You are so lost, little kid. AND YES you are a little kid... stupid in your ways and ignorant of your traditions to make such a pale and uneducated assumption that would under-mind the true God ...not the God of the old testament; but THEE GOD, the Father and Jesus Christ. Truly you must be one of the Sons of Satan to be so deceived and full of tares. Reap thee first and spare us your poisons, lost child. Your ego shall be the end of you and your pride shall fuel your eternal flames.
In John 8:44, Jesus told the false religiousness, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. if he is the liar of it,he was the serpent in the garden. the first lie was the serpents to eve. I follow Yashua,not you,sorry.
@mystic81006 I've read quite a bit, being a scripture study student...getting a masters in it and all. Did you miss the part where I discuss scripture in this video?
@aposticism Getting a masters in it? really? Guess what? I can care less who said what you know,you don't know crap,ANYTHING,WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR MASTERS? DUMB ARE US? Are you saying that your masters tells you Yashua lied?? explain?? so I can tear you up.
@mystic81006 What are you basing your "knowledge" off of? Scripture at face value?
Did I say he lied? No...I said he couldn't get his story straight because scripture is full of contradictions. And where I'm earning my masters degree is none of your business. Besides, I'm sure you would claim it's not a real (enter your specific religious denomination here) school because you disagree with it.
u just don't get it..there are false gods then there"s God. any comparison between the 2 is comical. For what did Lucifer say..I shall ascend to the congregation of the north and become God..God created all the angels both fallen and not fallen. No sense arguing..time is shorter than you realize. Look around you seem to know the Bible check out the world stage,take the blinders off! It's the end times guy!
How do you spell the snake's name ? I'm writing a story about him and may steal that !
ps; I think in Islam he was a dragon in the garden of eden and taking his wings and limbs away was his punishment. Of course, that's centuries later. but you know.
Did the dragon version of Satan always have seven heads ashe does in Revelation ?
@Al1981X If you check out 43alley 's video on Satan (he just put it up a day or two ago) he goes through a pretty thorough explanation of the snake/dragon and Satan.
As far as I know, the dragon with seven heads only appears in Revelation. I could be mistaken, but I don't know of any mention of a seven headed serpent/dragon until Revelation.
First, the meaning of Satan has changed. In Hebrew culture, Satan was just a word used to describe a tempter, not necessarily lucifer. For example Job, any respectable study of Job would realize that the Satan isn't actually Lucifer. Also, I'm really surprised you didnt mention anything about the apple and john milton. In actuality, I think that is actually the source of where becomes the serpent becomes Lucifer. (although milton does call lucifer: satan)
I think it is really interesting how Christian culture has been influenced by literature of people who did not hold such "Christian" ideals, including, but not limited to Dante, Milton, and virtually any enlightenment thinker to have ever been heard.
Wasn't Milton's Paradise Lost a large part of why people see Satan as the serpent? I'm not saying he came up with the link, but I believe it was his poem that popularized it.
Nice job. One quibble, there's a big difference between immortality being a reward and a gift. You stated it both ways, an easy enough slip to make, especially since you'll find both views in various strands of Christianity. Of course, that it is a gift is the correct view (I'm channeling my Catholic upbringing). I always enjoyed your other channel, but this is great being able to follow you through your theological education. Keep up the great work.
You are really citing VenomfangX as a source of reasoning?
And you are assuming you know what the Greeks thought. You are assuming the the Garden of Eden existed (no evidence whatsoever).
Pls stop basing any conversation of obvious fictions. The Bible is fiction, written by people who had no notions of modern logic or science. Satan is a fiction. Earth is the beneficiary of trial and error. Get over it.
@drfoxcourt If you actually watched the video, and read the description, you'd see that everything you said is false. I'm a biblical studies student. I study the bible from a historical context. No I don't think VFX is a source of reason, I'd just said he mentioned that the serpent is Satan in a video, which is what I was arguing against. Judging by this and the other comment you left, you're not here to discuss but to fight. How's that going for you?
Dude you're a tard. If you're going to attack someone's views at least make sure you're aware of what they are. You just told an atheist he's retarded on the basis that he believes in a specific God and said God's relevant mythologies.
Everyone Is an expert about God except for The Apostle Prophet God sends. First The Apostle: Paul was Taught by The Spirit Not by People & He said Eve was beguiled by satan. snakes used to have legs & God took them way, nonsense, It do Not If You had The Foundation only given to Apostle Prophet then You would Know Everything God does makes Perfect Sense. for now on you will go on your belly eating dust of ground all days of your life , blow Your doors off, eat Your lunch, do You Understand?
@ortafunk The Apostle: Paul did say serpent but I still think It makes No sense God would remove legs from snakes Not all snakes crawl on the ground some live In Trees some live In the Water. It make more sense God was telling satan you can fight but you will see yourself losing.
