I Would Side With the Serpent

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT

reply to post by tungus
Take 'Baal' for example, it simply means 'Lord' in Caanite. But he was deemed non-existent, his priest killed about 3,000 of them and that was that. The rationale was that they would polute the believers in the true god, Yahweh.
Nice, isn't?

For the record, Baal was never deemed non-existent, in the account of Elijah on mount Carmel, he was deemed powerless. His prophets called upon him, and he did not respond. It never actually says that he didn't exist.

Before Yahweh opens his mouth he proclaims that the other gods to be non-existent! They are designated as false, don't you know your first commandment?

You know,- false, like imaginary, not real and non-existant. Which must have been odd to contemplate the following Monday because the previous week the gods of others were less powerful but they didn't think they were false.

A character trait of all monotheistic religions that has shown up all through history is that they believe that God created all reality and is totally self-sufficient. Also monotheistic religions are exclusive. They deny existence of gods of all other religions, unlike polytheists who believe that there can be more gods than what they themselves worship

link

reply to post by DaisyAnne

Excelent post.

You brought up Marduk of Babylon who usurped the functions of the other gods, so Yahweh isn't even original in proclaiming himself supreme! It's all been done before him by at least a thousand years. What a rip off.

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT

Originally posted by cathedral
adam could then get the other fruit – once in full god mode adam could give eve some of the fruit and they could team up and own jehovah

Dude, you spelled "pwned" with an "o".

On a serious note, no Christian that I know (myself included) sees God as being an old guy with a beard.

Do you recognise this deity?

www.bbc.co.uk...

img2.allposters.com...

reply to post by DaisyAnne

 

There is no point in you quoting the Bible to me. I have a degree in Ancient Near Eastern religions. I know the Bible like the back of my hand. This is why I know where your Biblical stories come from. So, please try and sell your "scripture" elsewhere.

You do realise that a simple "Are not!!" would have saved you some typing, and had about as much maturity about it? I was merely pointing out (in a thread which is discussing the apparent illogicity of a portion of Hebraic Scripture, and not Sumerian and Babylonian myths) that your conclusions are not as "blaringly obvious" to everyone, as they are to you. You say that Christianity must be a myth because of its similarities to earlier mythologies. I put forward an alternate logic to your theory, which you brush aside, without considering the logic of it.

I'm sorry that you you feel that I am "selling" my Scripture. DaiseyAnne, you may have a degree in Ancient Near Eastern religions, but I have over ten years of active experience in corporate sales. Trust me, I know when someone isn't going to buy my "product"; but when someone misrepresents that same product, in a public arena, you bet I'm going to defend it, and present the "features and benefits" that are being either covered over, or lied about. Having said all of that, I'm sure that you would agree (or at least would apply this to yourself) that neither of us are truly "selling" anything. We are merely expressing our beliefs and convictions. What people do with those beliefs are their own business.

I am merely presenting the alternate hypothesis, that if the Christian claim is true, then one would expect that people like you would make the claims that they do. In fact, if the Christian claim were true, then one would expect that people would study all the "alternate religions" in order to establish their points. However, if the Christian claim were true, then each of those religions would eventually prove to be mere "straw men", established over millennia, by the same Serpent that tempted Adam and Eve in the garden, and desires that all would share in his eternal damnation.

On a further note, if the Christian claim were true, then one would expect all other religions to bear similarities to the "Judeo Christian" traditions, simply by merit of the fact that Lucifer cannot create anything, he can only distort that which he simulates. There is nothing new under the sun. Scripture states it, and experience bears witness to it. Every new invention is simply a "better mouse trap" when you boil it all down to basic binary logic. The point is that he had so many attempts at setting up religions, that each one got a part of the tale right, so that if you held them all up against Christianity, Jehovah appears to be the plagiarist.

It matters not who got there story out first, but only whose is true. I hold that Christianity is true. If I am reading you right, then you seem to believe that Luciferianism is right. I'll grant you the right to believe what you believe, but it would be utterly futile to deny me the same right, and it would be downright insulting to demand that I allow your contradiction to my belief to go unchallenged.

This is the "Conspiracies in Religion" thread, an I would argue that to refute Pike's "Morals and Dogma", while answering an "If God is all powerful why would he.." type question, would fit nicely into this spot. I mean, come on. this is ATS. We have religious conspiracy vs freemasonry. In fact, I couldn't think of a better place to be quoting the Scriptures that I have, than here.

One last thing, if the Christian claim were true, then one would expect that people like you would refuse to even consider the validity of it, because the god of this world has blinded your eyes that you may not see it. Only those He draws, will see, period.

1 Peter 3:14-16

reply to post by tungus
Before Yahweh opens his mouth he proclaims that the other gods to be non-existent! They are designated as false, don't you know your first commandment?

