Why Should I Worship Jeezus(tm) And Not Odin?

[Asuryan]

Satan didn't "catch' anthing. Sin had it's origin in Satan because he etertained thoughts of pride and acted on them. God is not evil so He can't be tempted by evil. Satan wanted to be worshipped like God and he tempted Adam and Eve with the same thought. "You will be like god's'

 

Perhaps at one time the angels too had free will but I don't agree that God created sin.

 

 

 

So, let's see.

 

When I sin, it is Adam and Eve's fault. (since my nature is sinful because of their infraction.)

When Adam and Eve sinned, it was Satan's fault. (since it tempted them.)

When Satan sinned, it was... why?

 

You say, because it entertained thoughts of pride.

 

But why was it able to entertain thoughts of pride?

Was Satan created with an evil, prideful nature?

If so, why did God create Satan with that nature?

 

Oh, and I'm still waiting your answer to my apocalyptic post, sweetie.

[Taphophilia]

 

God's presence was in the Garden BUT Satan was there also. Satan tempted Adam. Man chose Satan instead of God. Satan won't be in Heaven.

 

Sounds lodgical to me.

 

Amy,

 

Do you even read my posts?

 

You have never answered any of my questions, not even one. However, this is concerning something I specifically asked you. Please answer this one.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that the snake that tempted Adam and Eve was Satan? The Bible NEVER says that Satan was in the Garden of Eden! Why do you believe this?

 

If you believe it was Satan, please give chapter and verse to support your opinoin.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ciao, Asuryan,

 

I don't know if any of us will get a response that we consider a true answer. So far the light does not seem to have gone off in Amy's mind that her experience and her emo retellings of scripture don't count as evidence in debates, at least one of which she initiated. If she wants to develop an argument that Jesus physically rose from the dead or that everyone in the world is obligated in conscience to convert to Christianity, then she can't universalize her emotional experience. Yet, she keeps doing that. Fundies in general do it. If enough of them universalize their experience, they think they're offering evidence because they hear lots of other people agreeing with them. But they fail to show why their experience counts as evidence for claims about 1) a deity that cannot be perceived, 2) a singular event in the remote past.

 

She keeps using the bible as evidence to prove the claims of the bible and refuses to confront the circularity of this procedure. She falls into fallacies of excluded middle (e.g. either Jesus rose from the dead or the apostles would not have undergone martyrdom, as though there are no other possible scenarios but these two).

 

Non ho saputo che ti sei innamorata di un'altra ragazza ed invece.. come felici voi due! -

 

 

 

Where in the Bible does it say that the snake that tempted Adam and Eve was Satan? The Bible NEVER says that Satan was in the Garden of Eden! Why do you believe this?

 

If you believe it was Satan, please give chapter and verse to support your opinoin.

 

Taph, isn't it Revelation 20:2 that identifies the devil and "that ancient serpent"? I think the issue is that the OT doesn't say that the serpent was Satan, and the OT doesn't say that Satan is the devil. I think in Judaism Satan is one of God's servants/messengers who gets the job of putting trials upon humans, as in the book of Job. So I think the serpent=Satan thing is a Christian twist on the OT.

[julian]

If you don't mind, it'd be nice to hear that reason. Now, about being the "way", to claim superiority over other philosophies without any real backup is just wrong.

 

Absolutely!

 

...Which is why Jesus is wrong, because he is doing the exact same thing.

 

Jesus is saying that HE is all there is and that is it.

 

Yes.

 

He is saying that with what backup? Because there is no backup, or a reason to be so conceited and intolerant, Jesus is effectively wrong and intolerant and conceited.

 

Now I should point out that no perfect person would be so conceited,

 

OR maybe He is telling the truth.

 

What reason do you have to believe that? How do you verify this "truth"? The fact is that you don't have any reason to think it is truth precisely because it is untrue.

 

Which leads us right back to the Resurrection. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead physically that would make Him a fake, phoney, fraud con man. He also wouldn't be the Saviour sent from Heaven to save us from our sins and that's who Jesus claimed to be.

 

I would like to point out that the resurrection is not only something which is supported only by made-up stories (your words), but also illogical. This is not "IF Jesus didn't rise from the dead physically", this is "Jesus didn't rise from the dead physically". Next, he didn't save anyone from their sins whatsoever, and there are many real reasons to think this. Humans, not to mention all things, are not sinful at all and so there is nothing to save us from. More than this, how could someone who is guilty of assault and battery, resisting arrest and worse be a "saviour"? A "saviour" would not condemn people to eternal punishment because they simply disagree. So, in reality, Jesus wasn't who he claimed to be, making Jesus wrong.