I may be wrong here, but I believe you might want to peruse the original text. I'm not talking about Genesis, I mean the original Sumerian source of the tale, the fragments of which have been translated into English. You will find it an interesting read and it may clear up a plethora of identity confusions (such as which god the snake really represents).
There's evidence in the Bible that the ancient Hebrews engaged in serpent worship. It's mentioned rather matter-of-factly during the description of the reforms by King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18, which links a serpent named Nehushtan to that raised by Moses in the wilderness in Numbers 21.
@aposticism (Pt. 1) The serpent (or snake) was created by God like the other animals that God created. It could be that Satan indwelled the serpent. Or that the Devil isn't totally evil like qabbalists teach & therefore acts by God's leave. --It is wrong to conclude that Christians started the interpretation of the serpent being the devil. As u mentioned, the Song of Solomon interprets the Genesis story in type (i.e. the serpent being Satan).
@aposticism (Pt. 2) The Aramaic speaking Jews of Urhai, Assyria that came out of captivity considered the longer version of the Old Testament as Scripture. They translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic which is known as the Peshitta OT (w/ some additional books originally written in Aramaic). It could be stated that the Jews first interpreted the Serpent as being Satan. Though I know modern Jews try to say the same thing you are saying or try to say that the serpent is a type for "error."
@Henok30 The Jews did NOT interpret the serpent as Satan. Satan is a Christian invention. There are mentions of THE satan, or the adversary, in the Old Testament, but Satan, as in Lucifer, was a Christian invention that developed over several centuries. Again, if you check out 43alley 's video, he explains it pretty well.
I've always wondered about this fundamental contradiction -- that lacking the knowledge of good and evil, man would be incapable of moral choice -- and yet isn't that really what theists are talking about when they talk about "free will" -- the ability to make "moral choices" -- not simply to choose between different flavors of ice cream. We don't think of a one-year old as a being that has free will in any conventional sense.
(cont'd) (2) So how do they reconcile the idea that this "free will" - the capacity to make moral judgement is on the one hand supposed to have been this great gift from God - the whole rationale for the existence of human evil.
And yet it clearly wasn't a gift. In Judaeo-Christian theological terms, whether one takes the Garden to be literal or figurative, the knowledge of good and evil (and thus the capacity to make moral judgements) was not a gift. It was stolen and we were punished for it.
...then god creates adam and eve ...then god wanders off....and along comes the fallen cherub who guards eden [satan/serpent]
What is confusing eden is a place on earth in the story.....thus how can god put a fallen angel/satan/serpent..in charge of eden....its just a massive accident waiting to happen....though god wanders of like a bad parent ..then comes back and says what did you do eve????? lol like god didnt know before hand
Theres a verse in Ezekiel .....thats reads ..you were in eden..you were ordained to guard it [guardian cherub]...but you fell ..some say its refers to the king of tyre.....
But who else is in eden.....satan/serpent...god ..adam and eve...and the other animals
I think the guardian cherub was satan in the fictional story....but as confusing as the man made book is...satan fell from heaven to earth [thus sin was already in the world, before adam and eve was created]......(cont)
It's funny. As important as he is to Christianity the devil/Satan doesn't appear in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First & Second Samuel, First & Second Kings, First & Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah or Esther. It's not until Job 1:6 when we first meet the devil who makes a bet with God and God takes him up on it to Job's misfortune. What a couple of assholes!
And if you think "die" just means "forfeit eternal life" - think again...
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
@apeek7 Exactly! And that's not all! The serpent also told them the REAL reason God didn't want them to eat,"For God doth know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5). Later, God finally comes clean, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen 3:22). They didn't die and He didn't give His real reason. God lied twice!
I realized something while you were speaking. Though it is a bit un-related. If God created the heavens and the Earth, and their contents, then that means he created the angels. If he created the angels, then he created Lucifer. If God is omniscient, then when doing this he already knew everything that would happen before he created the angels, including Lucifer. So God knowingly brought about evil. Christianity doesn't add up whatsoever.
@McTaggStar A good point, and one that I believe is acknowledged by Calvinism. That is (grossly oversimplified) that while God did indeed create evil, he is all-powerful so therefore that is just the way it is. We as puny humans are not qualified to define good or evil, only to respect or disrespect absolute power. It is, imo, a horrible concept but at least somewhat internally consistent and bypasses the whole 'problem of evil'.
@LithodidMan: Later on I realized that I had thought of this before, actually. It was in high school, and I had asked my religion teacher if this could be explained away. She told me we'd discuss it after class and that I was too logical for my own good. Long story short, she had no explanation or way to resolve the problem. Yet, she had an honours degree in theology. At least the Calvins offered a way to resolve this problem, albeit a nasty one!
