The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

MrPudding

georgieporgy wrote: »

I think it was a monkey

Then why are there still monkeys?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

He does not know your belief is wrong, he simply understands that no one can absolutely know anything.

MrP

The obvious question, of course, would be to ask if this epistemological understanding is itself an absolute? If it is then it rather calls into question the foundation of your argument.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The obvious question, of course, would be to ask if this epistemological understanding is itself an absolute? If it is then it rather calls into question the foundation of your argument.

Indeed. Unless there is any meaningful difference between understand and know in this context, there is a contradiction.

It would be better to say we do not know the existence of anything is necessarily true.

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

Then why are there still monkeys?

MrP

Because they have a separate evolutionary chain with a common ancestry at some stage?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I never actually understood the literal interpretation. Was it an actual snake that did the tempting, or the devil that took the guise of a snake? If it's the former, does that mean that animals can sin too? And talk?? If it's the latter, then why were snakes punished by losing their limbs?

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Indeed. Unless there is any meaningful difference between understand and know in this context, there is a contradiction.

It would be better to say we do not know the existence of anything is necessarily true.

But that in itself can lead us up a blind alley of what we mean by "knowledge" and "truth"?
Also saying we don't really know measure or can actually relate to the world outside because everything might not even exist isn't really getting anywhere in a hurry is it?

I still like "the universe is everything that is the case" if you will forgive my translation of "world"
and
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

I would like to add something but I fear all I can say is I will not and leave it at that

equivariant

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you. It does not answer my objection, however. How can you know my belief is wrong? You may properly think it might be wrong, but your arrogance is demonstrated in your assertion that it certainly is, given you have ruled out any spiritual knowledge in yourself on which to base that.

Stop lying about what I said. I never said any of the things that you ascribe to me above

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

But that in itself can lead us up a blind alley of what we mean by "knowledge" and "truth"?
Also saying we don't really know measure or can actually relate to the world outside because everything might not even exist isn't really getting anywhere in a hurry is it?

Yep. The solution to metaphysics is utterly useless to most philosphers. It is true in the strictest, most useless sense of the word.

LordSutch

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

Snakes and the fall,

Hi, I just started reading the bible and was wondering about snakes,

Yahweh said to the snake

accursed be you etc
'And on dust you will feed as long as you live'

I watch the nature shows on the tv and snakes are often on, I've never seen them eat dust, they seem to have a varied diet of small mammals, other snakes, insects, I've never seen them eating dust.

Did Yahweh forgive the snake and allow him to indulge in this varied diet or did the snake just not pay heed and eat whatever he felt like,

any opinions welcome
thx.

Snakes & the fall from what? the fall of humanity? snakes and the fall from grace, (so they will crawl on their bellies for evermore)?
please explain what you mean by snakes and their fall . . . from?

Fanny Cradock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Man

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

I never actually understood the literal interpretation. Was it an actual snake that did the tempting, or the devil that took the guise of a snake? If it's the former, does that mean that animals can sin too? And talk?? If it's the latter, then why were snakes punished by losing their limbs?

The Biblical data shows that it was both an animal and Satan involved (possession?). I take it the talking power was of Satan, not a natural ability of the snake.

Anyway, the animal cannot sin, but it is not left without sanction. Other examples of this are in the Law, where an ox that gores someone to death has itself to be put to death. It is not about the animal, but about the offence to man and God.

So I take it the punishment on the snake is to show the gravity of the offence, and to symbolise the fate of Satan - while he will continue to bite man's heel, a Man to come who will crush his head.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

And would I be right in assuming that such an animal trials are seen as very silly by both Christians and non-Christians? Do creationists believe animals can sin, and are to be punished by God if they do?

No, creationists do not believe animals can sin. But we do believe there are times they should be executed (though I can't speak with certainty for other creationists on the latter, as I've never seen it discussed).
_________________________________________________________________
Exodus 21:28 “If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29 But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

wolfsbane

ColmDawson wrote: »

It also strikes me as rather unfortunate that Yahweh, in his infinite wisdom, decided to populate the locality with a tree that would fuck everything up, a talking snake, gullible and curious people, and made the rules so that he'd have to kill his son to make himself feel better.

Hmm. Perhaps you are smarter/holier than God.

Or maybe not.
_________________________________________________________________
Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

He does not know your belief is wrong, he simply understands that no one can absolutely know anything.

MrP

If he said he thought that might be the case, I would have no problem. But he's saying he knows that, ie. that this is certainly true.

