Let's try it three at a time. I am supposing that the topic is the existence of hell and of judgment.

1. "Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." A parable that clearly pictures the judgment of God and the existence of a place of punishment. If you don't agree with that, then tell what the teaching of the parable is.
2. Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." A very clear and specific reference to hell. Agreed? And please don't say it's the garbage dump. That would be stupid. It also very clearly references judgment.
3. Matthew 5:29,30. "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell." Another clear and specific reference to hell. Agreed? Not a garbage dump. Hell.

Can't get editing to work. Sorry. I've given you something to chew on. See you tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

The papyrus fragments of Matthew contain 15-17 lines and none refer to the verse being discussed.

---

Am I to contend that you will believe only the most ancient texts? That there are 127 fragments (or less), that happen agree with the current bible, and only those verses can be trusted?

Seems a little scant for any kind of philosophical or religious study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment.

---

"Love your enemy" and "Father, forgive them" are clear refutations of your belief of unbelievers condemned to hell. I don't know why you can't see that.

In the second great commandment, Jesus says "Love your neighbor". He does not say to love God which was the first commandment. Does that mean the second commandment disproves the first because loving God is not mentioned in the second?

John tells his wife Mary that she has brought great happiness to his life. Does that mean John doesn't love Mary because he didn't say "I love you" in that sentence?

Quote:

---

You have refuted nothing.

---

This oft-repeated statement of yours is NOT an argument. How many times do I have to tell you that?

Quote:

---

If you want to suggest where I'm supposedly lying, then go for it.

---

Be glad to. You said, and I quote, "The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal belief".

I never said my own personal belief was evidence of what you claim. And you know I never said that. Saying what you know to be untrue is the definition of a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

Am I to contend that you will believe only the most ancient texts? That there are 127 fragments (or less), that happen agree with the current bible, and only those verses can be trusted?

---

I never said anything remotely like that. The more you post, the more disappointed I am with your thought process, and you started out here with such promise. Is this the only point you wish to make from that post?

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post #96 which was addressed to you right before you disappeared for a few days. Did you disappear to avoid replying to that post?

Quote:

---

"Love your enemy" and "Father, forgive them" are clear refutations of your belief of unbelievers condemned to hell. I don't know why you can't see that.

---

As regards your first text, have you considered this in Romans? "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' "

The second one is simply Jesus forgiving those who crucified Him. It is certainly not some far-reaching forgiveness of all humanity.

So you still have the enormous problem of having absolutely no place in the New Testament where the Bible says there is no hell and no judgment. But perhaps I have misunderstood you. Are you agreeing that there is a hell and there is a judgment?

Quote:

---

In the second great commandment, Jesus says "Love your neighbor". He does not say to love God which was the first commandment. Does that mean the second commandment disproves the first because loving God is not mentioned in the second?

---

No. Why do you ask?

Quote:

---

Be glad to. You said, and I quote, "The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal belief".

---

That's not true? If it's not, then you need something to justify your contention that the Mt. 25 passage was miscopied. There is certainly no textual evidence to that effect.

Did you see post 161?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I never said anything remotely like that. The more you post, the more disappointed I am with your thought process, and you started out here with such promise. Is this the only point you wish to make from that post?

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post #96 which was addressed to you right before you disappeared for a few days. Did you disappear to avoid replying to that post?

---

I'm still waiting for an answer, as are others', on how you deem which scriptures authentic, and which are believable, or by what standard you judge their merits, or their interpretation.

You have no answers other than "you are wrong," "scholars agree," etc...no proof, no method, no nothing, except what you believe. Then you have the audacity to demand responses to " why didn't you provide it here" after neglecting to provide any refutation to my thesis. You have never addressed any content of my arguments, you claim your authority is enough to dismiss well thought out claims supported by evidence.

First you say "He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum." Then you say "If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here."

"I never said anything remotely like that." Then what on earth are you saying? You have nothing to bring to any religious discussion except nonsense and strife and confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

I'm still waiting for an answer, as are others', on how you deem which scriptures authentic, and which are believable, or by what standard you judge their merits, or their interpretation.