I'm trying to figure out exactly how this is a problem for Christianity like you are suggesting. I'm sorry, but any Catholic "theologian" that says someone is "too logical for their own good" is clearly not attempting to synthesize faith and reason - which is the foundation of Catholic theology seen in St. Thomas Aquinas. I'm not trying to put your professor down, but I've known many theology students with a surface understanding in such matters. Theology is a broad subject.
@insidetrip101: It was in high school, she was certainly not a professor, she just had a BA in Catholic Theology. It is a major problem for Christianity. If God created the heavens and the Earth then it follows that God created Lucifer as well. Since God is omniscient, when he created Lucifer he already knew that Lucifer would become jealous of him, and would end up becoming Satan. God would also have already known that people would sin, knowing everything they would do. Yet, God could still
@insidetrip101: condemn one to Hell for doing something he knew they would inevitably do from the outset, and decided to create them anyway? So we've reached the conclusion that God creates certain people, already knowing everything they will do and that they will be damned for it, and creates them anyway. So God creates some people simply to be damned, practically speaking. It just does not add up one bit, it's preposterous.
But again, you're presupposing a platonic dualism that influences the way you understand omnipotence. God only need know the future if the future is logically knowable (although I think many calvinists agree that God can preform logical impossibilities). If the future does not exist, it can't be known. Unless the future exists in actuality (like in dualism) there is no inconsistency between the future's inability to be known and omnipotence. You can't "know" the hole of a donut.
I'm not saying there aren't problems with what you are suggesting, but most of the problems arise out of a surface understanding of Christianity, coupled with nonchristian presuppositions. This doesn't mean that most Christians don't have these presuppositions (this video does a good job in pointing out how many believe that the serpent is Lucifer). All I'm saying is that you can't take pieces of one philosopic framework, add it to another, and then expect it to mesh.
@insidetrip101: You're using omnipotence where you should be using omniscience. And in Catholic theology God is taken to be transcendental, thus outside space, and therefore outside time. God is not taken to be like a human being that has to wait for the future to arrive to know what will happen. There is no temporal asymmetry for God, because God is taken to be atemporal. And in any case, omnipotence means being able to do all things. If God can satisfy all predicates, and doing logically
@McTaggStar "You're using omnipotence where you should be using omniscience."
My mistake, sometimes I slip up my words.
"God is taken to be atemporal."
Depends on what you mean by this. I'm not saying God isn't eternal, but if you have a hylomorphic understanding of matter/form, (and not a neoplatonic/absolute relationship of matter/form) then you see matter as a limitation of form, rather than a necessary mode of existence (as in neoplatonism).
"in any case, omnipotence means being able to do all things."
Does it include the logically impossible? Calvinists would say so, but I don't think most who understand the relativity between matter and form would agree. Further, if we were to just examine the truth/falsity of a logical impossibility it would necessarily be false. (P and not P can never be true). If we look at time we can easily see a logical impossibility...
The argument is pretty simple. God knows everything in actuality and potentiality. The future exists only in potentiality as potentiality is defined exactly as that which is possible in the future. Therefore God knows all possible futures, but no actual future because there is no actual future.
"God can do what would be impossible for us"
This only stands if you have an absolute relationship of matter and form. You're forgetting all your presuppositions that could be wrong.
@insidetrip101: And you're still making the mistake of thinking the future only exists potentially, relative to God. Relative to an atemporal being, it's meaningless to talk about past, present and future. And this discussion is really turning into a bunch of semantical bs. Let's not make excuses for "God", alright? If the big fella is omniscient and omnipotent, then he's got to be pretty damned stupid as well, cause he's fucked up quite a bit. But really, I see absolutely not reason to
@insidetrip101: I achieved the equivalent of a degree in philosophy before I went into science, so I need no welcome. It's quite plain and simple. It follows willy-nilly that any being that is omnipotent can do anything. If you say there is an act x such that A cannot do x, but A is omnipotent, you've uttered a contradiction. The statement "All omnipotent beings can do anything" is a simple analytic truth. It doesn't matter that there are no omnipotent beings; the statement can be rephrased
@insidetrip101: to as "For every x, if x is omnipotent, then for every y, x can do y". If the antecedent is false, the conditional is still true. So since it is a logical truth that any being that is omnipotent can do any thing y, then "god" would have known the consequences of its own acts of creation and its own doings. If this god went ahead and did them anyway, only to make humans suffer for what is ultimately the result of his own doings, it isn't a god I could ever have faith in.
You forget that everything is contextual. "Everyman who does not shave himself is shaved by the barber". I think it is then fair to ask the question "who shaves the barber", to which we see a paradox because he must necessarily shave himself and at the same time be the barber who shaves him. If he is not the barber, he shaves like everyone. If he is the barber, he shaves others as himself.
Omniscience and omnipotence can have their contexts too. That doesn't make them invalid.