You know,- false, like imaginary, not real and non-existant. Which must have been odd to contemplate the following Monday because the previous week the gods of others were less powerful but they didn't think they were false.

Based on your logic here, "false witness" wouldn't be "lying" (ie, countefeit witness), but it would be "silence" (imaginary witness), "like imaginary, not real and non-existant".

By the way, that was the 9th Commandment.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by CJaKfOrEsT]

Be as wise as the serpent.

Hunt to eat, kill to protect.

reply to post by cathedral

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
On a serious note, no Christian that I know (myself included) sees God as being an old guy with a beard.

Do you recognise this deity?

www.bbc.co.uk...

img2.allposters.com...

Let's just say that Michelangelo and I don't see eye to eye on the 2nd Commandment.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew 7:21-23

reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT


Alright, so let me see if I have this straight. You believe that the serpent "planted" these "false" religions beforehand, in order to deceive? That the mythology that predates the Jewish mythology was all false, planted there ahead of time in order to thwart? And you don't consider this theory to be stretching in the least, to be bending the evidence in order to fit the theory?

I would expect that anyone who puts their faith in something, who claims to truly believe in something, would do the research about their beliefs. And it is this expectation that leads me to say that, yes, I do think they are blaringly obvious facts. Blind faith is of little use to anyone. Intelligent belief is a different animal. It requires a scholarly approach.

The facts of the matter are these: the story of Genesis is older than the Bible. It predates the Bible. It is regurgitated and rewritten in order to fit a new monotheistic format for the God of Israel. As I pointed out before, many Gods have claimed themselves supreme. It was common practice at the time. It doesn't render it as fact. Jewish monotheism didn't even contain the concept of angels, much less fallen ones, until after the Babylonian captivity, when the deities worshipped by the Babylonians were recast as angels of the God of Israel.

The victor puts his spin on history, but the facts are there for anyone willing to open their eyes and read.

reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT


You have gone off-topic, and quoted from scripture on points that just don't make sense about this topic of this thread. Maybe it would be best if you start another thread instead of your attempts to hijack this one for your own scriptural evangelism.

Originally posted by theuhstuf
Be as wise as the serpent.

Hunt to eat, kill to protect.

Actually, that saying is: Be as wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

reply to post by dzonatas

 

You have gone off-topic, and quoted from scripture on points that just don't make sense about this topic of this thread.

I am sorry that you feel that way. May I direct your attention to the OP:

reply to post by JayinAR

 

I don't buy the Church's spin on the Biblical story.

I have a question to ask of any believer. If God is all powerful why would he knowingly create a being that was going to eventually turn against him, deceive his creation into following him in his treason and eventually punish the people for buying into what was, for all intents and purposes, a 'Godly Mistake'?
...
God said that to eat from that tree man would become just like He. Have believers considered that?

He made us in his image apparently, but he couldn't handle having a creation that shared intellect. He wanted slaves.

..and later a point addressed by the OP

reply to post by JayinAR

 

reply to post by ButterCookie

 

they decide not to read between the lines because then they would see that the snake was actually the 'good god' and the 'Lord god' was the more ruthless of the gods and wanting his creation to remain ignorant and slaves.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I was getting at.

Except that I don't have allegiance with anyone. I was just trying to point out that the Church has twisted the stories. And I was also kinda' curious why any believers would not question this.

..and then this odd little post...

reply to post by JayinAR

 

reply to post by Tayesin

 

Yet another way to tell the same story!
Good post.

Noticing a theme believers? Are there even any Christians participating

Now, along I come and quote vertabim the actual Scriptures that are that are being brought into question (in the midst of a multiude of partial references and blatant misquotations, recalled from memory) in response to the inital challenge that was put forward in the OP. The OP asked a question to "any believer", and even questioned whether there were "even any Christians participating".

Since when does refuting the claim of a post constitute hyjacking a thread? Isn't that the essential nature of what a forum is all about? Notice also that at no point have I demanded that anyone adhere to my veiwpoint. I have merely presented the logic of a plausible altertative, which had been dismissed as ridiculous.

Compare that to DaisyAnne's last post, which has done nothing but say, "your wrong, because my theory is right". It displays a blatant refusal to to show the same courtesy that I have shown her, in that I allowed room for the fact that her theory could be right (in spite of the fact that this is not what I believe).

Referring back to the first post that I made in this thread:

reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT

 

It is always tempting for a believer, as myself, to bog things down in details, by trying to answer every objection with every post. I pray that I don't fall for such a temptation, as much of our logic is "multi-threaded", with many points depending on others, and each having there own refutation/corroboration.

I have attempted to merely respond, that's all. Sorry if I offend in doing so.