You have no answers other than "you are wrong," "scholars agree," etc...no proof, no method, no nothing, except what you believe. Then you have the audacity to demand responses to " why didn't you provide it here" after neglecting to provide any refutation to my thesis. You have never addressed any content of my arguments, you claim your authority is enough to dismiss well thought out claims supported by evidence.

First you say "He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum." Then you say "If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here."

"I never said anything remotely like that." Then what on earth are you saying? You have nothing to bring to any religious discussion except nonsense and strife and confusion.

---

Sorry, Infojunkie, but this diatribe is nothing but a bunch of nonsense. My replies are well-thought out and clear. Some are offered as true, some are conjecture. That's the nature of discussion.

I must say that this post of yours is noted for its lack of response to ANYTHING being discussed here. It only reinforces my belief that you are unable to reply to the various points I've been making.

Your research comment, for example, neatly avoids the question I asked you. I thought we had gotten past the false ad hominem approach to debate, but I guess not.

Fine then, lets take a quick analsys of your words...since they are so clear and authoritative and have such good arguments...etc.etc.etc...

You do not address critiques, nor do you provide any evidences for your thoughts. You simply dismiss evidences. You make claim after claim and expect your authority on this to be suffecient. If you are not interested in actually having a meaningful discussion about these things, then what is your motive? You seem very arrogant, narcissistic, and have no basis for any of your claims. The closest thing there was to an actual rebuttal in this entire thread was Post # 97, directed at jlisenbe. This was a list with no rebuttals, simply "you're wrong" repeated several times. At the same time, you offered no valuable insight to those verses, as to what they actually mean, while thousands of years of christianity has taught excactly what jlisenbe contends.

"do you seriously believe anyone here (excepting the obvious) is going to buy your lengthy cut-and-paste-with-pictures as proof of a global flood?"

"that removed any possibility of real evidence in your study."

"This dated belief is rejected by every scientist on the planet"

"It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite"

"Look it up - it's all over the internet"

"answers are accessible via that great library we all have at out fingertips"

"There's nothing to take a look at."

"Take what I say by the content"


You regularly take one position, then another, then back again, regarding the same topic. You are a hypocrite, and thus a liar. You love to throw that one around, but you have no values or clear beliefs on any one subject. I assert again, that you believe what is convenient. You have no principals regarding morality nor interpertation of scripture. You believe every headline that "refutes" the bible as it is, and then what's left you butcher into compliance with your ideals. You are an empty idealogue.

"Take what I say by the content" [Yet the content of others is dismissive, and you contend I have to give you proof to be worthy of your discussion]

"The Bible in toto contradicts your belief re unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment." [You contend the bible was prone to error and mistranslation and was lost to the ages ect]

"Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief!" [You contend the bible in toto contradicts his belief]

"This requires thought beyond the surface meaning of the words" [You contend over and over that the "plain meaning" refutes various ideas]

"If you don't understand such basic exegesis, you really shouldn't be discussing the Bible from any point of view other than the surface meaning...the original Matthew was in Hebrew (lost)" [The surface meaning was lost, and now you have insight into its meaning]

"examining the Bible from a preconceived point of view. It's frowned upon by scholars. It is the main problem with evangelical/fundamentalist Biblical examination" [You contend that your preconceived point of view, through which you interpret the bible is, is not the problem] [You contend that your view is scholarly, and have cited only Augustus twice, while taking a badly misguided quote from a random internet page and assigning to Augustus' belief]

You claim some belief in the bible, or in a christian god, but you reject it wholesale. You contend over and over that there are errors, that the original was lost that you have the answers. What then is your religion? You do not believe in the God of the bible, you do not believe the scriptures regarding Him, you do not believe long standing christian beliefs. Claiming christanity as is what you say it is, is not christainity. It is Athosism. You are your own god, who dictates your own histories and moralities, and you pretend that you believe something that you did not create yourself. You are self deluded and, and again, narcisistic. You border on blasphemy, as described in the bible.



"the Bible reached its present form around the 4th century AD"

"It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated)."

"The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome. Very few preachers outside of the evangelical fundamentalists will take that verse as you take it."

