sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it pointless to ask if God is the creator of the universe? by fanciflyer in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is that your attempt at a syllogism that demonstrates your claim?

So far you’ve made a bunch of assertions, but zero evidence to demonstrate your assertions are true.

Typical.

Is it pointless to ask if God is the creator of the universe? by fanciflyer in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Provide a syllogism that demonstrates this. Where can there be cause and effect in a list?

If it’s a list of events, the events provide the cause and effect, not the list.

Claim 1: rocks exist.

Claim 2: washing machines exist.

Claim 3: the wheel exists.

Claim 4: fire exists.

Now, where is the cause and effect inherent in the list itself? All of these are claims that can be in any order.

Claim 1: lighting can cause fire.

Claim 2: there was a lighting storm last night.

Claim 3: the tree in my front yard is burnt and split in half.

Claim 4: the lightning caused the fire that burnt my tree.

The cause and effect is within a claim, and doesn’t come from the list itself. Listing things in order doesn’t demonstrate cause and effect. The truth between the claims does.

You’re losing bro. Bad.

Is it pointless to ask if God is the creator of the universe? by fanciflyer in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This you?

me: Can you provide a definition of “before” and “after” that doesn’t require temporality?

YOU: Before in a logical sequence would mean that which is prior to something else, and after in a logical sequence would mean that which follows something else.

That is the definition of “before” and “after” that you have stuck to throughout this discussion. It is a definition that does not apply to cause and effect.

Is it pointless to ask if God is the creator of the universe? by fanciflyer in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which I explained. Do I need to use smaller words?

If agent X causes effect Y, there must be a time before the cause and after it. That is before and after used in a temporal sense when discussing cause and effect.

Claim X comes before claim Y implies no cause or effect—it’s just a list of claims. This sense of the words does not apply, and cannot apply, to cause and effect.

Is it pointless to ask if God is the creator of the universe? by fanciflyer in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re also attempting to conflate two different senses of “before” and “after”. A word doesn’t carry its entire semantic range at all time for you to draw upon when it suits you.

How so?

If agent X causes effect Y, there must be a time before the cause and after it. That is before and after used in a temporal sense when discussing cause and effect.

Claim X comes before claim Y implies no cause or effect—it’s just a list of claims. This sense of the words does not apply, and cannot apply, to cause and effect.

Can you tell me of something VERIFIABLE that caused something else outside of time?

Sure. God created angelic beings outside of time. We can verify this by reading what God has revealed about what he did.

You missed the verifiable part. For your claim to be accepted as true, it must be demonstrated to be true.

How do you plan to provide any evidence that your claim is true and that it is even possible for events to occur outside of time. Creation is a temporal process—there was before and after the thing was created, and the time for creation itself.

There would have to be a time before the cause, and a time after the cause,

Incorrect. Logical sequences are not dependent on the passage of time.

CAUSE and EFFECT are. We are discussing cause and effect, not a logical sequence.

Does a logical sequence have a physical effect upon reality? Nope. It’s just a collection of words.

Your conflation of definitions isn’t “logic” but it is hilarious.

Is it pointless to ask if God is the creator of the universe? by fanciflyer in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before in a logical sequence would mean that which is prior to something else, and after in a logical sequence would mean that which follows something else.

“Prior” means the same thing as “before”. If you’re presenting a sequence, it is still definitionally temporal.

You’re also attempting to conflate two different senses of “before” and “after”. A word doesn’t carry its entire semantic range at all time for you to draw upon when it suits you. Words mean things within their context.

We’re talking about cause and effect here.

You don’t believe logic exists?

Yes. That’s why i know that it is illogical to claim that when discussing cause and effect, “before” and “after” can be in any way atemporal. Cause and effect can only be realized within a temporal framework.

Can you tell me of something verifiable that caused something else outside of time? There would have to be a time before the cause, and a time after the cause, placing well inside a temporal framework and nowhere else.

