I Would Side With the Serpent

reply to post by miriam0566


Miriam great illustrations, but I am afraid many minds can't or won't grasp the points you make. But for the ones that do, it can be an epiphany moment.

I would just like to add, that God also has free will too, he can choose to look into individual persons future or not. But then those events must happen. If you understand how the Holy Spirit works then you know that he doesn't always do this, he looks at a person in there present state, heart conditions and attitudes can change that too is part of free will that he does not interfere with. The example's of King Saul and Judas Iscariot come to mind, both chosen through God's Holy Spirit based on the present of the person's heart condition.

Later they both turned bad, was there a flaw in God's selection process? No, he still allowed those he chose to carry on in freedom of choice. It was a huge risk God embedded within his creation, one that he had to pay a huge price himself for, by later sacrificing his own son, because his standards of justice are so high.

As for siding with the serpent, the OP makes interesting points that I feel will be used in the final rebellion after the thousand year reign of Christ.

Regardless the endgame is the same anyway you slice it, those that oppose God and his standards will eventually not exist on this planet, they won't exist anywhere. They will be dead, really dead, as in non-existent.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Regardless the endgame is the same anyway you slice it, those that oppose God and his standards will eventually not exist on this planet, they won't exist anywhere. They will be dead, really dead, as in non-existent.

Nah, instead, that God and those that follow those standards shall be put in their own reality such that it will seem as everybody else is non-existent. Fair?

reply to post by dzonatas


That's a one minded fantasy designed to be sarcastic, too bad there is nothing BUT sarcasm that drives it.

Fair?

Well, one has to put it in perspective.

I am certainly like you. It seems to me that before the "fall of man," we were more like automations than people. I mean, if Adam and Eve truly knew nothing, which is basically what genesis insinuates, then they couldn't, at least by today's standards, even be considered human.

When one looks at it, one has to wonder what exactly God intended for man had he not eaten from the "Tree of knowledge." I mean, were we to just linger eternally in blissful ignorance? If so, why? What would have been the point?

So, on the flip side, perhaps that is why God allowed Adam and Eve to be deceived. Maybe God saw that there was no point unless there was some drama.... I laugh, but it is something that should be taken into consideration.

Also, people have to realize that nothing is the way that we have been told it was all of our lives. We have been lied to, many times inadvertantly, all of our lives about virtually everything.

Existence is a mystery. It's amazing that we exist at all, really.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Not all of us think life is a joke, and we don't take the sudden 'non-existence' of innocent lives as a joke either. Touché.

If one can not phantom multiple realities or metarealities, then one's own free will builds such a wall.

Those who want to side with the Serpent obviously want out of that wall. The contradiction of such preached 'free will' and the obvious wall being built when one says such 'non-existence of lives' is... quite obvious. No need to bite the forbidden fruit to gain knowledge of this point.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I am certainly like you. It seems to me that before the "fall of man," we were more like automations than people. I mean, if Adam and Eve truly knew nothing, which is basically what genesis insinuates, then they couldn't, at least by today's standards, even be considered human.

how exactly does genesis make that insinuation? the knowledge of good and bad is the ability to determine what is good and bad in your life. its deciding for your self what is moral to you.

people do that today. everyone lives by their own standards based on whatever whim they happen to have at the moment.

god says fornication is wrong, "well i disagree. i think its ok as long as they love each other" or " why would fornication be wrong as long as noone gets hurt" etc etc.

its not some mysterious lost knowledge.

Originally posted by dzonatas
Not all of us think life is a joke, and we don't take the sudden 'non-existence' of innocent lives as a joke either. Touché.

innocent? open your eyes please. this world is anything but innocent.

If one can not phantom multiple realities or metarealities, then one's own free will builds such a wall.

the world doesnt go away when you close your eyes.

Wow, thanks for the continued responses guys.

I'm going to have to make some time to catch up with my own thread.

I did a quick scan of the responses but wasn't able to read them fully yet.
There is a theme that is developing but I'll touch on that later.

Originally posted by miriam0566
innocent? open your eyes please. this world is anything but innocent.

When one knows Nothing, one knows that innocence is more than Nothing.

Something to consider if one wants judge where innocence starts and end.

Something to consider when that judge realizes there is no start and no end... to life.

I believe it was Hemingway that said:

"All things truly wicked start from an innocence."

The "apple" was a beautiful gift.

reply to post by miriam0566

foreknowledge affects WHICH decisions you make, not you ability to make them (free will).

Perhaps in reality it is that God controls you and you don't realize it.
This is congruent with what is said in the bible. Afterall, god creating you knowing which decisions you would make and he also wrote the 'end of the story', if you will. Meaning, that you were destined to make the decisions you make in order for the end to come to pass.

Which denies you any choice in the matter at all, really.

Sure, it may seem that you can have a choice. Afterall, you CAN pick your nose, if you choose, but that is because you simply don't understand "God's Plan"... In reality, you were made the way you were made. Every choice you make is known and was known WHEN you were made. You were made as a part of the plan. You were made for a purpose. Therefore, you may choose to do the things you do, but only because God chose for you to do them.