 

Render means give. "Give to Ceaser what belongs to Caeser and to God what belongs to God." The context of Jesus' words was they were asking Him if was right to pay taxes to Caeser. His enemies were trying to trip Him up. Jesus never forbade people to pay the tax. In fact he befriended the tax collectors. He was known as the "Friend of tax collectors and whores." He hung out with the outcasts.

 

Right, and Jesus should've allowed himself to be arrested by the guards, because that would be "giving" them what belonged to them (being the proper authorities, and "peacemakers"). Since he did not, he violated that principle, for he resisted the authorities present. Oh, and Christians have always used outcastes for a practical reason: they're far more likely to buy into their "faith". It's kind of like a con-man praying on grieving widows.

 

This guy is one law-breaker.

 

Not the Roman law. But yes He was considered a radical.

 

Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you couldn't disrupt a temple and assault people under Roman law. I guess assault was legal in Rome (I'm being sarcastic).

 

Bach wrote on most of his music manuscripts, "to the glory of God." He wrote the beautiful piece (which I love Josh Groban's version,) "Jesu, Joy of Men's Desiring." I'm sure Jesus lent some inspiration to him.

 

I didn't say anything about inspiration, I charged that Jesus was incompetent when it comes to playing Bach's music. If he was incapable of playing Bach, then he cannot be considered perfect.

 

But the fact is that they suffered as much as he did, so his suffering doesn't qualify him for anything. What Jesus supposedly went through was commonplace in the Roman Empire, so to say he is special is just laughable. Plus, there is positively no reason to believe he was "more than a man", which makes your argument, once again, fall apart.

 

Yes. If He remained dead that would certainly be true.

 

Exactly, and since there was no physical resurrection, your argument is still lying in pieces.

 

You say significant. But there is a record of His existence outside the NT. Some think it's not enough proof. I see it differently as you already know.

 

What record, persay? Nothing is really mentioned of him until at least a generation after his death. In fact, IIRC, there was a historian in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' supposed life who mentions nothing of him, even though he was supposedly doing miracles and whatnot. It's very clearly not enough proof.

 

Pilate said to Jesus, "What is truth?"

 

Jesus replied, "All who are of the truth hear My voice."

 

Again, that is conceited, ignorant and wrong. Why should we think his voice is "truth"? It is the epitome of intolerance to say anything of the sort, and it is an insult to truth itself.

[Taphophilia]

 

Taph, isn't it Revelation 20:2 that identifies the devil and "that ancient serpent"? I think the issue is that the OT doesn't say that the serpent was Satan, and the OT doesn't say that Satan is the devil. I think in Judaism Satan is one of God's servants/messengers who gets the job of putting trials upon humans, as in the book of Job. So I think the serpent=Satan thing is a Christian twist on the OT.

 

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Christians read this as being the snake in the Garden of Eden.

 

The Genesis story is based on the Sumerian legend of Ninhersag's garden. Enki (who was considered the mischivious god) has the symbol of a snake, but snakes were always thought of as mystical cretures with powers of healing. It's why you see a snake in the symbol of medicine.

 

The idea of the snake being bad comes from the feud between Enki and his brother. Enki and his brother were fighting over the favor of their father. (sound familiar) Enki's brother, in an effort to make Enki look bad, spread false rumors about him.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, Taph. So don't you think Christians are allowed to say that their scriptures identify the snake and the devil, as long as they admit that it's the NT that does this and not the OT?

[Antlerman]

Asimov, Antlerman, and everyone else - all fine posts. Like fucking bunker busters dropped on the Vatican

Thanks! That's a image that's gonna stick with me forever!!

[Taphophilia]

Hi, Taph. So don't you think Christians are allowed to say that their scriptures identify the snake and the devil, as long as they admit that it's the NT that does this and not the OT?

 

The verse says the old serpent is the great dragon. It doesn't say it's a snake.

[♦ ficino ♦]

"drakon" in Greek means "serpent" or "snake." In ancient Greek lit it is interchangeable with "ophis," which also means snake (modern Greek "phidi"). Sometimes in particular it refers to a water snake. The staff with snakes on it is called a drakonteion staff in Sophocles. I haven't done a study of this, but I wonder whether "dragon" became associated with a legged big reptile after the Greeks came into closer contact with Asia. Exactly what kind of reptile the writer of Revelation had in mind may be open to question, but I'd think the first assumption, based on the usual range of meaning of "drakon," is that it's a snake of some kind.

 

Tell me more, Taph, if there's evidence that the Revelation thingy is our sort of dragon and not a snake. I like learning more about words and languages.

[Antlerman]

I was standing outside an old church one rainy night looking up at three stained glass windows dipicting the Passion of Christ and I asked Him all the questions you're asking right now.