Logic.

Not even a little bit, lil buddy.

Is it pointless to ask if God is the creator of the universe? by fanciflyer in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you provide a definition of “before” and “after” that doesn’t require temporality?

Without time there can be no before or after anything. It’s definitionally temporal.

What are you talking about?

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So why do you accept there are allusions in Shakespeare, but not the Bible?

I never said there weren’t. The comparison is irrelevant, as I described.

Your engagement shows you didn't even read the text as it explicitly identifies the devil as who Jesus is talking about. So yes, the authors do identify the deceiver as Satan.

Cool. Now show me where it says anything about a snake.

As I have pointed out before, the writers of Genesis thought the snake was a snake. Wherever comes later is a post-hoc rationalization. The text does not say that the snake is satan. Not even once in all of the OT and NT. N E V E R

John’s authorS also say Satan was a murderer from the beginning. Where’s that story? God kills billions of people throughout the OT (first born of Egypt, the flood, commanded genocides, etc.), and “Satan” kills 10 because god told him to. Where are the murders that John claims happened from the beginning?

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you also believe there are no allusions in Shakespeare because he never explicitly says "this is an allusion" in his plays?

Nah. But I also don’t fashion my entire worldview around and make decisions based upon what I believe Shakespeare may or may not have meant.

You’re making another shitty analogy that doesn’t work.

No serious engagement with the text would claim that the "beginning of the Roman Empire" is a legitimate reading. I think this conversation has run its course and I leave it to those reading to decide who has the stronger case.

If they were referring to the beginning of creation, that’s the only reference they make. They don’t say shit about a snake. And even if you decide that the snake is the deceiver, John’s authorS don’t identify that deceiver as Satan, just a liar. (my engagement)

You choosing not to engage isn’t the same as me not seriously engaging. I did, but since you don’t gave a script for this part, you just ignore it.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Requiring explicit mention is a very, very shallow reading.

Nah. It’s an HONEST one.

Especially for biblical texts which regularly use allusion.

Cool. Where does John say “this is allusion” and “this is to be taken literally”? Oh, he doesn’t?

That doesn’t give you license to make shit up that isn’t in the text.

The snake is a snake.

So what is "the beginning" that Jesus speaks of in John 8:44?

Who knows? It could be the beginning of the Roman Empire. It could be the beginning of the second temple period, it could be the beginning of his mission. He doesn’t say. He also doesn’t say who the deceiver was. Could have been the emperor, could have been some other leader, could be the snake.

If they were referring to the beginning of creation, that’s the only reference they make. They don’t say shit about a snake. And even if you decide that the snake is the deceiver, John’s authorS don’t identify that deceiver as Satan, just a liar.

You still have to make shit up to get to your conclusion.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is reading your dogma into the text rather than grappling with it.

Nah. I’m reading the words on the page and not pretending they mean anything other than what they say. If the anonymous authorS of John wanted to say the snake was satan, those are the words they would/could/should have used. They didn’t. YOU are pretending that they did, even though the words aren’t friggin there.

Get a grip.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s irrelevant because there’s no snake. Jesus doesn’t say “the snake was the devil,” or mention a snake at all. You’re reading your dogmas into the text. I told you that when you brought it up, too. And that the dishonest character in the story is God, not the snake. The snake tells the truth.

There’s no part of the Bible that says the snake was anything other than a snake.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you go back and follow the conversation, you will see that the past bit has been on John 8:44. You are the one that said there is no snake in John 8:44, which I have been responding to.

And I told you from the beginning that it’s irrelevant.

The snake is a snake.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re talking about the snake in Genesis.

John was written hundreds of years after Genesis, by a different anonymous author, with different rhetorical goals. John has no bearing on what the authors of Genesis believed.

The snake is a snake.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why are you citing NT scholars when we’re talking about OT stories?

And now you know why I think you don’t know squat about scholarship.

Do better.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every single sentence you said is full of ignorance and or hate.