@insidetrip101: impossible things is not one of the things God can do, then there is at least one predicate P that God cannot satisfy, namely Lx: x can do something logically impossible. If God cannot satisfy that predicate, God cannot do all things. If God cannot do all things, then God is not omnipotent. And you can't limit all things to all and only the things that are considered possible by our standards - that would not be omnipotence.
@insidetrip101: Therefore, even if God was inside space and time, then if God is omnipotent God can do what would be impossible for us, namely knowing the future. Therefore, my argument still stands.
@LithodidMan: Oh, and this was a Catholic school, and she knew the catechism and the Bible inside and out. Apparently an organization as big as the Catholic Church with all its political and theological sophistication can't think of a good way around this obviously problem.
The problem of evil is only a problem if you have dualist presuppositions like that of Heidegger. If evil is just simply when good is absent, then evil is never created. It would be like making a donut and then complaining that there is a hole in the middle and it is evil. Of course, this reasoning doesn't solve every problem, but you won't find any theological/philosophical/scientific framework that doesn't have room for dispute.
As a naturist, I am not sure I can agree with you saying clothing is a sign of civilization. Civilization takes many forms and does not necessarily mean covering the body up. Otherwise a very informative video. Thank you for sharing. :)
@ThomasTrue I too am skeptical. I thought that in Genesis, they clothed themselves because they were ashamed. Is shame a purely human emotion? Being naked is nothing to be ashamed of and the shame of disobeying God cannot be covered with clothes. I would think that God would have told them back in the garden instead of killing a lamb, but Noooooooooooooo.
@ThomasTrue: Yeah, civilization properly defined should imply society. Any animal smart enough and with the necessary manual dexterity can procure clothing for itself for its use without civilization.
I think you are missing the point. The clothing being a sign of civilization doesn't mean that all civilizations have clothes, or clothing is a necessary condition for civilization. A sign is always an arbitrary indicator for meaning. Example: Stop sign. You don't need to turn into a red octogon in order to stop a vehicle, rather the red octogon signals the meaning stop. We could also create an example using every single word for any language.
You are so lost, little kid. AND YES you are a little kid... stupid in your ways and ignorant of your traditions to make such a pale and uneducated assumption that would under-mind the true God ...not the God of the old testament; but THEE GOD, the Father and Jesus Christ. Truly you must be one of the Sons of Satan to be so deceived and full of tares. Reap thee first and spare us your poisons, lost child. Your ego shall be the end of you and your pride shall fuel your eternal flames.
yallways 2 weeks ago
@yallways no
aposticism 2 weeks ago
In John 8:44, Jesus told the false religiousness, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. if he is the liar of it,he was the serpent in the garden. the first lie was the serpents to eve. I follow Yashua,not you,sorry.
mystic81006 1 month ago
@mystic81006 I'm sorry Yashua couldn't get his story straight.
aposticism 1 month ago
@aposticism Wow,you are lost are you not,I'm sure you have never even read any Scripture from Yashua at all to say that statement..
mystic81006 1 month ago
@mystic81006 I've read quite a bit, being a scripture study student...getting a masters in it and all. Did you miss the part where I discuss scripture in this video?
aposticism 1 month ago
@aposticism Getting a masters in it? really? Guess what? I can care less who said what you know,you don't know crap,ANYTHING,WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR MASTERS? DUMB ARE US? Are you saying that your masters tells you Yashua lied?? explain?? so I can tear you up.
mystic81006 1 month ago
@mystic81006 What are you basing your "knowledge" off of? Scripture at face value?
Did I say he lied? No...I said he couldn't get his story straight because scripture is full of contradictions. And where I'm earning my masters degree is none of your business. Besides, I'm sure you would claim it's not a real (enter your specific religious denomination here) school because you disagree with it.
aposticism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Revelation makes it clear that the Serpent is Satan, who was created by God
hotpugsinthecity 2 months ago
Comment removed
hotpugsinthecity 2 months ago
Heh, you look like Frank Whaley... Good vid, btw
Cayvmann 3 months ago
I dont think this guy has ever read the bible
iefinest909 5 months ago
u just don't get it..there are false gods then there"s God. any comparison between the 2 is comical. For what did Lucifer say..I shall ascend to the congregation of the north and become God..God created all the angels both fallen and not fallen. No sense arguing..time is shorter than you realize. Look around you seem to know the Bible check out the world stage,take the blinders off! It's the end times guy!
1in3searchlight 6 months ago
your right serpent isnt the devil.....they are reptilian!!
jrersinghaus 7 months ago
How do you spell the snake's name ? I'm writing a story about him and may steal that !
ps; I think in Islam he was a dragon in the garden of eden and taking his wings and limbs away was his punishment. Of course, that's centuries later. but you know.
Did the dragon version of Satan always have seven heads ashe does in Revelation ?
