region, so it's hardly surprising to us to find it in the Genesis tale, since so much else in Genesis appears to have been borrowed from the Sumerian myths.

Borrowed from earlier myths, sure.  And I have been told since I was a child that Satan possessed the snake in the garden and made it talk.
But if you go with that, then 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."  -- Well, god isn't talking to Satan, apparently.  And we know that snakes don't actually "eat" dust.   It IS apparently true that once upon a time, snakes had legs . . . but I'm pretty sure they didn't talk.  


Of course, I always shake my head at this point and remind myself that it's all a myth, created by men who needed some explanation of how we got here.  And they needed a beginning by a god that kept women as things for the use of man.  It was a useful tale.  Ignorant, but useful.

Indeed! I have often pointed out that part, to Christians making the claim. I was just trying to be fair to the views of most Christians, who see the snake as a metaphoric way of saying Satan, or Satan-in-a-disguise. Seems odd, then, to take it out on the rest of the animal kingdom... but I've never found that pointing it out to Christians gets me a reply beyond the usual word-salad gibberish and a claim that it's me who "just doesn't understand".

[PETE_ROSE]

I have three questions. Take your pick.

1

Is God above the law or not?

It would seem to me that the answer to this question is an obvious no. Jesus had to die because of the weight of the law. If God was above the law then he would just forgive everyone without sending his son to pay for the debts.

But then there is a problem. Deuteronomy 24:16 says,

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

This, presumably, is directly from God.

Then in 2 Samuel 12:13-20, David's son is tortured and killed by God because of sins committed by David.

So... is God above the law or not?

2

1. Men accidentally corrupted the Bible despite trying not to (example: compare the list in Ezra 2 with the list in Nehemiah 7)
2. Satan is more intelligent and more powerful than any man
3. Satan is motivated to corrupt the Bible
4. ???
5. Satan cannot even corrupt the Bible to the same degree that man has

If you admit that Satan actually has corrupted the Bible, then boy are you in trouble. So premise 4 must be, "God manually prevents Satan from corrupting the Bible."

But then why doesn't God also manually prevent scribes from corrupting the Bible, especially if we can agree that they are probably praying for such divine intervention (John 14:13)? This would not be a vulgar miracle, nor would it be the overriding of free will. I know that some Bibles will be corrupted by man - I could easily type one up myself and change some things - but why has God allowed the corruption of the text to get so bad that there is not a single perfect copy on earth? And how does this reconcile with Psalms 12:6-7?

3

1

Wow, all very good points indeed.  Thank you for letting me off with answering only 1!  I will spend some time researching all three when my schedule allows.  I will take #3 and try and formulate a more comprehensive answer for 1 and 2 later.  I would first say that you have made some assumptions on God's motives for why we are here and the purpose of salvation.  These assumptions could put a person in a box when a much more comprehensive answer is required. 
 
 
 
Quickly on #1, I would not relate God to the law as you have in that is he subject to it himself.  Instead I would say that He is a perfect being and incapable of sin.  In fact he cannot even look upon sin.  That the law was given to man for a purpose, not so he could punish us if we didn't keep it.  However as you have presented it, it does appear to be a do as I say not as I do moment.  I would also point out that God struck the boy sick; he did not put him to death.  Although he did die.   
 
 
 
God is bound by himself and his own rules so to speak in that he is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin, so it would be a contradiction by the definition of what defines a god.  Like asking could God die.  The answer to me would be no.  Would that not mean he is not all powerful?
 
 
 
For #3 No, I don't think we will sin in heaven.  Yes I think we will have free will there too.  I think we were initially made sinless.  (Here was an example of how you phrased a statement that will elicit a response that is boxed in) God looked upon his creation and said it was good.  I take that as there was a time period without sin, when all was perfect as it should be.        
 
 
 
Again, all excellent and well thought out questions!  I am really looking forward to getting to these.
 
 
 
Lastly I would urge one not to cherry pick passages and apply them outside of their context.  Sadly, Christians make this mistake more than anyone.
 

V/R

Pete

[KevinM1]

Incoming reply:

"The serpent didn't look like a snake until after god cursed it."

Generally, the "serpent" is taken by most Christians as a slur against Satan, in describing him by his nature instead of his physical appearance, not as a literal snake. Of course, the snake is a common theme in pre-Judaic religions of the region, so it's hardly surprising to us to find it in the Genesis tale, since so much else in Genesis appears to have been borrowed from the Sumerian myths.

Oh, I have no doubt (although I really haven't spent any time studying the bible with any kind of seriousness... it's so fucking boring to read, and I'd much rather do anything else with my time, even nothing at all) this is the case.  I was just anticipating what Huggy's reply would be/would've been given the "blah blah, and you shall be cursed to basically be a snake blah blah" crap that comes after god gets all pissy for not baby-proofing his garden well enough.

EDIT: I'm one of those guys that's not really interested in religion on the whole. Same with philosophy. Lots of mental masturbation with no relevance to my life.