He said, for example: It is the atonishing arrogance of almost all forms of religious belief. Referring to their claims to know things certainly that cannot be established by scientific testing. They are arrogant because such knowledge cannot exist, seems to me to be what he is saying.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

wolfsbane

equivariant wrote: »

Stop lying about what I said. I never said any of the things that you ascribe to me above

I must have misunderstood you. What then did you mean by this response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Of course I know they are mistaken, so that does indeed give me an assurance they cannot legitimately possess.
That's what I love about creationists. Just when you think that they cannot get any more ridiculous.

I took it to mean you disagree with me that I know they are mistaken. You seemed to be sure about that, not just suggesting it as a possibility.

So what did you mean?
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Biblical data shows that it was both an animal and Satan involved (possession?). I take it the talking power was of Satan, not a natural ability of the snake.

Anyway, the animal cannot sin, but it is not left without sanction. Other examples of this are in the Law, where an ox that gores someone to death has itself to be put to death. It is not about the animal, but about the offence to man and God.

So I take it the punishment on the snake is to show the gravity of the offence, and to symbolise the fate of Satan - while he will continue to bite man's heel, a Man to come who will crush his head.

An ox that gores someone to death is killed for the same reason a racehorse that can no longer run is killed, or a dog that bites someone is killed: It has become a liability to its owner. It has absolutely nothing to do with punishment. It makes no sense for a human to punish an animal. Even slapping a dog under the chin is simply a means of discouraging a certain behavioral pattern.

So if a snake was possessed by the devil, through no fault of its own, it makes no sense to say God was angry at it.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

That would certainly explain why you have such a hard time understanding science, and why science rejects things like Creationism as failing the standards required to be called science.

Not at all. Science can be properly used to test material things. It's the assumptions and inferences scientists make that can lead to false conclusions, not the science itself.

But spiritual things have different proofs, as they are not amenable to material measurements. Answer to prayer would be the main test of inner spiritual truth.

Considering you criticize science so much, a methodology that assumes no one has infallible knowledge and as such various checks and balances must be put in place to verify data and conclusions, it is quiet humorous that you then pretend to have access to infallible knowledge you and you alone had assessed.

All true Christians have that infallible knowledge.

And as I've said, it differs from material knowledge. But if God reveals a material truth, then that too becomes an infallible truth. That's the difference - one is revealed by a Source that proves Himself to be real, the other has to be discovered by fallible men.

Can you explain logically had you determined this knowledge was infallible?

Knowing the Person, seeing His power and character demonstrated, gives full confidence in Him being who He says He is: the One who cannot lie, and the Creator of all things.[/QUOTE]
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

An ox that gores someone to death is killed for the same reason a racehorse that can no longer run is killed, or a dog that bites someone is killed: It has become a liability to its owner. It has absolutely nothing to do with punishment. It makes no sense for a human to punish an animal. Even slapping a dog under the chin is simply a means of discouraging a certain behavioral pattern.

So if a snake was possessed by the devil, through no fault of its own, it makes no sense to say God was angry at it.

As my previous post tried to say, the punishment is not toward the animal in any moral sense, but only to display God's anger at the deed, and the sanctity of man. God makes the point that it mattered greatly what had been done to man. The snake's fate was used by God to symbolise Satan's fate.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

As my previous post tried to say, the punishment is not toward the animal in any moral sense, but only to display God's anger at the deed, and the sanctity of man. God makes the point that it mattered greatly what had been done to man. The snake's fate was used by God to symbolise Satan's fate.

So the LORD God said to the serpent "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Genesis 3:14

God is directly addressing the serpent, and is accusing him of tempting Eve. It is clear that He is not cursing the snake to convey a message to Adam, but to convey a message to the snake. The language has not changed from the earlier passages, so we have no reason to believe 3:14 should be taken any less literally.

Fanny Cradock

Any objections with this being moved to the other thread?

::Edit::

Moved!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Not at all. Science can be properly used to test material things. It's the assumptions and inferences scientists make that can lead to false conclusions, not the science itself.

But spiritual things have different proofs, as they are not amenable to material measurements. Answer to prayer would be the main test of inner spiritual truth.

Why, when you could simply be wrong?

You seem to miss why science is used to test material things. And you are after all a material thing.

spiritual things don't have different proofs, you simply ignore conclusions. You ignore that you might be mistaken about communications with God, or answered prayers. You never test these things independently to your own personal assessment and your own personal assessment is swayed by what you hope to be true and what you think makes sense based on the way your evolved brain works (ie seeing invisible agents in nature that act as beneficiaries).

If it was that easy then why would we need science at all. Why bother with a laser pointer to measure the distance in a lab. Why not just look it it? If you simply ignore the possibility that you might be wrong then you will always get the right answer, correct?

wolfsbane wrote: »

All true Christians have that infallible knowledge.

And you have determined you are not mistaken about this how exactly?