Al1981X 7 months ago
@Al1981X If you check out 43alley 's video on Satan (he just put it up a day or two ago) he goes through a pretty thorough explanation of the snake/dragon and Satan.
As far as I know, the dragon with seven heads only appears in Revelation. I could be mistaken, but I don't know of any mention of a seven headed serpent/dragon until Revelation.
And which name is it you need spelled?
aposticism 7 months ago
@aposticism Thanks for your reply, I'll check out 43Alley.
I was asking about Nahas (?) - 2.50. Never come across that name before.
Al1981X 7 months ago
@Al1981X You've spelled it correctly. I couldn't find anything through a google search to help me with the pronunciation of the words. :/
aposticism 7 months ago
I've often wondered about thisa point.
ps; I subbed you because of losoyo's video about that wildclaire bitch. Liking you so far ! Al X
Al1981X 7 months ago
@Al1981X thank you :) It's nice to get some praise after that whole situation
aposticism 7 months ago
@Al1981X Cheers :)
Al1981X 7 months ago
LOL at the spidebig T-shirt .
karrarthejackal 7 months ago
First, the meaning of Satan has changed. In Hebrew culture, Satan was just a word used to describe a tempter, not necessarily lucifer. For example Job, any respectable study of Job would realize that the Satan isn't actually Lucifer. Also, I'm really surprised you didnt mention anything about the apple and john milton. In actuality, I think that is actually the source of where becomes the serpent becomes Lucifer. (although milton does call lucifer: satan)
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@insidetrip101
I think it is really interesting how Christian culture has been influenced by literature of people who did not hold such "Christian" ideals, including, but not limited to Dante, Milton, and virtually any enlightenment thinker to have ever been heard.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
This is confusing, I'm guessing because its all made up. What a load of BS religion is.
AtheistStream 7 months ago
ALL HAIL MARDUK! I tried to summon him when I was in Mississippi, but no dice.
cmfic36 7 months ago
Wasn't Milton's Paradise Lost a large part of why people see Satan as the serpent? I'm not saying he came up with the link, but I believe it was his poem that popularized it.
ScissorHand26 7 months ago
Nice job. One quibble, there's a big difference between immortality being a reward and a gift. You stated it both ways, an easy enough slip to make, especially since you'll find both views in various strands of Christianity. Of course, that it is a gift is the correct view (I'm channeling my Catholic upbringing). I always enjoyed your other channel, but this is great being able to follow you through your theological education. Keep up the great work.
OCaoimhghin 7 months ago
@OCaoimhghin Crap...you're right. my bad! And thank you :) I'm glad you're enjoying this.
aposticism 7 months ago
You are really citing VenomfangX as a source of reasoning?
And you are assuming you know what the Greeks thought. You are assuming the the Garden of Eden existed (no evidence whatsoever).
Pls stop basing any conversation of obvious fictions. The Bible is fiction, written by people who had no notions of modern logic or science. Satan is a fiction. Earth is the beneficiary of trial and error. Get over it.
drfoxcourt 7 months ago
@drfoxcourt If you actually watched the video, and read the description, you'd see that everything you said is false. I'm a biblical studies student. I study the bible from a historical context. No I don't think VFX is a source of reason, I'd just said he mentioned that the serpent is Satan in a video, which is what I was arguing against. Judging by this and the other comment you left, you're not here to discuss but to fight. How's that going for you?
aposticism 7 months ago 4
@drfoxcourt
Dude you're a tard. If you're going to attack someone's views at least make sure you're aware of what they are. You just told an atheist he's retarded on the basis that he believes in a specific God and said God's relevant mythologies.
ScissorHand26 7 months ago
Today, we ignore talking serpents and spend more time texting.
TheOtherSide100 7 months ago
I've seen the Ishtars gate. It was fucking amazing.
HelloPhixy 7 months ago
Hey HEY Who isn't attracted to shinny objects? They are so shinny. ^___^
MistressArte 7 months ago
@MistressArte yes i do like shins, but i think he was talking about shiny objects =3
KamikazeChicken5000 7 months ago
@KamikazeChicken5000 Shiny should have two n's because it's extra special that way :-P
MistressArte 7 months ago
@MistressArte touché.......touché......