[PETE_ROSE]

Hello and thank you all for having me in the forum.  I am new here and registered because I felt the urge to undertake a part in the great commission. I have not failed to notice the application of Christianity from churches and organized religion is hypocritical, atrocious at times, and is rarely in line with the intent of the Bible and its Author.

That is a really odd statement on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.
 
First of all, the Bible has many authors.  Even if you take the traditional attributions (and most serious scholars don't) of Moses, various prophets, disciples, and Paul, it's a long list. Just who do you think the author is?  God, penned by the 40 or so writers, but authored by Him.
 
What method do you use to determine the authors' intent?  Intellect, analysis, prayer, ability to discern as I have been given, feel.  This cannot guarantee I will come to the correct conclusion (if there is one), but I am making the attempt.
 
Why did you pick an atheists forum to discuss the meaning of a books, most atheists find irrelevant?  I felt led to actually.  Felt that there was a need here.  I have many friends and family that are non-theists, (most say we are all atheists and do not like that term atheist), and I get along with them.  Most people judge Christianity by the really horrible acts and examples of it, I have been able to have intelligent, rational, and respectful conversations with most of my friends on this.  I really hope to be a better example than what most here are accustomed to.

It is with great consequence that people are influenced by the misguided and twisted forms Christ's message often comes in. I hope to do better. I am offering to answer, to the best of my ability, any question, on any topic that I feel remotely qualified to respond to. Please refrain from cheap baiting attempts often used to trap someone into a play on words or the like and I will do the same.

I hope you don't mind my asking why you think you have greater knowledge of what the Bible means than other Christians, or jews for matter.   I in no way am preofessing to be a scholar or to have more knowledge than anyone on anything. 

If you have questions I will offer my thoughts. I won't attempt to restrict the areas of conversation too much but I do ask that we remain respectful towards one another. I would also ask that all questions regarding the Christian bible pertain to the KJV.[/size][/color]I will answer as promptly as 6 children, 2 careers, and a part time job will allow.

Why the KJV?  Seriously, it's not a particularly good translation.  But I am curious, what is it about the KJV that you find superior?  Again I have answered this previously. 

(Quotes edited to remove annoying font colors and sizes)

---

I subscribe to the bible.   There is a term, sola scriptura, I am fond of.   I am, and have always refused to align myself with the many flavors, as you state, of Christianity.  They all appear to be in contradiction to the Word on some point or another.  I have never been an official member of any church; however I did attend a church regularly for many years.

Welcome, Pete. I think you may represent the ultimate evolution of Christianity: each Christian a denomination unto themselves.

We can both only hope!  I would like to see a return to believers meeting before sunrise in the mornings, having fellowship and prayer, and doing away with all of the denominations, cathedrals and ceremony.  I wonder often if organized religion does more harm than good.

---

Sola scriptura means the Bible is the supreme authority, the stance of literally thousands of Christian denominations. You may as well have said 'I want to stay mysterious'. We're just asking for the basics. Are you a literalist? Do you believe in One God whose name is Jesus or the Holy Trinity? Was Jesus the son of God or God incarnate? Is baptizing infants acceptable or must the person be old enough to affirm Christian beliefs? Is speaking in tongues really from God, and important? Do you think men were inspired by God to write the Bible or is the Bible literally the word of God and the men were basically taking divine dictation?

When we don't have any idea where you're coming from; it's hard to tell where you're going. Hopefully answering these questions will at least give us a skeleton to hang our other questions on.

I still don't get what all of the sock and lobster references here are about.  Must be an inside joke.  Side note, I’m allergic to seafood.
 
 
 
Yes, I believe in the Trinity.  I believe they all existed together before the creation.  I believe Jesus was the son of God and at the same time God incarnate.  We can baptize infants all we want but I do not see how that will do anything other than get them wet.  Authentic speaking in tongues is from God.  I do not speak in tongues nor have I ever witnessed any that I believed to be authentic.  Not important at all.  Authored by God, penned by men.  Let me say more on this.  I believe many of the New Testament writers believed Jesus would return in their lifetime.  It appears they went out into the world to carry the message and only later in life did they write it down.

[TubbyTubby]

I wonder often if organized religion does more harm than good.

And the award for understatement of the year goes to...

[PETE_ROSE]

@OP

I've got a question.

What makes you or any other Christian think we give a rat's ass about your religion?

Are you not in the Christian section of an atheist forum?  The Lord says the He will draw all to Him.

---

Cain is actually Henry Rollins. He never died. I saw it in a movie the other night.

I never could get into Black Flag, heavy but just not it for me.   However, I did catch a lot of his spoken word stuff.

[Nihilist Virus]

Wow, all very good points indeed.  Thank you for letting me off with answering only 1!  I will spend some time researching all three when my schedule allows.  I will take #3 and try and formulate a more comprehensive answer for 1 and 2 later.  I would first say that you have made some assumptions on God's motives for why we are here and the purpose of salvation.  These assumptions could put a person in a box when a much more comprehensive answer is required. 
 
