Can a believer explain the justice of the original sins curses?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2013, 10:09 AM
RE: Can a believer explain the justice of the original sins curses?
(23-12-2013 09:14 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The fruit of the ground.

And if you don't know what Satan did, you likely should avoid discussing Christianity on threads like these.

Thanks.

Sorry, mildly facetious back there.

What I meant was:

Where in the OT does it explicitly state that the serpent mentioned in Genesis is necessarily Satan?

If the serpent is not Satan, where did it come from?

If it is, why is it not referred to as such?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 10:20 AM
RE: Can a believer explain the justice of the original sins curses?
(12-12-2013 12:40 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Not only does god leave innocents unattended within arms reach of spiritually-altering flora but he lies to them about its nature, compounding negligence with fraud. When everything goes wrong god banishes Adam and Eve from Eden not for sin or for disobedience, neither of which is mentioned, but because he doesn't want them to achieve immortality.

It's no wonder that god didn't want them eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because a critical reading of Genesis 2 and 3 pretty quickly shows who's wearing the black hat in that story. I view the entire thing as an excellent parable on why the ethics of a modern civilization shouldn't be based on the mistranslated oral traditions of neolithic herdsmen.

Yeah, the Bible actually sets up the interesting possibility that either Satan is an agent working for God, or that me might even have better intentions than God. Now, of course, a Christian might tell us that's crazy talk, and the Bible flat-out tells us that Satan is "The Deceiver" and that God doesn't lie, but how do we know that? The Bible? That's a rather self-referencing proof for unerring honesty. Heck, I can write down on a piece of paper that I can't lie and use it as a claim to my perfect honestly.

This actually reminds me of something similar. I've gotten into several arguments about God killing children (typically tied into the flood story, but not always), and after a while, the Christian tries to keep God as "good" by saying that he's not morally obligated to keep us safe or even to not fucking kill us. If that's true (or at least the basis for one's belief), how can they trust him? He has no moral obligation to tell us the truth, and he is effectively the least trustworthy character in the Bible. Seriously, look at the basis of almost any debate on why God does what he does:

1) The Bible says God does something that looks really sketchy.

2) The theist says that it only looks that way, but it's actually okay because of [reasons]

3) They say the basis for their assumption in #2 is that they trust God.


We can point to why nothing makes sense, and they respond with "yeah, but I believe it anyway".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: