Atheist Discussion Thread

[Menassa]

I never quite understood the difference between the King James bible and the Catholic bible. Aren't they pretty much the same?

King James leaves out a few books. Judith, for example, though there are others.

Most leave those books out.

[Stern des Meeres]

King James leaves out a few books. Judith, for example, though there are others.

Most leave those books out.

Well yes. But the KJV was the one in question.

[Pensalum]

I don't believe so. I go to a Catholic school despite my atheism and we're told it doesn't represent Satan at all. Everyone assumes that, even though its not true.

But I could be wrong.

The Bible... at least the Old Testament says nowhere is the Serpent Satan.

What that Bible does say is that Satan is the servant of God, why would God punish the servant if it was doing God's will?

So then God was trying to test Adam and Eve, and they failed?

[Menassa]

The Bible... at least the Old Testament says nowhere is the Serpent Satan.

What that Bible does say is that Satan is the servant of God, why would God punish the servant if it was doing God's will?

So then God was trying to test Adam and Eve, and they failed?

Essentially.

[The Scientific States]

The Bible... at least the Old Testament says nowhere is the Serpent Satan.

What that Bible does say is that Satan is the servant of God, why would God punish the servant if it was doing God's will?

So then God was trying to test Adam and Eve, and they failed?

That story(or two stories to be more precise) is simply written to help explain why humanity got here, but essentially yes.

[Menassa]

So then God was trying to test Adam and Eve, and they failed?

That story(or two stories to be more precise) is simply written to help explain why humanity got here, but essentially yes.

There are two stories of Adam and Eve?

[The Scientific States]

That story(or two stories to be more precise) is simply written to help explain why humanity got here, but essentially yes.

There are two stories of Adam and Eve?

Two creation stories, my apologies. I worded my sentence a little off.

[Menassa]

There are two stories of Adam and Eve?

Two creation stories, my apologies. I worded my sentence a little off.

Hmm.

[Pacifornia]

There are two stories of Adam and Eve?

Two creation stories, my apologies. I worded my sentence a little off.

There's another creation story? That's new to me

[Genivaria]

Two creation stories, my apologies. I worded my sentence a little off.

There's another creation story? That's new to me

There's another side to every story.

[Menassa]

There's another creation story? That's new to me

There's another side to every story.

In this one Adam meets a charming snake named Ted.

[The Scientific States]

Two creation stories, my apologies. I worded my sentence a little off.

There's another creation story? That's new to me

There's to sources, known as the P(Priestly) and J source, but I forget what J source stands for.

Most of Genesis's "stories" actually are more than one story, for example the Noah's Ark story is two different stories with two different authors.

[Pacifornia]

There's another creation story? That's new to me

There's to sources, known as the P(Priestly) and J source, but I forget what J source stands for.

Most of Genesis's "stories" actually are more than one story, for example the Noah's Ark story is two different stories with two different authors.

If that's true where are the other versions? Lost I presume?

[Menassa]

There's another creation story? That's new to me

There's to sources, known as the P(Priestly) and J source, but I forget what J source stands for.

Most of Genesis's "stories" actually are more than one story, for example the Noah's Ark story is two different stories with two different authors.

Except in Deuteronomy the two supposed Gods being portrayed by those two sources are merged....

But this isn't the thread for DH.

[The Scientific States]

There's to sources, known as the P(Priestly) and J source, but I forget what J source stands for.

Most of Genesis's "stories" actually are more than one story, for example the Noah's Ark story is two different stories with two different authors.

If that's true where are the other versions? Lost I presume?

I'm not sure. Nobody can be sure.

[Genivaria]

There's another side to every story.

In this one Adam meets a charming snake named Ted.

Oh if only, maybe we wouldn't have so many depictions of snakes and reptiles as being evil in fiction.
Pisses me off more then it should.

One time in English class we were reading a story where a snake was attacked by an eagle, the eagle carried the snake away and the snake bit the eagle in self-defense.
The eagle landed on the ground near a man and the man seeing what was happening grabbed a stick and beat the snake to death.
This is treated as being good.
I had to point out that the snake was technically acting in self-defense and the eagle was the aggressor.

I don't know why that bugged me so much but it really did.

[Menassa]

In this one Adam meets a charming snake named Ted.

Oh if only, maybe we wouldn't have so many depictions of snakes and reptiles as being evil in fiction.
Pisses me off more then it should.

One time in English class we were reading a story where a snake was attacked by an eagle, the eagle carried the snake away and the snake bit the eagle in self-defense.
The eagle landed on the ground near a man and the man seeing what was happening grabbed a stick and beat the snake to death.
This is treated as being good.
I had to point out that the snake was technically acting in self-defense and the eagle was the aggressor.

I don't know why that bugged me so much but it really did.

Well if you think about it, how does a snake kill a rider? Not by biting the rider but by attacking the horse it's under... that coupled with poison which is really crippling especially to ancient societies...

[Genivaria]

Oh if only, maybe we wouldn't have so many depictions of snakes and reptiles as being evil in fiction.
Pisses me off more then it should.

One time in English class we were reading a story where a snake was attacked by an eagle, the eagle carried the snake away and the snake bit the eagle in self-defense.
The eagle landed on the ground near a man and the man seeing what was happening grabbed a stick and beat the snake to death.
This is treated as being good.
I had to point out that the snake was technically acting in self-defense and the eagle was the aggressor.

I don't know why that bugged me so much but it really did.

Well if you think about it, how does a snake kill a rider? Not by biting the rider but by attacking the horse it's under... that coupled with poison which is really crippling especially to ancient societies...

A fair point I admit.

[Gaelic Celtia]

To me it is pretty much all of the above. Mostly the illogical and the lack of proof parts though

Plus, if he were to somehow prove to.be real, i an under the impression he is an egotistical sociopath that doesn't deserve to be worshipped in the first place.

[Menassa]

To me it is pretty much all of the above. Mostly the illogical and the lack of proof part thigh

Plus, if he were to somehow prove to.be real, i an under the impression he is an egotistical sociopath that doesn't deserve to be worshipped in the first place.

I don't think Egotistical Sociopaths who are Omni-scienent-potent-present care if you worship it or not.

Or perhaps the former two terms negate the latter description.

[Gaelic Celtia]

To me it is pretty much all of the above. Mostly the illogical and the lack of proof part thigh

Plus, if he were to somehow prove to.be real, i an under the impression he is an egotistical sociopath that doesn't deserve to be worshipped in the first place.

I don't think Egotistical Sociopaths who are Omni-scienent-potent-present care if you worship it or not.

Or perhaps the former two terms negate the latter description.

Good, because he wont be getting it if he turns out to be real

[Benuty]

I don't think Egotistical Sociopaths who are Omni-scienent-potent-present care if you worship it or not.

Or perhaps the former two terms negate the latter description.

Good, because he wont be getting it if he turns out to be real

Well to be fair you'd probably look like a hairless ant to said being thus not worthy of interest.

[Olthar]

Good, because he wont be getting it if he turns out to be real

Well to be fair you'd probably look like a hairless ant to said being thus not worthy of interest.

All ants are hairless ants. :V

[Lost heros]

So then God was trying to test Adam and Eve, and they failed?

Essentially.

Did God really expect them to pass? Adam and Eve were pretty gullible and stupid before eating the fruit of knowledge. Hell, they didn't know what bad was. God said "Don't eat the fruit" and they never bothered questioning him because they didn't know why they should or how they could. The snake convinces Adam and Eve to eat the apple, for their own good. Because of the snake, Adam and Eve are smart, they can learn, and they can question. So did God honestly not want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit?

[Menassa]

Essentially.

Did God really expect them to pass?

Yes.

Adam and Eve were pretty gullible and stupid before eating the fruit of knowledge.

It was actually a lot less simple, you see Adam had told Eve not to touch the tree while God only told Adam not to eat from the tree, the snake pushed Eve into the tree and then Eve reasoned 'if Adam was wrong about this....'

Hell, they didn't know what bad was.

They knew not to eat the fruit

God said "Don't eat the fruit" and they never bothered questioning him because they didn't know why they should or how they could.

Rather why would Adam question God... his creator? I mean if someone gave you the best thing in the world and continued to do so, then asked you once a day to put a penny in a charity box... why would you question him? Adam had enough reason to believe what God was doing was correct.

The snake convinces Adam and Eve to eat the apple, for their own good.

Adam never met the snake.

Because of the snake, Adam and Eve are smart, they can learn, and they can question.

They could do all that before hand.

So did God honestly not want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit?

God doesn't ask us to not do things, and really want us to do those things he asked us not to do... why would he then not tell us to do those things?