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's the difference - one is revealed by a Source that proves Himself to be real, the other has to be discovered by fallible men.

How does God prove himself to be real? And how do you determine this isn't down to a mistake or misjudgment on your part?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Knowing the Person, seeing His power and character demonstrated, gives full confidence in Him being who He says He is: the One who cannot lie, and the Creator of all things.

Again I'm sure it gives you confidence but that is because you don't understand why that confidence is unjustified. If you simply ignore conclusions that are not pleasing to you then you will always arrive at the one you want. But that isn't knowledge.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

So the LORD God said to the serpent "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Genesis 3:14

God is directly addressing the serpent, and is accusing him of tempting Eve. It is clear that He is not cursing the snake to convey a message to Adam, but to convey a message to the snake. The language has not changed from the earlier passages, so we have no reason to believe 3:14 should be taken any less literally.

If we only had that passage, you would be on solid ground. But we have much more said about it elsewhere in the Bible. Being God's word, all of it must agree, so we determine the meaning of any one passage by 'triangulating' it with others. If the passage 1 can mean A or B or C if taken on its own, passages 2 and 3 rule out A and C, so only B is the correct interpretation.

For the passage in mind:
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Romans 16:19 For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil. 20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

If we only had that passage, you would be on solid ground. But we have much more said about it elsewhere in the Bible. Being God's word, all of it must agree, so we determine the meaning of any one passage by 'triangulating' it with others. If the passage 1 can mean A or B or C if taken on its own, passages 2 and 3 rule out A and C, so only B is the correct interpretation.

For the passage in mind:
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Romans 16:19 For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil. 20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And how do you reconcile genesis with these passages? In genesis, God is clearly talking to the snake (unless Satan goes around on his belly). The conventional wisdom is to interpret the genesis story in a way that is consistent with the rest of the Bible. I.e. God was not literally accusing the snake of tempting Eve, and he was not literally changing the anatomy of the snake. Instead, Genesis is an allegory for how sin enters our lives. This makes Genesis perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bible.

But we have ruled out this solution, and taken Genesis as factual. God literally said to the snake "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This leaves us at odds with other such passages.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

And how do you reconcile genesis with these passages? In genesis, God is clearly talking to the snake (unless Satan goes around on his belly). The conventional wisdom is to interpret the genesis story in a way that is consistent with the rest of the Bible. I.e. God was not literally accusing the snake of tempting Eve, and he was not literally changing the anatomy of the snake. Instead, Genesis is an allegory for how sin enters our lives. This makes Genesis perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bible.

But we have ruled out this solution, and taken Genesis as factual. God literally said to the snake "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This leaves us at odds with other such passages.

No, it doesn't. It leaves us with a fuller picture of the event. All that Genesis said stands, but God revealed more. Not alternative, not contradictory, just more.

A snake used by Satan to deceive Eve. Satan forever associated with a degraded and dangerous beast. Poetic justice, but not poetic invention.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not at all. Science can be properly used to test material things. It's the assumptions and inferences scientists make that can lead to false conclusions, not the science itself.

But spiritual things have different proofs, as they are not amenable to material measurements. Answer to prayer would be the main test of inner spiritual truth.
Why, when you could simply be wrong?

Why does answered prayer confirm the reality of God, rather than just a happy coincidence? Because the coincidence would be astronomically unlikely, especially as such happen more than once. When I see an aircraft above, I NEVER consider it may be result of a happy coincidence of a gathering of metals, fuel and pilot. When I see another one, that just helps to confirm my first conclusion.

But as you hold to unintelligent-evolution, I understand why you allow the coincidence option.;)

You seem to miss why science is used to test material things. And you are after all a material thing.

Answers to prayer are not material. They may produce material things - sleeping guards and an open prison door, etc - but the cause is non-material.

spiritual things don't have different proofs, you simply ignore conclusions. You ignore that you might be mistaken about communications with God, or answered prayers. You never test these things independently to your own personal assessment and your own personal assessment is swayed by what you hope to be true and what you think makes sense based on the way your evolved brain works (ie seeing invisible agents in nature that act as beneficiaries).

The alternative would be to believe in millions of people experiencing astounding coincidences in answer to prayer. We are not talking vague requests and vague answers. I find that just unbelievable.

If it was that easy then why would we need science at all. Why bother with a laser pointer to measure the distance in a lab. Why not just look it it? If you simply ignore the possibility that you might be wrong then you will always get the right answer, correct?

If your knowledge corresponds with reality each time, why would you demand further proof? Using your material example, if you knew the correct measurement just by looking at the distance, and your figure was repeatedly confirmed by reality (the actual distance as measured or used), why would you continue to doubt it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All true Christians have that infallible knowledge.
And you have determined you are not mistaken about this how exactly?