KamikazeChicken5000 7 months ago
Everyone Is an expert about God except for The Apostle Prophet God sends. First The Apostle: Paul was Taught by The Spirit Not by People & He said Eve was beguiled by satan. snakes used to have legs & God took them way, nonsense, It do Not If You had The Foundation only given to Apostle Prophet then You would Know Everything God does makes Perfect Sense. for now on you will go on your belly eating dust of ground all days of your life , blow Your doors off, eat Your lunch, do You Understand?
ortafunk 7 months ago
@ortafunk Not a word
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
@ortafunk The Apostle: Paul did say serpent but I still think It makes No sense God would remove legs from snakes Not all snakes crawl on the ground some live In Trees some live In the Water. It make more sense God was telling satan you can fight but you will see yourself losing.
ortafunk 7 months ago
I may be wrong here, but I believe you might want to peruse the original text. I'm not talking about Genesis, I mean the original Sumerian source of the tale, the fragments of which have been translated into English. You will find it an interesting read and it may clear up a plethora of identity confusions (such as which god the snake really represents).
tlrlml 7 months ago
@tlrlml Would you elaborate on that...
apeek7 7 months ago
@ 3:27 LMAO...great video:)
SandySweet575 7 months ago
Nice shirt !
tenatopps 7 months ago
There's evidence in the Bible that the ancient Hebrews engaged in serpent worship. It's mentioned rather matter-of-factly during the description of the reforms by King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18, which links a serpent named Nehushtan to that raised by Moses in the wilderness in Numbers 21.
violentlygraceful 7 months ago 5
@violentlygraceful crap! I knew I forgot one. Thanks :)
aposticism 7 months ago
@aposticism Apparently adam was actually a king and the garden of eden was a temple, the fall was adam losing his power and kingdom.
MegaJay79 7 months ago
@MegaJay79 I had heard that! I'm trying to find more on it before I address that subject. But thank you :)
aposticism 7 months ago
@aposticism (Pt. 1) The serpent (or snake) was created by God like the other animals that God created. It could be that Satan indwelled the serpent. Or that the Devil isn't totally evil like qabbalists teach & therefore acts by God's leave. --It is wrong to conclude that Christians started the interpretation of the serpent being the devil. As u mentioned, the Song of Solomon interprets the Genesis story in type (i.e. the serpent being Satan).
Henok30 7 months ago
@Henok30 I disagree. If you check out the user 43alley 's latest video on Satan, you would see that Satan is very much a Christian invention.
aposticism 7 months ago
@aposticism (Pt. 2) The Aramaic speaking Jews of Urhai, Assyria that came out of captivity considered the longer version of the Old Testament as Scripture. They translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic which is known as the Peshitta OT (w/ some additional books originally written in Aramaic). It could be stated that the Jews first interpreted the Serpent as being Satan. Though I know modern Jews try to say the same thing you are saying or try to say that the serpent is a type for "error."
Henok30 7 months ago
@Henok30 The Jews did NOT interpret the serpent as Satan. Satan is a Christian invention. There are mentions of THE satan, or the adversary, in the Old Testament, but Satan, as in Lucifer, was a Christian invention that developed over several centuries. Again, if you check out 43alley 's video, he explains it pretty well.
aposticism 7 months ago
I've always wondered about this fundamental contradiction -- that lacking the knowledge of good and evil, man would be incapable of moral choice -- and yet isn't that really what theists are talking about when they talk about "free will" -- the ability to make "moral choices" -- not simply to choose between different flavors of ice cream. We don't think of a one-year old as a being that has free will in any conventional sense.
prodprod 7 months ago
(cont'd) (2) So how do they reconcile the idea that this "free will" - the capacity to make moral judgement is on the one hand supposed to have been this great gift from God - the whole rationale for the existence of human evil.
And yet it clearly wasn't a gift. In Judaeo-Christian theological terms, whether one takes the Garden to be literal or figurative, the knowledge of good and evil (and thus the capacity to make moral judgements) was not a gift. It was stolen and we were punished for it.
prodprod 7 months ago
Oh, and satan gets his legs taken away in genesis ...and in job......hes walking lol
devante11 7 months ago
...then god creates adam and eve ...then god wanders off....and along comes the fallen cherub who guards eden [satan/serpent]
What is confusing eden is a place on earth in the story.....thus how can god put a fallen angel/satan/serpent..in charge of eden....its just a massive accident waiting to happen....though god wanders of like a bad parent ..then comes back and says what did you do eve????? lol like god didnt know before hand
Its one mess of a story
devante11 7 months ago
Theres a verse in Ezekiel .....thats reads ..you were in eden..you were ordained to guard it [guardian cherub]...but you fell ..some say its refers to the king of tyre.....
But who else is in eden.....satan/serpent...god ..adam and eve...and the other animals
I think the guardian cherub was satan in the fictional story....but as confusing as the man made book is...satan fell from heaven to earth [thus sin was already in the world, before adam and eve was created]......(cont)
devante11 7 months ago
Dude, this is basically like a condensed version I did ages ago, I'll post it as a response.
RyuOni1989 7 months ago
sound like a nice method to kill the competition. other religions where using the snake has a good thing, the bible vilified it.
psychokanuk 7 months ago
It's funny. As important as he is to Christianity the devil/Satan doesn't appear in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First & Second Samuel, First & Second Kings, First & Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah or Esther. It's not until Job 1:6 when we first meet the devil who makes a bet with God and God takes him up on it to Job's misfortune. What a couple of assholes!
itsonlymepeople 7 months ago 4
If Satan is a snake are the other angels barn animals? The cherubim says moooo!
synapsidJ 7 months ago
Of course serpents are not Satan. Serpents are animals of the suborder Serpentes. They do what serpents do, no more, no or less.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up"- John 3:14 NASB
Jesus likens himself to a serpent.