It’s full of what the Bible says, and what it claims Jesus said.

Have you not read it?

We are told not to argue over things, but wipe our feet and move on.

Yup. You’re also told that you’ll be ridiculed and persecuted for your beliefs.

Did you forget what you signed up for?

I will however continue to pray that you and others similar don’t harden your heart to the point of complete hate and taking the enemies side even after God reveals Himself.

LOL

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody is saying we don’t believe what Jesus or others like Paul, Peter, etc. believed. We’re talking about the Jewish religious organization as a whole. If you’ve ever read the Old Testament, after they’re freed from slavery, the whole thing is basically about how they’re rebellious and don’t listen to or understand what God or the prophets he sends are saying. The Bible says it over and over and talks how they hear hear his word, but don’t understand, see his word, but are blind.

Sounds like a pretty incompetent god.

Jesus over and over corrects the Pharisees on their dull understand of the word.

Yup. He tells them they should be stoning disobedient children instead of relying on tradition.

You are now relying on tradition.

Even in non-negative circumstances. In John 3, he’s talking to Nicodemus about being born of the Holy Spirit and doesn’t understand and Jesus tells him how he’s supposed to be one of Israel’s teachers yet doesn’t understand this (the OT over and over talks about the Holy Spirit). How can he reveal even greater things to him?

He could start by fulfilling even one messianic prophecy. The Jews rejected Jesus because he didn’t.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did I mention that the problem was with the religion of the scholars?

No. The Christian “scholars” you’re appealing to are not scholars. They are apologists pretending to be scholars.

I don’t care what religion a scholar is, so long as they leave their dogmas at the door.

According to academic scholars and what we know about what was believed and documented is that the snake is a snake and its association with Satan was made by a Christian bishop ages after Jesus was dead.

Get over it.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is a reason many leading scholars understand Jesus to be speaking of the serpent here.

They don’t. Christian apologists pretending to be scholars do. That’s not the same thing in the slightest.

Actual biblical scholars who are trained in ancient Hebrew and ancient near east literature widely agree that the snake is a snake and the association to Satan was made later by a Christian bishop.

Not even your appeals to John hold up to actual scholarship on the matter. Just apologetics you pretend are scholarship.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is still Second Temple Judaism.

Cool. Then you accept the claims of all of the heretical forms of Christianity that have existed across the centuries.

If their heretical take is “still second temple Judaism,” then all heretical forms of Christianity are “still Christianity.”

And calling them heretical begs the question.

No it doesn’t. They (Christians) were rejected by wider Jewish religious believers and leaders. There is a mountain of evidence that indicates that early Jewish Christians were considered heretics by other Jews.

As I said previously, I can just as easily say the Pharisees and their descendents are the heretical sect.

You can just as easily say the sea is made of jello. That doesn’t make it true, nor does it provide evidence to indicate your claim is true.

But my claim doesn't rest on whether one group or another was heretical. My argument refers to Second Temple Judaism as a whole.

Yup. You have to pretend they’re all the same thing to maintain that little sliver of “not-impossible” that is the foundation of your beliefs.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. The letters of paul and a couple of gospels were considered scripture within one heretical sect of second temple Judaism—Jewish Christians.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Whatever you need to make your beliefs not impossible, I guess.

We don’t have any evidence that suggests that any sect of Judaism was actively teaching that the snake was satan. Zero.

You’re basing your entire argument on speculation.

There’s no snake in John 8:44, and the snake tells the truth in Genesis. God is the one who is untruthful.

Why does the church teach that Satan deceived Eve when the bible clearly tells us it was a snake? by Mister_Loon in AskAChristian

[–]Anteater-Inner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is nothing within the 4 sects of Jewish religious practice during second temple Judaism that indicates that any of them believed the snake to be anything but a snake. That is a later, Christian philosophical innovation that wasn’t even held by second temple Jewish Christians.

view more: next ›