[Athos]

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?

[jlisenbe]

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

[Athos]

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.

[Athos]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

[Athos]

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

...not in the way many imagine.

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

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?

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.

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?

[Athos]

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

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.

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.

[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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[InfoJunkie4Life]

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

Well said, Info.

[Athos]

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.

[Athos]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Athos]

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.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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?

[Athos]

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.

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.

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

That's not a better idea.

Do you believe in the resurrection?

Why?

[jlisenbe]

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.