Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#20 - akimbobears (07/13/2013) [-]
The snake in Genesis is never called Satan in the Bible. He was just a snake. Satan as the snake is a tradition created by the Christian Church long after Genesis was written. So praise snakes I guess.
User avatar #34 to #20 - demandsgayversion (07/13/2013) [-]
Because Christian churches are less reliable than the bible?
User avatar #91 to #34 - cantbelieveimhere (07/13/2013) [-]
When it comes down to religious views, yes. If a person is religious, their book carries a higher law than the chuch, since it is older and "set in stone," so to speak. From a non-religious view, they are equally up for question.
User avatar #95 to #91 - demandsgayversion (07/13/2013) [-]
You act as if these views are equal.
User avatar #96 to #95 - cantbelieveimhere (07/13/2013) [-]
That in itself is hard to answer. Everyone values things more than another.
User avatar #97 to #96 - demandsgayversion (07/13/2013) [-]
But to be fair, that book was just written by some people a long time ago. Nobody's god wrote it, it's literally just something a bunch of religious experts of the time wrote - those religious 'experts' really just being philosophers of a religious concept. That's not a belief, that's fact at this point.
User avatar #102 to #97 - cantbelieveimhere (07/13/2013) [-]
I do not deny this, as this is what I see as well. However, I think the entire point to this post in the first place is about which theology is correct. The contents of the book are correct in the standpoint of the theology, or religion. At the same time, people rely on the church to give them the correct interpretation of the contents of the books, as they are supposed to be trained in it. Some people also disagree with the church saying it is just some person who gives off their own interpretation as fact (i.e. the Snake being Satan vs. The Snake being a Snake). At this point we should disregard any of our views on what we see as fact, and simply look at the comparisons of the theology, just as we would when comparing interpretations of Greek or Roman mythology. I don't know if I've made myself clear enough on what I am saying, and I apologize for any confusions or misinterpretations at all.
User avatar #103 to #102 - demandsgayversion (07/13/2013) [-]
I guess since the book is the source point of the belief, it could hold more sway than a church's opinion, but also the book doesn't say the snake ISN'T stan. I haven't read it, but to be such a widespread thing, I'm sure it's pretty implied who it is. And who created the book can't be their belief, as they're not allowed to rationally go against fact. They could argue the 'accuracy' of the men who wrote the book, but as uneducated as they were at the time, wouldn't they really lose credibility compared to the church today?
User avatar #104 to #103 - cantbelieveimhere (07/15/2013) [-]
It is a very touchy subject. Currently the best option would be to reference the source of the first version of the Bible in the first language. From what I heard the Bible is considered the word of God written down and sent from Heaven to Earth. By that standard it would be. However, everyone has their own beliefs as to who and what has the right to interpret on the matter.
User avatar #105 to #104 - demandsgayversion (07/15/2013) [-]
At what point of people believing ridiculous things do we have to be tolerant? Everyone is okay with talking **** about scientology, but it is 0% more ridiculous than any other religion.
User avatar #106 to #105 - cantbelieveimhere (07/16/2013) [-]
You don't have to be tolerant, although you should be ready to defend yourself sensibly before ridiculing someone's beliefs. It also helps to know something about their belief, as going into an argument unarmed can lose legitimacy of that which you are defending.
User avatar #107 to #106 - demandsgayversion (07/16/2013) [-]
I don't know of a way to successfully argue with theists. The concepts feel so outlandish to me that I cant' think of any argument because I don't think there needs explanation on why they're just silly.
User avatar #108 to #107 - cantbelieveimhere (07/16/2013) [-]
What seems outlandish to you makes sense to others, and what you see sense in is outlandish to them as well. I understand how frustrating religious debates are, but remembering this helps me keep my head while conversing with them. Then again, 'what aids one man is useless for another' ~ paraphrased version of Haji's statement on religion in "Edenborn."
User avatar #109 to #108 - demandsgayversion (07/16/2013) [-]
Well if religion is functioning as a glorified night light, then shouldn't people grow up and learn to sleep normally? I get that some people need it, but they need it as a crutch not anything legitimate.
User avatar #92 to #91 - cantbelieveimhere (07/13/2013) [-]
* church
 Friends (0)