"The issue is whether the received Matthew centuries later is the same as the autograph. The first century autograph is long gone. No one contends that we have the original"

"the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited"

"It was done more than once before being accepted as the canon in the 4th century"

"It is also accepted (without a doubt) that those original books are no longer available."

"would have been destroyed or incorporated into the later editions of the originals"

"Conjecture (pure or partial) is unavoidable when examining ancient documents."

"Not if the copies are in error."

"It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite"

"The allegory consists of those parts you say can be thrown out. The miracles and Adam, etc., etc."

"[Genesis] tells a story(s) in simple terms...like a child being told a bedtime story...Genesis is a story like that suited to grown-ups."

"Maybe God was dipping into the ambrosia or the nectar"

"The myth underwent extensive elaboration"

"...that "all-powerful" God is part of the allegory."

"a famous name was used as author to make the account more credible"

For the record, everything in quotes are the words of Athos.

If God is omniscient, why did He give Adam and Eve free will, knowing what would happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

Fine then, lets take a quick analsys of your words...since they are so clear and authoritative and have such good arguments...etc.etc.etc...

---

Whew, Infojunkie, take a breath. I didn't mean to upset you so much. I cut your long attack - others can easily see it if they want.

I note that you do the very thing you accuse me of - listing many of my points you disagree with but not giving a single solitary example of YOUR point of view.

We are still waiting for YOUR REPLIES to my points, not a screed of what a bad person I am. In a debate/discussion, the one who attacks the person of the other is always considered a loser. You fit that description well.

Note also that a person who initiates personal attacks (you) should not be surprised when the victim returns the favor. When you can't take what you dished out, you come across as a wuss.

My advice to you is stick to the discussion at hand - it will be more fruitful for all. You can begin with my question that is hanging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If God is omniscient, why did He give Adam and Eve free will, knowing what would happen?

---

The question of the ages!

The simple answer is love.

Love is not something that can exist without free will, it must be freely given. This is what it means that sin is darkness. It is a lack of love for God, but rather a love of self. If you are not offered the choice of not loving God (ie sin) then there is no way love can be. This is what it is to be made in God's image. "They have become like one of us, knowing good from evil." To be able to choose what one's destiny becomes, and to pursue that which you desire. When you desire only sin, you will not desire God. Our will is greater than that of the animals, insomuch as we can master our beastly instincts and be free from the bondage of sin, be free from those instincts that rule this broken world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Whew, Infojunkie, take a breath. I didn't mean to upset you so much. I cut your long attack - others can easily see it if they want.

I note that you do the very thing you accuse me of - listing many of my points you disagree with but not giving a single solitary example of YOUR point of view.

We are still waiting for YOUR REPLIES to my points, not a screed of what a bad person I am. In a debate/discussion, the one who attacks the person of the other is always considered a loser. You fit that description well.

Note also that a person who initiates personal attacks (you) should not be surprised when the victim returns the favor. When you can't take what you dished out, you come across as a wuss.

My advice to you is stick to the discussion at hand - it will be more fruitful for all. You can begin with my question that is hanging.

---

More empty criticism. Having a response is not the same as responding. When you learn this, you will be unstoppable, you are quite intelligent and quick to wit. Take a look at the way you respond to everyone who disagrees with you, you are not interested in truth, you are interested in being right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

More empty criticism. Having a response is not the same as responding. When you learn this, you will be unstoppable, you are quite intelligent and quick to wit. Take a look at the way you respond to everyone who disagrees with you, you are not interested in truth, you are interested in being right.

---

Were you gazing in a mirror when you wrote this? To repeat myself, it is better to stick to the discussion than to scream at another out of frustration with yourself because you can't (or won't) reply to what has been asked of you.

When you continue to screech, you keep losing whatever credibility you may have arrived here with. All this vitriol brings me to ask you - what is your age?

Your behavior indicates a young man - maybe a teenager, but probably older. Your reckless passion is on display, but not your maturity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Were you gazing in a mirror when you wrote this? To repeat myself, it is better to stick to the discussion than to scream at another out of frustration with yourself because you can't (or won't) reply to what has been asked of you.

When you continue to screech, you keep losing whatever credibility you may have arrived here with. All this vitriol brings me to ask you - what is your age?

