There are no answers in Genesis

[LinuxGal]

It's related to the long-standing tradition of apophatic theology, mostly used in the Eastern Church but known in the West as well. The idea is that any concept we can use to describe God will be at best misleading, and quite possibly wrong. So for example if we assert that "God exists," the apophatic theologian will dispute this, saying that the word "exists," as understood by people, doesn't apply to God. 

An atheist asserts almost the same thing.  We leave out "as understood by people" because AI and beings such as angels or talking snakes haven't been demonstrated to exist either, so people are the only entities capable of understanding words.

[Belacqua]

It's related to the long-standing tradition of apophatic theology, mostly used in the Eastern Church but known in the West as well. The idea is that any concept we can use to describe God will be at best misleading, and quite possibly wrong. So for example if we assert that "God exists," the apophatic theologian will dispute this, saying that the word "exists," as understood by people, doesn't apply to God. 

An atheist asserts almost the same thing.  We leave out "as understood by people" because AI and beings such as angels or talking snakes haven't been demonstrated to exist either, so people are the only entities capable of understanding words.

"...people are the only entities capable of understanding words.''

Maybe in your haste to make your point it slipped your mind that lots of animals use sounds or gestures to communicate information. And lots of animals who can't utter words nonetheless understand them. Have you ever had a dog? 

Granted, as far as we know people are the only animals who use language to discuss metaphysical questions, but it's a big universe, and we don't know much about far away places. 

Anyway, even if it were true that Koko the gorilla could discuss ontology, it would have no bearing on the issue at hand. Which is that the human mind has limitations. 

There's a good lecture by Noam Chomsky on the subject, you can find on YouTube. He points out that every other kind of mammal that we know of appears to have limits on what they can understand. One of many examples he gives is that in test situations, rats can figure out surprisingly complicated math problems if getting food depends on it. However, it appears that the concept of prime numbers is beyond them. Since humans are also mammals, it is almost certain that our own minds have such limitations, of which we are unaware. Chomsky is not religious and doesn't apply this fact to religious issues, but it supports the old idea that people can't understand everything there is. 

The main idea is Neoplatonic, in which God is seen as the One, which is completely undivided and simple, without parts. Human beings, however, only understand things by dividing -- in order to make sense of the world we discriminate this from that, figure from ground, past from present, etc. But trying to understand something completely undivided through division renders understanding impossible. 

So bringing up talking snakes here is not relevant. Maybe you wanted to take the opportunity to mock certain Christians who believe in such things, but no one like that is posting here.

[LinuxGal]

Are there really supposed to be answers though?

B asic
I nstructions
B efore
L eaving
E arth

It’s an instructional manual

B rainless
I nformation
B ased on
L ack of
E vidence

[The Architect Of Fate]

Baseless 
Infantilizing
Bullshit
Lacking 
Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

An atheist asserts almost the same thing.  We leave out "as understood by people" because AI and beings such as angels or talking snakes haven't been demonstrated to exist either, so people are the only entities capable of understanding words.

"...people are the only entities capable of understanding words.''

Maybe in your haste to make your point it slipped your mind that lots of animals use sounds or gestures to communicate information. And lots of animals who can't utter words nonetheless understand them. Have you ever had a dog? 

Granted, as far as we know people are the only animals who use language to discuss metaphysical questions, but it's a big universe, and we don't know much about far away places. 

Anyway, even if it were true that Koko the gorilla could discuss ontology, it would have no bearing on the issue at hand. Which is that the human mind has limitations. 

There's a good lecture by Noam Chomsky on the subject, you can find on YouTube. He points out that every other kind of mammal that we know of appears to have limits on what they can understand. One of many examples he gives is that in test situations, rats can figure out surprisingly complicated math problems if getting food depends on it. However, it appears that the concept of prime numbers is beyond them. Since humans are also mammals, it is almost certain that our own minds have such limitations, of which we are unaware. Chomsky is not religious and doesn't apply this fact to religious issues, but it supports the old idea that people can't understand everything there is. 

The main idea is Neoplatonic, in which God is seen as the One, which is completely undivided and simple, without parts. Human beings, however, only understand things by dividing -- in order to make sense of the world we discriminate this from that, figure from ground, past from present, etc. But trying to understand something completely undivided through division renders understanding impossible. 

So bringing up talking snakes here is not relevant. Maybe you wanted to take the opportunity to mock certain Christians who believe in such things, but no one like that is posting here.

And you accuse of us taking things too literally....

[Lek]

Genesis and the rest of the OT contains the story of a group of people awaiting a savior king that will be sent from God to free them from their plight. It's written in the form that was most common to the times. It commenced shortly before the coming of Jesus who was proclaimed to be that savior. I don't see how scientifically disecting the events described will disprove the validity of Christianity.

[arewethereyet]

Genesis and the rest of the OT contains the story of a group of people awaiting a savior king that will be sent from God to free them from their plight. It's written in the form that was most common to the times.  It commenced shortly before the coming of Jesus who was proclaimed to be that savior. I don't see how scientifically disecting the events described will disprove the validity of Christianity.

Bold mine - Perhaps if it contained a narrative of history it would be more convincing.  Instead, it is a story told by people hoping for a savior to come save them at a future date.

[The Grand Nudger]

Save them from what?

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, I don't hear from Jews that they feel insecure and are waiting to be saved, as Lek claims, and they just believe in the OT.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Save them from what?

Save them from the consequences of exercising the free will that God gave them. Sort of like if I gift you a shovel, then get all pissy when you have the temerity to dig a hole.

Boru