 

And it was as if a light shot through the darkness enlightening my undertstanding. This is how the answer came: Ever sinse the Fall the world has been under a curse. Man has chosen to live his life apart from God. There will be suffering, pain, loss until the curse is totally reversed. One day there will be an end to all pain and suffering and all the effects that came when man lost paridice.

 

Then it was as if Jesus stood right in front of me and I saw all the my accusations about God not caring all over His body, written in multiple whip lashes, thorns, beatings, bruises and all the sorrows and pains of the world past, present and future heaped upon Him. My heart heard the four words that crashed through any last defense I held up against Him,

 

"Amy I love you."

 

Those words have been with me ever since. In times of doubt and fear I'm right there again, thinking of the crucified Jesus.

Amy,

 

Remember some time back I told you I had a vision. It was a powerful enough vision (like Paul’s) to forever change my outlook on life. A vision which had a bright white light and a voice from heaven with words, in fact quite similar to the ones you heard? Have you ever read my testimony? I didn’t mention in there or am even now speaking of the details of it here, but I’m sure the effect it had on me is quite undeniably evident in the course that my life took. Just as your did for you; Just as Paul’s did for him; Just as other’s do for them. I reject absolutely when someone says, "Just a vision". They can be quite profound and life changing. But does this mean it came from a god?

 

You can read my "testimony" here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=136900 I think you may find many points of similarities in there for you.

 

You’re speaking with someone who knows what that is. At the same time I understand that the explanations for it – are limited by using theology. I keep coming back to this again and again, and I can understand it may sound very foreign to your way of thinking, but doctrines like you use to relate this to your life are only languages, tools to begin an understanding of the human experience of life. But if you get stuck focusing on the language, the symbols, you end at the metaphor and not move beyond it. A lanugae has finite boundries, even more abstract languages of mythology, and to turn the mythology into the definition of "God", does in fact box in what is possible beyond the boundries of that language. Hmmm... "If you see Buddha in the road, kill him."

 

My mentioning this and asking the questions which you haven’t gotten to yet (but I’m sure you will) http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=187686 is to illustrate that the origins of all these mythologies are us. I have full confidence Amy that if you grew up in another culture, your experience would have been equally as powerful and life changing for you, but it would have used the language of that culture. That said that language would have been equally valid for you in your spiritual language and experience of life. When you get hung up on a particular god forbidding worship of other gods, understand that this is not the god speaking, but the creators of that god – us – who in that particular culture we’re molding the myth to the culture it was speaking to.

 

Your experience to you gives emotional validation of your beliefs. Can you recognize that other’s experiences are equally validating for them to their beliefs? If you insist that somehow their experiences are somehow less valid for them… frankly that sounds a little beneath what I hope you have in your heart. That would be insulting, arrogant, and in error to assume that.

 

My point, everyone’s point, in examining the texts of the Bible is to show that you cannot point to scripture as authoritative, or clear, or binding, or accurate, or even relevant in all cases to today’s world. You have first your experience, then secondly a loose reading of parts of the Bible that you find meaning in to support you in your emotional experience.

 

This is not wrong to do, but what is wrong Amy is to take that and view others as damned, lost, invalid, worshipping false gods, deceived, misguided, fools, blinded, spiritually lost, etc, etc, etc. I find it tragic that the language you use is taken so literally that you end up in this position of elitism. This is my warning to you as someone who likewise has encountered “God”. I do not invalidate your beliefs, but am correcting you in your overly literalist approach. Use the symbols, embrace the myth, yet not to the exclusion of the BEAUTY of other’s beliefs and hearts. Don't let symbols define and rule your heart. You define it. You already have.

[Taphophilia]

"drakon" in Greek means "serpent" or "snake." In ancient Greek lit it is interchangeable with "ophis," which also means snake (modern Greek "phidi"). Sometimes in particular it refers to a water snake. The staff with snakes on it is called a drakonteion staff in Sophocles. I haven't done a study of this, but I wonder whether "dragon" became associated with a legged big reptile after the Greeks came into closer contact with Asia. Exactly what kind of reptile the writer of Revelation had in mind may be open to question, but I'd think the first assumption, based on the usual range of meaning of "drakon," is that it's a snake of some kind.

 

Tell me more, Taph, if there's evidence that the Revelation thingy is our sort of dragon and not a snake. I like learning more about words and languages.

 

That I don't know, Finco. I like words and languages too. I would say, I stand corrected if the word "dragon" was the word "drakon" in the Greek in Revelation. They were speaking of a snake, but were they speaking of the snake in Genesis?

 

Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

 

I thought, I didn't know the Greek, when describing the dragon, it was not a snake, because of how it was described here.