Your behavior indicates a young man - maybe a teenager, but probably older. Your reckless passion is on display, but not your maturity.

---

I will never lose my passion. I repeat myself, you bring nothing to this discussion by saying the empty and baseless things you say. You readily attack everyone, you explain nothing, you have no sources. You desperately deny what Christianity is, so you can claim your Athosism is truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

I will never lose my passion. I repeat myself, you bring nothing to this discussion by saying the empty and baseless things you say. You readily attack everyone, you explain nothing, you have no sources. You desperately deny what Christianity is, so you can claim your Athosism is truth.

---

This is not an improvement, infojunkie. You are just repeating what you already said. Not a good mark.

Why not do this as a start - go to post 96 in this thread and answer the last question in that post. It's asked seriously. Then try post #94 just before 96. It has several points that you have yet to do me the courtesy of answering.

Lacking that, pick any single issue where I did what you claim I did. Be sure to include ALL the content involved, and we shall see what we shall see. I doubt you will do this because then you would have to put up or shut up as the saying goes. I hope I'm wrong.

That's how it works, junkie. You ask, the other replies, you reply, and ask etc etc etc., keeping the insults to a minimum.

Your trouble here has been created totally by you. Soon after arrival, you broke the civility between us by calling me a name. When I naturally responded in kind, you later went off on a toot refusing to continue any meaningful dialogue by a back-and-forth civil discussion. Instead you spewed your vitriol post after post until you've become basically unreadable. You have only yourself to blame.

If you want fresh start, I will grant you that. Beware, I offer no civility. You speak as you wish, so do I. If you don't want to trade tit for tat, keep the accusations to a minimum. I am determined to find common ground with you, or relentlessly pursue your thoughts on AMHD with long diatribes about your character, with citations.

Please keep it simple and easy for readers to understand and follow. Enumerate (1, 2, 3) or use paragraphs prefaced by the name of the person who said it (Athos: xxxxx). Simple. Easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I'm still wondering how reptiles can speak. Did your creationists have any research on that?

---

I have no idea how reptiles can speak. I believe in God, where all things are possible. I would not be confounded if a reptile, being possessed, gained the ability to speak.

That being said, I do not believe this is true. You call me a literalist, but I am only literal where it is quite obvious to me that that is the intention. I have never thought much of this in the sense of literalism, I have thought that this story was true, but not in the way many imagine.

Given some consideration, I think serpent simply means Satan. It is very obvious that it is referring to the devil, but, specifically a cherubim called Satan (One in the same to me), not a possessed snake.

In Revelation, the devil is described as a serpent and a dragon. I believe this to be more a title of character, than a physical description. This figure of speech stands with us today, and is a perfect description for one who is slimy and scheming. It is also interesting that this creature is "cursed above all cattle". Why would this even be in here? What comparison could Satan have with cattle? If we look in Ezekiel and Revelation, we find that Satan is one of the order of angels called cherubim, specifically, one who covers God, (kind of like on the mercy seat); the cherubim have 4 faces, one of which resembles an ox or a calf. It is also pretty clear to me, that in Revelation, the devil is left defenseless and defeated; that he is on his belly, one might say.

To be clear, I do believe, (literally) that Eve was deceived by a (figurative) serpent.

People who question talking reptiles would, I suppose, be completely amazed about a man being raised from the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

People who question talking reptiles would, I suppose, be completely amazed about a man being raised from the dead.

---

Does this mean you believe in talking reptiles?

Does this mean you doubt Jesus was raised from the dead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

If you want fresh start, I will grant you that. Beware, I offer no civility. You speak as you wish, so do I. If you don't want to trade tit for tat, keep the accusations to a minimum. I am determined to find common ground with you, or relentlessly pursue your thoughts on AMHD with long diatribes about your character, with citations.

---

I don't make deals with the likes of you.

When you decide to reply to (now) three of my comments unanswered by you, instead of disappearing because you have no reply, I will consider what you have to say. That goes for the future also, but not in your childish and insulting manner, rather in a civil manner.