MisterBoswell 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And if you think "die" just means "forfeit eternal life" - think again...
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
apeek7 7 months ago
Consider the following:
When confronted - Adam told the truth...
"The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
Eve told the truth...
"The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."
Also, the serpent told the truth...
"Ye shall not surely die."
Only God lied...
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
apeek7 7 months ago
@apeek7 Exactly! And that's not all! The serpent also told them the REAL reason God didn't want them to eat,"For God doth know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5). Later, God finally comes clean, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen 3:22). They didn't die and He didn't give His real reason. God lied twice!
itsonlymepeople 7 months ago 2
@itsonlymepeople Excellent... God didn't really lie twice - he just withheld information. But it is still a good point.
apeek7 7 months ago
@apeek7 Withholding information, in a court of law that's called perjury.
"State your name." - "I AM the LORD your God."
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you....aw, fuck it!"
itsonlymepeople 7 months ago
@itsonlymepeople I see your point...
apeek7 7 months ago
I realized something while you were speaking. Though it is a bit un-related. If God created the heavens and the Earth, and their contents, then that means he created the angels. If he created the angels, then he created Lucifer. If God is omniscient, then when doing this he already knew everything that would happen before he created the angels, including Lucifer. So God knowingly brought about evil. Christianity doesn't add up whatsoever.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar A good point, and one that I believe is acknowledged by Calvinism. That is (grossly oversimplified) that while God did indeed create evil, he is all-powerful so therefore that is just the way it is. We as puny humans are not qualified to define good or evil, only to respect or disrespect absolute power. It is, imo, a horrible concept but at least somewhat internally consistent and bypasses the whole 'problem of evil'.
LithodidMan 7 months ago
@LithodidMan: Later on I realized that I had thought of this before, actually. It was in high school, and I had asked my religion teacher if this could be explained away. She told me we'd discuss it after class and that I was too logical for my own good. Long story short, she had no explanation or way to resolve the problem. Yet, she had an honours degree in theology. At least the Calvins offered a way to resolve this problem, albeit a nasty one!
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar
I'm trying to figure out exactly how this is a problem for Christianity like you are suggesting. I'm sorry, but any Catholic "theologian" that says someone is "too logical for their own good" is clearly not attempting to synthesize faith and reason - which is the foundation of Catholic theology seen in St. Thomas Aquinas. I'm not trying to put your professor down, but I've known many theology students with a surface understanding in such matters. Theology is a broad subject.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: It was in high school, she was certainly not a professor, she just had a BA in Catholic Theology. It is a major problem for Christianity. If God created the heavens and the Earth then it follows that God created Lucifer as well. Since God is omniscient, when he created Lucifer he already knew that Lucifer would become jealous of him, and would end up becoming Satan. God would also have already known that people would sin, knowing everything they would do. Yet, God could still
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: condemn one to Hell for doing something he knew they would inevitably do from the outset, and decided to create them anyway? So we've reached the conclusion that God creates certain people, already knowing everything they will do and that they will be damned for it, and creates them anyway. So God creates some people simply to be damned, practically speaking. It just does not add up one bit, it's preposterous.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar
But again, you're presupposing a platonic dualism that influences the way you understand omnipotence. God only need know the future if the future is logically knowable (although I think many calvinists agree that God can preform logical impossibilities). If the future does not exist, it can't be known. Unless the future exists in actuality (like in dualism) there is no inconsistency between the future's inability to be known and omnipotence. You can't "know" the hole of a donut.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@insidetrip101
I'm not saying there aren't problems with what you are suggesting, but most of the problems arise out of a surface understanding of Christianity, coupled with nonchristian presuppositions. This doesn't mean that most Christians don't have these presuppositions (this video does a good job in pointing out how many believe that the serpent is Lucifer). All I'm saying is that you can't take pieces of one philosopic framework, add it to another, and then expect it to mesh.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: You're using omnipotence where you should be using omniscience. And in Catholic theology God is taken to be transcendental, thus outside space, and therefore outside time. God is not taken to be like a human being that has to wait for the future to arrive to know what will happen. There is no temporal asymmetry for God, because God is taken to be atemporal. And in any case, omnipotence means being able to do all things. If God can satisfy all predicates, and doing logically
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar "You're using omnipotence where you should be using omniscience."
My mistake, sometimes I slip up my words.
"God is taken to be atemporal."