By listening to and reading their sermons, lectures, testimonies. They don't make a secret of it. We gladly tell of how God has revealed Himself to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That's the difference - one is revealed by a Source that proves Himself to be real, the other has to be discovered by fallible men.
How does God prove himself to be real? And how do you determine this isn't down to a mistake or misjudgment on your part?

As above, by answered prayer, and also by the things He says being confirmed by our experience of life. Again and again we find it true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Knowing the Person, seeing His power and character demonstrated, gives full confidence in Him being who He says He is: the One who cannot lie, and the Creator of all things.
Again I'm sure it gives you confidence but that is because you don't understand why that confidence is unjustified. If you simply ignore conclusions that are not pleasing to you then you will always arrive at the one you want. But that isn't knowledge.

But we don't ignore any reality. Conclusions may or may not be valid, the facts remain. The facts support the knowledge God has put in our hearts.
1 John 2:13 I write to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
Because you have overcome the wicked one.
I write to you, little children,
Because you have known the Father.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Why does answered prayer confirm the reality of God, rather than just a happy coincidence? Because the coincidence would be astronomically unlikely, especially as such happen more than once.

And that assessment rests solely on your judgement correct?

So you believed you were infallible before you started praying?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But as you hold to unintelligent-evolution, I understand why you allow the coincidence option.;)

Well it is funny you mention coincidences. What are the odds that all scientific theories that contradict YEC creationism in the last 100 years have successfully predicted observations yet are so how wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Answers to prayer are not material.

No but your brain is. The bits of your brains that attempted to work out that the "coincidence would be astronomically unlikely" are.

You must think quite highly of yourself and your judgement.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The alternative would be to believe in millions of people experiencing astounding coincidences in answer to prayer.

Yes. You appreciate that praying to Zeus and Allah produces the same results. People do experience coincidences every day. We also experience far more near coincidences but since we don't notice them we don't remember them.

It is your brain that is at fault here, rather than God. You don't need to get to the point of testing or not testing God. We can easily test the human brain and easily explain why you believe in "astounding coincidences"

There is a ton of popular science books explaining coincidence and how our brain processes chance. I suggest you pick one up and have a read.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We are not talking vague requests and vague answers. I find that just unbelievable.

I know. That is a fault with your brain, which has evolved to pattern match not accurately assess probability.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If your knowledge corresponds with reality each time, why would you demand further proof? Using your material example, if you knew the correct measurement just by looking at the distance, and your figure was repeatedly confirmed by reality (the actual distance as measured or used), why would you continue to doubt it?

I wouldn't. But I'm pretty sure you have never externally measured the astounding coincidences that lead you to conclude in God other than asking other people do they share in this belief.

wolfsbane wrote: »

By listening to and reading their sermons, lectures, testimonies. They don't make a secret of it. We gladly tell of how God has revealed Himself to us.

See. None of that is external to your own poor personal assessment skills (and by you I mean humanity, I'm not singling you out specifically)

wolfsbane wrote: »

But we don't ignore any reality.

Yes actually you do. You ignore reality in the same way a teenager ignores than the girl he has a crush on doesn't like him, or the way a married man ignores than his wife is probably cheating on him.

You ignore reality by only going on what you and other believers have personally assessed as being true, and since we already know the brain is bad at this, and since we already know that we are far more likely to see agency in nature than not even when it doesn't exist, and since we know we are poor at measuring the odds of coincidence and very prone to confirmation bias, you ignore reality.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it doesn't. It leaves us with a fuller picture of the event. All that Genesis said stands, but God revealed more. Not alternative, not contradictory, just more.

A snake used by Satan to deceive Eve. Satan forever associated with a degraded and dangerous beast. Poetic justice, but not poetic invention.

It is clearly contradictory. God did not say Satan will be forever associated with a degraded and dangerous beast. He said to the snake "because you have done this". You are attempting to re-interpret genesis.

Jonny7

I think I must be sadistic in that I come in here every once in awhile to read this eternal battle..

For me its starting to resemble two trials

The scientific argument is like a legal trial in court requiring proof, evidence, solid facts, testimony, etc

The religious argument is like a witchcraft trial in Africa requiring magic, belief, tradition, faith, etc

The two are just on completely different levels.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jonny7 wrote: »

The religious argument is like a witchcraft trial in Africa requiring magic, belief, tradition, faith, etc.

After browsing through the last few pages of this thread, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with you. It's depressing to think that in the 21st century, people give so much legitimacy / substance to what is nothing more than a set of science-fiction works.

I wish I could laugh at this stuff.

Fanny Cradock

Remember where you are, Erikson.