Threatening to "pursue my thoughts with long diatribes about my character" is the classic definition of the logical fallacy ad hominem. This is how children argue with each other, and that's why I pegged you as a teenager or a youngster. An adult should not declare his faults as part of his "mission statement".

Keep in mind that the beginning of the nastiness was initiated by you - to which I replied in kind. If it gets too hot for you, stay out of the kitchen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Does this mean you doubt Jesus was raised from the dead?

---

I take it you have no answer for my question. It was rhetorical, no answer expected.

Quote:

---

Threatening to "pursue my thoughts with long diatribes about my character" is the classic definition of the logical fallacy ad hominem.

---

Which is exactly what you did by saying, "I don't make deals with the likes of you."

We could all do with a little settling down and more civility.

Quote:

---

I take it you have no answer for my question. It was rhetorical, no answer expected.

---

I likewise take it you have no answer for my question. Mine, however, was far from rhetorical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

I have no idea how reptiles can speak.

---

Really? You have no idea? Why is that? Don't we all learn very early in life that animals don't talk?

Quote:

---

I believe in God, where all things are possible. I would not be confounded if a reptile, being possessed, gained the ability to speak.

---

Yes, most people believe in God and often use that cliche "With God, all things are possible". But it was not to be used in the context of reptiles being possessed - obviously. I'm sure you've heard "Can God make a square circle?" Another cliche, not offered seriously, but containing a grain of truth.

Quote:

---

That being said, I do not believe this is true.

---

But below you wrote that the story is both true (literal)and not literally true (figurative).

Quote:

---

You call me a literalist, but I am only literal where it is quite obvious to me that that is the intention.

---

Fair enough. That is the right way - although there may be disagreement on exactly what is intended to be literal.

Quote:

---

I have thought that this story was true

---

I think the story has moral or allegorical truth - not literal/historical truth. So we may agree on that.

Quote:

---

...not in the way many imagine.

---

If you care to explain, I'd be interested in how you imagine the story.

Quote:

---

Given some consideration, I think serpent simply means Satan. It is very obvious that it is referring to the devil, but, specifically a cherubim called Satan (One in the same to me), not a possessed snake.

---

Without putting words in your mouth, are you saying that the story is actually (literally) true except for how the serpent is portrayed? I'm confused. Satan is the serpent but not in the guise of serpent-hood? Or are you saying the Hebrew word for Satan has been mistranslated to serpent?

Quote:

---

In Revelation, the devil is described as a serpent and a dragon. I believe this to be more a title of character, than a physical description. This figure of speech stands with us today, and is a perfect description for one who is slimy and scheming. It is also interesting that this creature is "cursed above all cattle". Why would this even be in here? What comparison could Satan have with cattle? If we look in Ezekiel and Revelation, we find that Satan is one of the order of angels called cherubim, specifically, one who covers God, (kind of like on the mercy seat); the cherubim have 4 faces, one of which resembles an ox or a calf. It is also pretty clear to me, that in Revelation, the devil is left defenseless and defeated; that he is on his belly, one might say.

---

How does this relate to the Genesis story? You went from dragon to cattle to cherubim to comment on Satan as a serpent. This all seems very literal to me. But you can explain further if you want to.

Quote:

---

To be clear, I do believe, (literally) that Eve was deceived by a (figurative) serpent.

---

Then what (literally) was Eve deceived by if the serpent is figurative? What did Eve see? What did she talk to? If not a serpent, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Which is exactly what you did by saying, "I don't make deals with the likes of you."

---

Look up the meaning of "long diatribe" and get back to me.

Quote:

---

I likewise take it you have no answer for my question. Mine, however, was far from rhetorical.

---

Tell my why you want to inquire into my religious beliefs. If you have a legitimate reason, I'll answer you.

Look up the meaning of, "with the likes of you," and get back with me.

Tell me why you want to inquire into my religious beliefs. If you have a legit reason, I'll answer you.

Good night guys. See ya tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Look up the meaning of, "with the likes of you," and get back with me.

---

The meaning of "the likes of you" is simple. It means I don't think much of infojunkie based on his posts. I replied to a threat he made.

Quote:

---

Tell me why you want to inquire into my religious beliefs. If you have a legit reason, I'll answer you.

