I Would Side With the Serpent, page 19

privacy

Pages: << 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 04:20 PM by DaisyAnne

Originally posted by miriam0566

i think the starting point that people go from to get to that conclusion is the inability to understand how there can be evil if god didnt create it directly.

from there they get wrapped up with the thought "well then satan must be working for god." then they go off and find scriptures to support that belief. (even if it means ignoring a large part of the bible.)

Oh, I don't think that way at all.
I think there is more than one God. And the God of Israel is not for me.

Beyond the Pantheon in this solar system, there is a God who is everything. This God would be the essence of the creation itself, the very spark of being. This God would be infinitely light, infinitely dark, and completely incomprehensible. This is not Yahweh.

Our pantheon created this solar system, this experiment. They are personal and amazing, they are powerful. They can be incarnate and disincarnate, and there is more than one of them.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 04:28 PM by miriam0566

Originally posted by DaisyAnne

An easy example is Mark 8 - 9. Jesus calls Peter his adversary, Satan.

ok so peter tells jesus not to do what he needs to do. jesus calls him "adversary".

but i still fail to see how this shows that "satan" is a term used by both sides.

gen 3, job 1, matthew 4, 2 cor 4:4, and rev 12:7-13 evidently are referring to the same individual with traits and titles that correspond with each other.

while i understand what you mean about "satan" being more of a title than a name. it still doesnt take away from the evidence that there is a head "satan"

and if this "satan" was trying to obtain glory that doesnt belong to him, glory that is intrinsically linked to one "name". it makes sense that god would take away that glory by referring to him with a title.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 04:32 PM by miriam0566

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Oh, I don't think that way at all.
I think there is more than one God. And the God of Israel is not for me.

Beyond the Pantheon in this solar system, there is a God who is everything. This God would be the essence of the creation itself, the very spark of being. This God would be infinitely light, infinitely dark, and completely incomprehensible. This is not Yahweh.

Our pantheon created this solar system, this experiment. They are personal and amazing, they are powerful. They can be incarnate and disincarnate, and there is more than one of them.

Egyptians had a similar belief. the god of israel humiliated them one at a time with the ten plagues.

if these "gods" were powerful, you'd think they would be able to protect their people from this "yahweh"

not speaking against your beliefs, but to use the bible to support them doesnt make much sense to me. it sets a different precedent

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 04:37 PM by DaisyAnne

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by DaisyAnne

An easy example is Mark 8 - 9. Jesus calls Peter his adversary, Satan.

ok so peter tells jesus not to do what he needs to do. jesus calls him "adversary".

but i still fail to see how this shows that "satan" is a term used by both sides.

gen 3, job 1, matthew 4, 2 cor 4:4, and rev 12:7-13 evidently are referring to the same individual with traits and titles that correspond with each other.

while i understand what you mean about "satan" being more of a title than a name. it still doesnt take away from the evidence that there is a head "satan"

and if this "satan" was trying to obtain glory that doesnt belong to him, glory that is intrinsically linked to one "name". it makes sense that god would take away that glory by referring to him with a title.

Yes, indeed there is a head "satan" on both sides. And also, you are right that a lot of these refrences refer to one side. But some of them refer to the other side, too.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 04:40 PM by miriam0566

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Yes, indeed there is a head "satan" on both sides. And also, you are right that a lot of these refrences refer to one side. But some of them refer to the other side, too.

thats the part i fail to see, when is jesus ever called satan?

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 04:41 PM by DaisyAnne

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Oh, I don't think that way at all.
I think there is more than one God. And the God of Israel is not for me.

Beyond the Pantheon in this solar system, there is a God who is everything. This God would be the essence of the creation itself, the very spark of being. This God would be infinitely light, infinitely dark, and completely incomprehensible. This is not Yahweh.

Our pantheon created this solar system, this experiment. They are personal and amazing, they are powerful. They can be incarnate and disincarnate, and there is more than one of them.

Egyptians had a similar belief. the god of israel humiliated them one at a time with the ten plagues.

if these "gods" were powerful, you'd think they would be able to protect their people from this "yahweh"

not speaking against your beliefs, but to use the bible to support them doesnt make much sense to me. it sets a different precedent

Yahweh is the head of their pantheon. Speaking politically, they had to follow the laws of their society. He cannot be over-ruled while he is acting as head of the pantheon. But it won't always be this way.

I only use the bible as one of many sources! The only reason that I keep referring to it, is because we are discussing it from a biblical aspect in this thread.