 
 
Quickly on #1, I would not relate God to the law as you have in that is he subject to it himself.  Instead I would say that He is a perfect being and incapable of sin.  In fact he cannot even look upon sin.  That the law was given to man for a purpose, not so he could punish us if we didn't keep it.  However as you have presented it, it does appear to be a do as I say not as I do moment.  I would also point out that God struck the boy sick; he did not put him to death.  Although he did die.   
 
 
 
God is bound by himself and his own rules so to speak in that he is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin, so it would be a contradiction by the definition of what defines a god.  Like asking could God die.  The answer to me would be no.  Would that not mean he is not all powerful?
 
 
 
For #3 No, I don't think we will sin in heaven.  Yes I think we will have free will there too.  I think we were initially made sinless.  (Here was an example of how you phrased a statement that will elicit a response that is boxed in) God looked upon his creation and said it was good.  I take that as there was a time period without sin, when all was perfect as it should be.        
 
 
 
Again, all excellent and well thought out questions!  I am really looking forward to getting to these.
 
 
 
Lastly I would urge one not to cherry pick passages and apply them outside of their context.  Sadly, Christians make this mistake more than anyone.
 

V/R

Pete

Thank you for your reply and your intent to go deeper into the question(s).  I have a couple follow-up questions/remarks to your initial response.  You don't have to respond to this but rather I just hope you take it into consideration when drafting your in-depth response.

I would first say that you have made some assumptions on God's motives for why we are here and the purpose of salvation.  These assumptions could put a person in a box when a much more comprehensive answer is required.  

I was not aware I was doing this.  I was representing the Christianity I was born into.  I was a non-denominational evangelical Christian who believed that the book of Revelation described an imminent, literal, physical, global apocalypse.  If you feel certain things need to be clarified, go ahead and do it.

Quickly on #1, I would not relate God to the law as you have in that is he subject to it himself.  Instead I would say that He is a perfect being and incapable of sin.  In fact he cannot even look upon sin.  That the law was given to man for a purpose, not so he could punish us if we didn't keep it.  However as you have presented it, it does appear to be a do as I say not as I do moment.  I would also point out that God struck the boy sick; he did not put him to death.  Although he did die.

If God is not subject to the law then I don't know what sin means.  Also, if it is not the case that the law was given to us so that we could be punished for not keeping it, what is the point of Christ's sacrifice and the atonement?  Lastly, I find it difficult to accept that God did not put the child to death.  Look at the very beginning of the passage I'm citing:

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has [a]taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”

If you want to contend that God did not deliberately and actively kill the infant, then you must pose one of the following:

1. The child was struck ill by God, not cured by God, and just happened to die while God was indifferent to the outcome.  Nathan predicted correctly that the child would die, but he was a false prophet because he falsely claimed that he divined this knowledge from God.
2. The child was struck ill by God, not cured by God, and just happened to die while God was indifferent to the outcome.  Nathan predicted correctly that the child would die, but did not know for sure and did not intend to suggest that he was divining this information from God.

God is bound by himself and his own rules so to speak in that he is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin, so it would be a contradiction by the definition of what defines a god.  Like asking could God die.  The answer to me would be no.  Would that not mean he is not all powerful?

This is baffling.  Which of these do you deny: that Christ was God, or that Christ died?

For #3 No, I don't think we will sin in heaven.  Yes I think we will have free will there too.  I think we were initially made sinless.  (Here was an example of how you phrased a statement that will elicit a response that is boxed in) God looked upon his creation and said it was good.  I take that as there was a time period without sin, when all was perfect as it should be.

You cannot compare the state of humanity in heaven to the state of humanity in the Garden of Eden because the humans in the garden sinned, yet you say we won't sin in heaven.  I don't see how your analogy applies in any sense whatsoever.

[drfuzzy]

@OP

I've got a question.

What makes you or any other Christian think we give a rat's ass about your religion?

Are you not in the Christian section of an atheist forum?  The Lord says the He will draw all to Him.

---

---

Cain is actually Henry Rollins. He never died. I saw it in a movie the other night.

---

---

I never could get into Black Flag, heavy but just not it for me.   However, I did catch a lot of his spoken word stuff.

---

Bold: well, "The Lord" sure has fucked up that drawing all bit, hasn't he?  I mean, as of 2012, the Washington Times reported 2.2 billion people on the planet claim to be some variety of christian.  However, lots of Catholics don't believe the Protestants are real Christians and visa versa, then there are the Orthodox groups and the groups like the Quakers, and all of the schisms that think the others have it all wrong.  AND there are approximately 6 billion people on the planet today that are not Christian, so most Christians think all of those are going to hell, and it doesn't bother them one tiny little bit.  Not to mention the billions of non-Christians who have died over the past two millennia, and the unknown billions who lived before a band of Habiru split off from early Canaanite tribes . . . 
   Yeah, that's a whole lot of NOT drawing to himself, and hell is going to be a really crowded place.

[abaris]

However, lots of Catholics don't believe the Protestants are real Christians and visa versa

Correction. Catholics aren't that exclusive anymore. Mainstream Protestants aren't either. It's largely the American brand of evangelicals who think to be the only real christians. And the ones falling to their proselityzing all over the world.