---

I suppose you have a point writing the same thing I wrote, but I have no idea what your point is.

Athos, in all sincerity, you continue this blame game and you continue to attack others.

This is not civil. For all the bellyaching you do, you have yet to treat anyone like a human being, then you whine when someone attacks you.

My long diatribe about you (and others I have made in the past) are objective analysis of your character. If you like you can refute them, but your language and attitude is not at all "civil" or "mature."

You seem to think that you can say whatever you want, but when other people do the same, they are childish and immature and whatever else you want to call it.

Do I need to make another long list of all the insults and lies and mischaracterizations you have used to prove this to you and everyone else here?

I have no hope you will improve, as a matter of fact, I bet you will quote this, then go on attacking without even considering what I have said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Really? You have no idea? Why is that? Don't we all learn very early in life that animals don't talk?

---

Really, yes. I believe in the "impossible", because, my God makes the impossible possible. "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not."

Secondly, early in life I learn many things, that in reality are far more complex. For instance animals indeed do talk. Parrots talk, I've heard things out of the mouths of dogs that sound very much like words, apes can learn sign language, and there is a whole area of study in ecology regarding animal communication. What I learned as a child was incomplete and did not fully explain what is indeed reality, and as a child before God, I learn of mighty things which I had not known.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Yes, most people believe in God and often use that cliche "With God, all things are possible". But it was not to be used in the context of reptiles being possessed - obviously. I'm sure you've heard "Can God make a square circle?" Another cliche, not offered seriously, but containing a grain of truth.

---

It is not obvious that the context in question is not applicable. If God created a universe with a supernatural element, where there are creatures more powerful and of a different flesh and spirit than I, then in God this is possible.

I saw that you weren't serious, but some thoughts on this. When you talk about as "square circle," you are talking nonsense. There no limits to God's power, creating a logically impossible scenario, then declaring that this is the limit of God's power is not accurate. Let me explain further...If God made a square circle, then it would be logically possible and circles would be able to be squared, and you would have no knowledge of the difference. You would instead find some other logical impossibility to use as an example instead. What is really in question, is whether God can create something that is logically inconsistent with the nature of this universe, and He can, but it would then be outside of the context of this universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

But below you wrote that the story is both true (literal)and not literally true (figurative).

---

When I said "I do not believe this", I was referring to the idea of a "literal snake" being the subject of this story. I believe the story is literally true and also uses a figure of speech to describe the character of the being that is not clearly described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

If you care to explain, I'd be interested in how you imagine the story.

---

I imagine it as more than words and pictures, it is hard to explain. I imagine Adam meeting all the animals, discovering the world, and then this new beast enters the garden. I imagine that Adam and Eve were very young (though not in appearance). I think that the beast befriended Eve, and talked nicely to her. I imagine that of his 4 faces, one being that of a man, intrigued her and confounded Adam. I imagine that the beast had intimate knowledge of God. These are just imaginations though, it is not so explicitly stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Without putting words in your mouth, are you saying that the story is actually (literally) true except for how the serpent is portrayed? I'm confused. Satan is the serpent but not in the guise of serpent-hood? Or are you saying the Hebrew word for Satan has been mistranslated to serpent?

---

You misunderstand me. I believe the story is literally true, and a figure of speech was used to describe Satan. If you look in the dictionary, you will still find that a snake is a "type" regarding character and motive, "a worthless and treacherous fellow". This is true across many languages.

It is my understanding that the devil can take on many forms. If that form was a "snake" it would not surprise me. The fact that he could take many forms makes visual descriptions quite lacking. I just don't think that is what is happening here. There are other clues in the passage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

How does this relate to the Genesis story? You went from dragon to cattle to cherubim to comment on Satan as a serpent. This all seems very literal to me. But you can explain further if you want to.

Then what (literally) was Eve deceived by if the serpent is figurative? What did Eve see? What did she talk to? If not a serpent, what?

---

I think Eve saw a cherubim with all its glory and splendor, the name of which is Lucifer. As described by Ezekiel, they have 4 faces(Eagle, Human, Oxen, and Lion), the figure of a man and the hands of a man, full of eyes, 4 wings (2 extended upward and 2 that can cover their bodies), and the feet of calves. They are glowing bright like the coals of a fire, and move like lightening.