As always, it is a pleasure to debate with you, Miriam. I wish more Christians were like you.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 05:03 PM by DaisyAnne

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Yes, indeed there is a head "satan" on both sides. And also, you are right that a lot of these refrences refer to one side. But some of them refer to the other side, too.

thats the part i fail to see, when is jesus ever called satan?

This is a big subject and one that I find very exciting!
But I fear it would need its own thread entirely.
I think I will start a thread on this soon.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 11:03 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by GambitVII

The "games" you are talking about here use the stakes of human souls in eternal torment.
Screw that game. I'm not sadistic enough to play it.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 11:05 PM by Debsturrs

well.....
*looks down at hands and feet*
i dont see any shackles on me.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 11:09 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

And what is it when the Iranians of today call the United States of America the "Great Satan?"
What is it when the Dead Sea Scrolls authors refer to Rome as the "Great Satan"...

Satan is a concept that one side labels their oppressors.
It has always been this way and still is.

And to the other poster countering this claim: Lucifer, the serpent, Satan.

I said that I side with the Serpent. Not Lucifer or Satan.

reply posted on 16-9-2009 @ 01:19 AM by GambitVII

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by GambitVII

The "games" you are talking about here use the stakes of human souls in eternal torment.
Screw that game. I'm not sadistic enough to play it.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as spectators on this field.

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 03:53 AM by Centurionx

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

And what is it when the Iranians of today call the United States of America the "Great Satan?"
What is it when the Dead Sea Scrolls authors refer to Rome as the "Great Satan"...

Satan is a concept that one side labels their oppressors.
It has always been this way and still is.

And to the other poster countering this claim: Lucifer, the serpent, Satan.

I said that I side with the Serpent. Not Lucifer or Satan.

The ancient Egyptians used the serpent as a symbol for dualism, with it's forked tongue, double phallus. Unchecked dualism is chaos, and the serpent could be seen as a symbol for that chaos. In Genesis it says the serpent was more wise and subtle than all the other creatures the Lord God had made. Genesis appears to be a very old story, and personally I don't see how they attribute it to Moshe. The ancient Sumer tablets tell a strikingly similar story, and the myths of the flood and of serpent 'gods' in general are found the world over. Satan was also known as the ancient one, ancient dragon, morning star, etc. Once again we see the great adversary depicted as reptilian in nature, and he was and still is 'god' of this world. Because of what happened long ago in the garden, when man essentially traded the tree of life for the tree of knowledge, longing to become like the Lord God.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that Satan and the serpent are all part of the same collective conciousness, and are one and the same. Similar to how it is said the Christ and God are one. So all the demons and Satan, Babylon, etc are of one mind, that is why when the demon was asked what his name was by Christ in the gospel, he answered "Legion, for we are many." So in a sense you are right by saying Satan is a concept, a concept of unchecked duality equaling chaos.

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 05:06 AM by xstealth

Jay:

You totally ignored my post on page 17, please comment.

Thanks

reply posted on 17-9-2009 @ 05:17 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by xstealth

I don't really think I'm confused.
But hey, I admit that I'm am not above error.

As far as the fruit of knowledge being metaphorical for sex?
I don't see it that way.

I personally believe it refers to the ability to read and write.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 08:16 AM by tungus

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by xstealth

As far as the fruit of knowledge being metaphorical for sex?
I don't see it that way.

I personally believe it refers to the ability to read and write.

I also don't think it's about sex. Animals had sex all the time, no one made a fuss about it. When Adam and Eve did it, Yahweh got all fired up.
If humans couldn't re-produce on their own, because they were a cross of two species, (Anunnaki + genetically tweeking Primates = Humans), then suddenly after eating an 'apple' they could, I can see the metaphor. But if it was just sex, it doesn't make sense why Yahweh flipped his lid when he discovered what those two had been up to.
Sure, he loses control of human manufacturing, but it is more than that. It couldn't have been that he was concerned with the quality of humans produced or the runaway train of human population on the planet.

His concern was that they, meaning us, can now tell the difference between good and evil and decide for themselves. So he kicks the poor Adam and Eve out of Eden (Enki's biolab), locks the door and puts two Cherubs with flaming swords at the gates. He did that rather quickly so Enki couldn't do more unauthorized upgrades. He had to move fast because if Enki, god forbid, granted them long life, then they, in Yahweh's words, would be royally screwed if the humans became immortal. I'm paraphrasing, obviously.
That is why I am amused every time when people say that Yahweh gave us free will because, oh, he loved us so much. And then when he became distraught with the wickedness of man he scarified his only son for the sins of mankind, that's how much god loved us...Say what?!
Instead of all the hand wringing, not to mention the horrific murder of his apparently only child, wouldn't it have been more appropriate and compassionate if he had us created with the awareness of all there is and gave us long life, too? But that would have made us gods and he wasn't creating gods, he was creating little servile humans. And his worry was that if you raise their awareness to a certain level, they begin to question the situation. And he was going to have none of that. So here we are.
At least, he could have eliminated the genetic disorders, that is, if he was creating the perfect human, which he wasn't!

I wish that people would see past the bubbly feel good 'god-loves-me' nonsense and see this guy for what he really is! Instead they get all defensive for disturbing their soap opera belief structure. It could be worse, they could burn people at the stake, I suppose.

Anyway, thank you for letting me rant.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by tungus]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 06:12 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by tungus

Sure, that is the idea. Sorta. The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
However, even champanzees have morality.

If you consider the ability to read and write in this context, it is the inception of laws.
Society.
Civilization.
Advancement.
To one day attain THEIR knowledge. If we are lucky. But yeah, I agree.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by JayinAR]

[edit on 21-9-2009 by JayinAR]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 08:29 PM by tungus

reply to post by JayinAR

Sure, it could mean the ability to write and read.
We do not have the mental faculties of the Anunnaki and our way to preserve and transmit higher knowledge is through writing it down.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 07:11 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by tungus

I think that it can be evidenced circumstantially that the ability to read and write is exactly what is meant of the tree of knowledge.

If we are to consider this possibility, then we are looking for "culprits" who have helped man develop his society in our stories of old.
There are many. Not one.

Each of these "gods" have been cast assunder by the Christian dogma. The Egyptian accounts give a nice outline of specifically what each god did for neo-historical man.

The Genesis account tells us that the Serpent is the one who gave knowlege of good and evil. In other words, the dude who GAVE man the ability to survey land. The ability to perform trigonometry, algebra, etc. All the things that would allow man to live in a group-setting governed by laws.

Considering that Genesis spoke of a host of rebellious "angels" we can conclude that these "angels" are in fact the Gods of these other religions...

Then we can put a historical face to their names, as they were considered in most other accounts to be very real people.

I would argue that these angels, are in fact the "good guy" and were lumped into one (the serpent) in the Christian dogma, and cast assunder.

In fact, even so far as to burning any trace of them.

Then the story was twisted and we are worshipping the wrong dude.

"The greatest thing the devil ever did was convince people that he didn't exist." I would add (or to trick people into worshipping a slave-master)

reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 01:01 AM by smokingfretboard

What ever happened to the idea that God created us in His image, to like the same thing He likes. EVERYTHING we enjoy is a by product of God. Be that nature, romance, sex, ingenuity, etc., He invented it, represents it, IS it. We could openly walk and talk with the Creator of the whole universe, so being that close to the being that is, in and of Himself, everything we enjoy...how was that slavery? You claim God didn't give us free will...but then what WERE the trees all about? We're talking about an omnipresent being here. You don't think God knew the minute Adam and Eve tasted the fruit? Couldn't He have sent a lightning bolt? But He didn't...he gave them the CHOICE. The tragedy of this whole story, is that it introduced sin. Sin is simply separation from God. Sin is a byproduct of free will. Sin is the distance from the things we were created to enjoy in their purest form. I love the words of this song

"I've heard it said that a man would climb a mountain, just to be with the one he loves. Well I've never climbed the highest mountain, but I walked the hill of calvary. Just to be with you I gave everything oh yes I gave my life away"

To say that God doesn't love us is ludicrous. If you don't believe in God, I respect your belief, as does God. However, this is a topic all to itself, as you are trying to use the Christian bible to say that God is not love and satan is giving us freedom. When has murder, lies, adultery (list 10 commandments etc) ever given us freedom? Seems to me like the real slaves are the ones to sin, cause without God, they have no choice but to sin. At least with God I have a choice.

Ok, about the theory that satan and God are the same thing: Jesus Himself talked about God and beezelbub (satan) being two different masters and that you can't serve them both. Also, satan is called the father of lies, and God is called truth. Seriously dude, I have a hard time believing your even debating this while still holding to the principal that your a "christian" and you believe in the bible. At least with an atheist they don't believe in God...but if your ground to stand on here is the bible, you may consider a parachute? Just sayin