Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#20 - akimbobears
Reply 0
(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.
#34 to #20 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
Because Christian churches are less reliable than the bible?
#91 to #34 - cantbelieveimhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(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.
#95 to #91 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
You act as if these views are equal.
#96 to #95 - cantbelieveimhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
That in itself is hard to answer. Everyone values things more than another.
#97 to #96 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0
(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.
#102 to #97 - cantbelieveimhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(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.
#103 to #102 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0
(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?
#104 to #103 - cantbelieveimhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(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.
#105 to #104 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0
(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.
#106 to #105 - cantbelieveimhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(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.
#107 to #106 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0
(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.
#108 to #107 - cantbelieveimhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(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."
#109 to #108 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0
(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.
#92 to #91 - cantbelieveimhere ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/13/2013) [-]
* church