When you look at the story in Genesis, the devil is described as a serpent (his character), being cursed above all cattle and beasts of the field (his appearance), who will go on its belly, etc. (his fate). This is not hard to imagine when you understand that the devil is described in later books as the "cherub that covers" and when you look at a what a cherub is, you find it has the face of an ox with horns. I think the curse, upon the serpent, is describing Revelation. It is how God will deal with the devil: he will be on his belly (vulnerable) and eat dust (always 2 steps behind). I think God was telling Satan that he will never win, and that deadly blow awaits him (bruise his head).

When the bible is describing things of supernatural appearance, you have to expect that natural language is lacking, and that there must be some figures of speech used. I don't think that brass or copper feet as refined in an oven in Revelation actually refers to the composition of Jesus' feet, but rather their appearance (color?) or more likely their purpose in stomping out wickedness and making ashes of them like how Malachi describes that day.

My point in repeating your posts is to point out your love of asking questions while avoiding, in my view, answering them.

I am happy to answer your question. I take it that a serpent spoke. Later it becomes clear that either the devil was speaking through the serpent in order, I imagine, to conceal his identity, or the serpent is simply symbolic of the devil. Take your pick. I don’t see it as a critical point.

The question of the resurrection, however, is absolutely critical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Later it becomes clear that either the devil was speaking through the serpent in order, I imagine, to conceal his identity, or the serpent is simply symbolic of the devil. Take your pick. I don’t see it as a critical point.

---

I agree here, not a critical point. I lean towards the symbolic, only because of the contentions I made prior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The question of the resurrection, however, is absolutely critical.

---

That is the TRUTH.

Without a resurrection, you have no Christianity. If you deny the resurrection, you deny the deity of Christ, you deny the purpose of the life of Christ, etc...

You cannot be a Christian, and deny the miraculous nature of the divine.

Well said, Info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

Athos, in all sincerity, you continue this blame game and you continue to attack others.

This is not civil. For all the bellyaching you do, you have yet to treat anyone like a human being, then you whine when someone attacks you.

My long diatribe about you (and others I have made in the past) are objective analysis of your character. If you like you can refute them, but your language and attitude is not at all "civil" or "mature."

You seem to think that you can say whatever you want, but when other people do the same, they are childish and immature and whatever else you want to call it.

Do I need to make another long list of all the insults and lies and mischaracterizations you have used to prove this to you and everyone else here?

I have no hope you will improve, as a matter of fact, I bet you will quote this, then go on attacking without even considering what I have said.

---

You're beating a dead horse, junkie. Time for you to get off that horse and participate like an adult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

Secondly, early in life I learn many things, that in reality are far more complex. For instance animals indeed do talk. Parrots talk, I've heard things out of the mouths of dogs that sound very much like words, apes can learn sign language, and there is a whole area of study in ecology regarding animal communication.

---

Animal communication - parrots parroting human speech, dogs communicating by barking, and apes using sign language - these are examples of what is far more complex in reality?

Quote:

---

When you talk about as "square circle," you are talking nonsense.

---

"talking nonsense?" I see that the insults begin with you, as they always have. You seem to have two standards - one for yourself and one for everybody else.

Quote:

---

Let me explain further. If God made a square circle then it would be logically possible and circles would be able to be squared, and you would have no knowledge of the difference. You would instead find some other logical impossibility to use as an example instead. What is really in question, is whether God can create something that is logically inconsistent with the nature of this universe, and He can, but it would then be outside of the context of this universe.

---

(Where is Anselm when we need him?) You are offering logic, so I will answer from the same discipline. You start with a conclusion (a no-no) that is logically impossible to verify and, even worse, you are putting that conclusion as a premise to
arrive at your conclusion. Circles within circles. Let me put it another way. You are trying to prove God can make a square circle, and your proof is "God can make a square circle". Best to leave logic out of the discussion.

Quote:

---

When I said "I do not believe this", I was referring to the idea of a "literal snake" being the subject of this story. I believe the story is literally true and also uses a figure of speech to describe the character of the being that is not clearly described.