Depends on what you mean by this. I'm not saying God isn't eternal, but if you have a hylomorphic understanding of matter/form, (and not a neoplatonic/absolute relationship of matter/form) then you see matter as a limitation of form, rather than a necessary mode of existence (as in neoplatonism).
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@McTaggStar
"in any case, omnipotence means being able to do all things."
Does it include the logically impossible? Calvinists would say so, but I don't think most who understand the relativity between matter and form would agree. Further, if we were to just examine the truth/falsity of a logical impossibility it would necessarily be false. (P and not P can never be true). If we look at time we can easily see a logical impossibility...
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@McTaggStar
The argument is pretty simple. God knows everything in actuality and potentiality. The future exists only in potentiality as potentiality is defined exactly as that which is possible in the future. Therefore God knows all possible futures, but no actual future because there is no actual future.
"God can do what would be impossible for us"
This only stands if you have an absolute relationship of matter and form. You're forgetting all your presuppositions that could be wrong.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: And you're still making the mistake of thinking the future only exists potentially, relative to God. Relative to an atemporal being, it's meaningless to talk about past, present and future. And this discussion is really turning into a bunch of semantical bs. Let's not make excuses for "God", alright? If the big fella is omniscient and omnipotent, then he's got to be pretty damned stupid as well, cause he's fucked up quite a bit. But really, I see absolutely not reason to
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: believe that any gods exist at all, so this conversation is, for me, tantamount to arguing about the nature of Micky Mouse.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar
=) Welcome to the world of philosophy.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: I achieved the equivalent of a degree in philosophy before I went into science, so I need no welcome. It's quite plain and simple. It follows willy-nilly that any being that is omnipotent can do anything. If you say there is an act x such that A cannot do x, but A is omnipotent, you've uttered a contradiction. The statement "All omnipotent beings can do anything" is a simple analytic truth. It doesn't matter that there are no omnipotent beings; the statement can be rephrased
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: to as "For every x, if x is omnipotent, then for every y, x can do y". If the antecedent is false, the conditional is still true. So since it is a logical truth that any being that is omnipotent can do any thing y, then "god" would have known the consequences of its own acts of creation and its own doings. If this god went ahead and did them anyway, only to make humans suffer for what is ultimately the result of his own doings, it isn't a god I could ever have faith in.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar
You forget that everything is contextual. "Everyman who does not shave himself is shaved by the barber". I think it is then fair to ask the question "who shaves the barber", to which we see a paradox because he must necessarily shave himself and at the same time be the barber who shaves him. If he is not the barber, he shaves like everyone. If he is the barber, he shaves others as himself.
Omniscience and omnipotence can have their contexts too. That doesn't make them invalid.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: impossible things is not one of the things God can do, then there is at least one predicate P that God cannot satisfy, namely Lx: x can do something logically impossible. If God cannot satisfy that predicate, God cannot do all things. If God cannot do all things, then God is not omnipotent. And you can't limit all things to all and only the things that are considered possible by our standards - that would not be omnipotence.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@insidetrip101: Therefore, even if God was inside space and time, then if God is omnipotent God can do what would be impossible for us, namely knowing the future. Therefore, my argument still stands.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@LithodidMan: Oh, and this was a Catholic school, and she knew the catechism and the Bible inside and out. Apparently an organization as big as the Catholic Church with all its political and theological sophistication can't think of a good way around this obviously problem.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@LithodidMan
The problem of evil is only a problem if you have dualist presuppositions like that of Heidegger. If evil is just simply when good is absent, then evil is never created. It would be like making a donut and then complaining that there is a hole in the middle and it is evil. Of course, this reasoning doesn't solve every problem, but you won't find any theological/philosophical/scientific framework that doesn't have room for dispute.
insidetrip101 7 months ago
As a naturist, I am not sure I can agree with you saying clothing is a sign of civilization. Civilization takes many forms and does not necessarily mean covering the body up. Otherwise a very informative video. Thank you for sharing. :)
ThomasTrue 7 months ago
@ThomasTrue I too am skeptical. I thought that in Genesis, they clothed themselves because they were ashamed. Is shame a purely human emotion? Being naked is nothing to be ashamed of and the shame of disobeying God cannot be covered with clothes. I would think that God would have told them back in the garden instead of killing a lamb, but Noooooooooooooo.
Morkindie 7 months ago
@ThomasTrue: Yeah, civilization properly defined should imply society. Any animal smart enough and with the necessary manual dexterity can procure clothing for itself for its use without civilization.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@ThomasTrue
I think you are missing the point. The clothing being a sign of civilization doesn't mean that all civilizations have clothes, or clothing is a necessary condition for civilization. A sign is always an arbitrary indicator for meaning. Example: Stop sign. You don't need to turn into a red octogon in order to stop a vehicle, rather the red octogon signals the meaning stop. We could also create an example using every single word for any language.
insidetrip101 7 months ago