[Asuryan]

Ciao, Asuryan,

 

I don't know if any of us will get a response that we consider a true answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess not. But I'll try asking her one anyway. Maybe, she DOES understand what kind of answer we would like, but she will never answer like that because in her mind that would be doubting, and doubting god is a sin. I can't understand ...I thought that in America, frontal lobotomies had gone illegal about 30 years ago, was I wrong?

 

 

 

Non ho saputo che ti sei innamorata di un'altra ragazza ed invece.. come felici voi due! -

 

 

 

Aw, I didn't really fall in love with another girl. I was just making a point, creating an example for amy to understand - homosexuality, jesus supposed goodness, what will she answer? ...if she will...

 

Allora come ti va la vita? Cosa hai fatto in questi ultimi tempi, a parte litigare con amy?

[white_raven23]

Hi, Taph. So don't you think Christians are allowed to say that their scriptures identify the snake and the devil, as long as they admit that it's the NT that does this and not the OT?

 

 

Even if Satan in Revelations IS being described as A snake....there is still no evidence whatsoever that he is being called as "the talking snake from Genesis". You can only reach that conclusion by ASSUMPTION ONLY. Which considering how detail oriented this literary source have evidence of being (I'm thinking all the exacting measurements for the tabernacle, and all the detail given for proper sacrificing), to ASSUME is just inacceptable considering the supposed nature of the bible (inspired by sky daddy).

 

Snakes are mentioned a LOT in the bible. A lot.

 

Too many times in fact, for a rational person to accept implicitly that the talking one at the beginning of the book, is the one being referred to at the END.

 

There are so many snake references, the only way to fairly assume Satan's involvement is considering an all or none idea.

 

Either EVERY snake reference in the bible is linked to Satan's influence, or NONE of them are.

 

Now if you don't like snakes, or if you have had your intellegence abused by religion, then you have already been conditioned to see all snakes as evil, so the idea that all snakes represent satan may not seem too far-fetched. But then, that kind of prejudice is just about as acceptable as looking at a mexican person, and thinking "why isn't that guy cutting someone's grass?".

[Lycorth]

^..^

[♦ ficino ♦]

There are so many snake references, the only way to fairly assume Satan's involvement is considering an all or none idea.

 

Either EVERY snake reference in the bible is linked to Satan's influence, or NONE of them are.

 

 

I don't see why this follows. Wasn't Paul bitten by a snake in Acts? I don't know of a tradition that Satan came on that occasion in snake form, though maybe someone would want to say that he did.

 

Anyway, Taph, WR and others, I guess we should start another thread if we want to pursue the snake-Satan-OT/NT topic. Maybe there's already been a thread on Ex-chr on this. My interest in it is mild at most... anyone think it's worth carrying to a new thread?

[Lycorth]

^..^

[Sparrow]

I don't see why this follows. Wasn't Paul bitten by a snake in Acts? I don't know of a tradition that Satan came on that occasion in snake form, though maybe someone would want to say that he did.

 

Don't remember actually if he was but wouldn't it have been better if the snake actually succeeded?

 

 

Sparrow

[♦ ficino ♦]

Anyway, Taph, WR and others, I guess we should start another thread if we want to pursue the snake-Satan-OT/NT topic. Maybe there's already been a thread on Ex-chr on this. My interest in it is mild at most... anyone think it's worth carrying to a new thread?

 

Do go for it I'd like to get in on that debate

 

I posted a thread on this on General Theological Issues.

[Asuryan]

Precisely.

 

And great post with that little J story! I will have to cut and save that one, hehe

 

 

 

Grab away I wrote it down as it came to my mind, so I'm sure I made the usual errors (my most frequent one, forgetting the 3rd person 's on the end of verbs), but if you liked it, I feel honored

[Lycorth]

^..^

[KT45]

Well I'm not sure who is winning this debate (since it seems to be more about debating if jesus is real rather than who is better Jesus vs. Odin). So who would you worship based on looks alone?

vs.

Come on guys. Who's the smexy!!!?

[nick5]

Oh man, Odin is so badass, I wish he would give that evil jeesus bitch what he deserves (a kick in the ass).

[Lycorth]

^..^

[Thurisaz]

Come on guys. Who's the smexy!!!?

 

While the horned helmet is simply wrong, the sheepcuddler is a wimp

[Asuryan]

Seems like amy's forfeited. I give her credit - she sure put up a brave little fight. But in the end, Odin wins. Any other Xians care to explain why Jeezus™ is better than Odin?

 

 

 

Was it brave to systematically avoid all of your questions, by just saying "ehh but jesus is good and you are simply misreading the bible verses!" over and over?