---

So it wasn't a snake, but something else?

Quote:

---

I imagine ...... I think that the beast befriended Eve, and talked nicely to her. I imagine that of his 4 faces, one being that of a man, intrigued her and confounded Adam. I imagine that the beast had intimate knowledge of God. These are just imaginations though, it is not so explicitly stated.

---

So the beast was actually a 4-faced man although that was not explicitly stated?

Quote:

---

You misunderstand me. I believe the story is literally true, and a figure of speech was used to describe Satan.

---

Ok, so it wasn't really a snake in the garden, it was Satan disguised as a 4-faced human.

Quote:

---

It is my understanding that the devil can take on many forms. If that form was a "snake" it would not surprise me.

---

But you just wrote that the snake was a figure of speech.

Quote:

---

The fact that he could take many forms makes visual descriptions quite lacking. I just don't think that is what is happening here. There are other clues in the passage.

---

Why are visual descriptions quite lacking? Does he take more than one form at the same time? Ok, you don't think that's the thing, so there are other clues in the passage. Good. I'm following along.

Quote:

---

I think Eve saw a cherubim with all its glory and splendor, the name of which is Lucifer.

---

Ok, so it wasn't Satan after all, it was a cherubim named Lucifer. Later on, you defined a cherub as follows: "when you look at a what a cherub is, you find it has the face of an ox with horns."

Up to now, the snake wasn't really a snake, it was Satan disguised as a 4-faced human. But now, the snake is really a cherub named Lucifer which has the face of an ox with horns.

Quote:

---

When you look at the story in Genesis, the devil is described as a serpent

---

Yes, so that part of the story is not literal - I get that. And the serpent is really the devil (Satan?) appearing either as a 4-faced human or as a cherub named Lucifer who appears as an ox with horns.

Quote:

---

This is not hard to imagine when you understand that the devil is described in later books as the "cherub that covers" and when you look at a what a cherub is, you find it has the face of an ox with horns.

When the bible is describing things of supernatural appearance, you have to expect that natural language is lacking, and that there must be some figures of speech used.

---

Thank you for answering my question about a talking reptile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I am happy to answer your question. I take it that a serpent spoke. Later it becomes clear that either the devil was speaking through the serpent in order, I imagine, to conceal his identity, or the serpent is simply symbolic of the devil. Take your pick. I don’t see it as a critical point.

---

If you don't see a talking reptile as a critical point re the literal-ness of the story, it's difficult to know what to say to you. Even worse, you say you believe a serpent spoke! Your comment supports my contention about your belief in hell. You believe in the wildest figurative sections of the Bible.

Quote:

---

The question of the resurrection, however, is absolutely critical.

---

You didn't reply to my comment asking you why you are inquiring into my religious belief. As I said, if you have a legitimate reason, I'll answer you.

Quote:

---

If you don't see a talking reptile as a critical point re the literal-ness of the story, it's difficult to know what to say to you.

---

It is simply not critical to the story.

In not answering my question, you have verified what I said. "My point in repeating your posts is to point out your love of asking questions while avoiding, in my view, answering them." I mean for goodness sake you act like someone is asking you for a critical confidential secret of some sort, or that you are some sort of privileged prima donna who is above the rest of us and need not answer questions.

Give you a legit reason? I've got a better idea. Open up the secret world of Athos a bit and answer the most important question in the world. Do you believe in the resurrection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It is simply not critical to the story.

---

Critical or not, the fact remains that you believe in a talking reptile. That speaks volumes about you.

Quote:

---

In not answering my question, you have verified what I said. "My point in repeating your posts is to point out your love of asking questions while avoiding, in my view, answering them." I mean for goodness sake you act like someone is asking you for a critical state confidential secret of some sort, or that you are some sort of privileged prima donna who is above the rest of us.

---

You still haven't said why you are inquiring.

Quote:

---

Give you a legit reason? I've got a better idea.

---

That's not a better idea.

Quote:

---

Do you believe in the resurrection?

---

Why?

Mr. Secretive. Why answer? Because we are discussing the Christian faith, and your belief or non belief can show certain prejudices. At any rate, your refusal to answer says volumes about you.