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT

Compare that to DaisyAnne's last post, which has done nothing but say, "your wrong, because my theory is right". It displays a blatant refusal to to show the same courtesy that I have shown her, in that I allowed room for the fact that her theory could be right (in spite of the fact that this is not what I believe).

It is not a matter of courtesy. It is a matter of facts and research. I do think you are wrong. I am certain that you are wrong. Therefore, I am not going to lie and tell you that I think you may be right, when I know better.

I am not interested in bending facts in order to find some common ground with you on this issue.

Integrity, anyone?

reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT


Yeah, my "odd little post" was just an offhanded way of telling people that there are many other ways to look at the same allegorical tale.

Ways which, in my humble opinion, coincide with logical principles.
Rather than the mish-mash the Christian dogma teaches.

reply to post by DaisyAnne

 

I am not interested in bending facts in order to find some common ground with you on this issue.

Integrity, anyone?

No one is asking anyone to "bend facts". All I am saying is that nothing is gained by making dogmatic demands of others to think and reason like ourselves. If we consider Illuminati, UFO and 9/11 conspiracy. They tend to involve disinformation being spread ahead of the "event" (Be it Al Quaida funding by CIA before 9/11, WMD Dossiers before Iraq, MJ12, National Debt ahead of NWO establishment, etc). Why my suggestion of such a spiritual conspiracy should invoke such a scathing response, is baffling for me.

Don't worry DaiseyAnne, I'll leave room for you to leave your last word in this matter, after this. You might have a degree in all this stuff, but there are people who have been studying comparitive religions for longer than you have been breathing who would agree with me. The fact is, all we have is speculation and differing opinions, clouded by belief systems. Admitting that fact is "integrity".

I wish all the Atheists out there who have tried to use this arguement against Christians, claiming that we are dogmatic, could see this thread.

reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT


Yes. I am unflinching in defense of the truth.
And I will remain so.
I'm sorry that facts seem to make you uncomfortable.
I'm sorry that you see defense of the truth as a bad thing.
Christians defend their ideas with ferocity and without compromise.
But when met with the same thing, they cry foul.
But it doesn't really matter. The truth will become apparent soon enough.

You and I have dragged this thread too far off topic. Let's get back to the serpent.

reply to post by DaisyAnne

 

You and I have dragged this thread too far off topic. Let's get back to the serpent.

Agreed.

reply to post by JayinAR

I have a question to ask of any believer. If God is all powerful why would he knowingly create a being that was going to eventually turn against him, deceive his creation into following him in his treason and eventually punish the people for buying into what was, for all intents and purposes, a 'Godly Mistake'?

That is why I turned away from the Church many years ago. As a *child* I was able to see through this gaping hole of logic, but the reason I would side with the Serpent is because he actually argued for freedom.

God forbode man of eating from the tree of knowledge. I'm curious if the believers out there have considered that. Where would man be without knowledge?

God said that to eat from that tree man would become just like He. Have believers considered that?


I have two words to your question and sincerly am not being a smart ass or being mean... Think about it...Here it is:

FREE WILL

[edit on 18-8-2009 by trinityalways]

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
The facts of the matter are these:.....

Jewish monotheism didn't even contain the concept of angels, much less fallen ones, until after the Babylonian captivity, when the deities worshipped by the Babylonians were recast as angels of the God of Israel.

where do you get your "facts" from? because that claim is baloney

reply to post by trinityalways


"Life" is a play. God has cast himself within the play.

“Adam, where art thou?”(Genesis 3:9)

Definition of God Philosophy 101 = Big 3 O's... Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent.

God's Children are being "tested and refined". God is embedded throughout the "experience". He even lived as one of us... Yahshua.

The "Forbidden Fruit" was not an "apple, fig, etc".... The "Forbidden Fruit" was the "First Fruit of Adam and Lilith". The act which you believe to be a normal desire for "knowledge" was hideous beyond imagination.

"We" are not "Gods". "We" should never even think of such a horrifying undertaking. This "life/play" drives this lesson home... NEVER... EVER... desire to be what you were not intended to be.

I for one do not want the "job" of being God... I KNOW this "truth" by living this life designed by God for His Children to teach them who and what we were meant to be.... from the beginning.

reply to post by miriam0566


Oh dear.
Someone needs to read more.
Did you not notice their absence until the Book of Daniel?
Did you not read in the Talmud that the names of the Angels were brought from Babylon?
Did you not notice that there is not a single mention of angels in the Mishnah?
Yes, the early Semites held some animistic beliefs, but not in angels.
Angels in Jewish MONOTHEISM did not exist until after the Babylonian captivity.


[edit on 18-8-2009 by DaisyAnne]