Follow?


[edit on 11-8-2009 by JayinAR]

[edit on 11-8-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by whiterider


Have I shown myself to be 'offended' by Christianity?
And, as others have said, Satan has nothing to do with the Satanic 'movement', if you will.

And still aside, the Serpent and Satan are entirely two different things.

So who was god growing the fruit for anyway?

And

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So if Adam or eve had made a run for the tree of life we would have had all the fruit and been in full ****god mode****

reply to post by JayinAR

 

And, as others have said, Satan has nothing to do with the Satanic 'movement', if you will.

And still aside, the Serpent and Satan are entirely two different things.

Firstly, I agree that that LaVeyanism (along with Setian, and most other sects that bear that name "Satanic" or "Satanist") has nothing to do with a personal entity named, "Satan". LaVey merely adopted "Satan" as an anti-Christian archetype. Not that he was "anti-Christian", per se; but would be better categorised as a pure "humanist", in that he asserted that the human as his own deity, only greater than an animal because of his accomplishments, but equal in nature. In fact, he all but implied that the animal was greater than the human, in that the animal lived by instinct, rather than be shackled by inherited moral limitation (at least that is my understanding of LaVeyan Satanism, based on conversations I have had with Satanists, and the limited articles I have read, written by LaVey and his fellow magistars).

Whiterider, however has approached the word Satanist from a Christian perspective, which predates LaVey, and his philosophies. Satanist, as a word is an adjective, which means "Satan-like". In the same way that the word "Christian" is most often used as a label to be place on those who join the "Jesus Club" (ie, become a "church-goer", for example), the original intended meaning is to describe one who is "like Christ". Based on this logic, there are many who take up the label, who do so wrongly.

Regarding the identity of the "Serpent/Satan", the Book of Revelation refutes your above claim that they are "two different things"

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Revelation 12:7-11 (emphasis added)

We return to the issue of "siding with the serpent". To side with the serpent, as described in the Bible, is to side with the one who seeks to replace God, leading humanity into his futile rebellion, by tempting them to choose to replace God with themselves, as their own deity. Returning to the logic which I presented in my initial post, it is a matter of who knows more about "the knowledge of good and evil", and who has the maturity to be able to handle such knowledge, responsibly.

reply to post by dzonatas

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
This was understandable, because to introduce the knowledge of the "darker-side" of morality, before one has an adequate grasp of the "lighter-side", in order to comprehend what it is that makes the "darker-side"...dark.

Replace the "darker-side" with the "heavier-side" and what you say makes more sense.

The lighter-side only requires morality.

The heavier-side requires virtue.

Actually, Dzonatas I meant "light", as in "shade", and not "light" as in "weight". If you change my usage of the word, in regards to morality, then my words take on a meaning completely other than my intention (to be honest, I can't even see how it makes sense, the way you thought I meant it ).

I used the word "morality"; as in "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct". In other words, the "knowledge of good and evil" (which is what the forbidden fruit consisted of). Any parent knows that great wisdom is required in the timing of teaching children about "evil" (ie, dubious, or "darker" morality). Evil has a way of appearing enticing, because it promises a benefit, without the required price tag attached. To quote Paris Reidhead, "Temptation (to sin) is the proposition presented to the intellect, to fulfill a good desire in the bad way." Unfortunately we all see the boundaries of morality a little differently, and so we require an adjudicator, that is capable of looking beyond mere carnal desire, into what is fair, and/or "right".

Consider the logic of rape, for example (I only choose this, in the hope that we will agree that such an act is wrong): A man sees a woman that he has a strong desire for. The right thing to do would be to seek to impress her with his charm, hoping that she would see something in him that is desirable. There are countless tales of women turning away men repeatedly, even over a period of many years, only to eventually be worn down by his persistence. In fact, many of the strongest marriages began this way. The risk is, of course, that she never will "come around".

But why go to all that effort, when all that is required is a date rape drug (or even just an old fashioned struggle) for that same man to "have his way" with the woman he desires? You see the difference? Same beginning, and same outcome (granted, not from the woman's perspective), but this means of "achieving" the end is blatantly "evil" (I'm sure that no one would claim the existence of "grey-morality" in this example). Neither the man, nor the woman are intrinsically "evil", nor is the desire, nor is even the sexual act. It is the fact that the woman's "right to choose" is denied, which makes this horrifically evil.

In other words, he was not prepared to "pay the price", by "wooing" her, or even "seducing" her (which a woman would tell you, has the potential to be immoral, in itself). He sought to "fulfill his good desire, in a bad way". In fact, hindsight has turned his "good desire" into an "evil desire". What could have been a "loving pursuit", has becoming a "lust fueled hunt" ... all because of one wrong choice, to yield to temptation.

So in child rearing, do we choose to expose them to potential temptation? or do we allow them to be left open to being seduced into thinking that a "bad thing" is actually "good"? Timing, based on parental wisdom, is the deciding factor in choosing between these two modes of logic. The hope is that, the parent knows more than the child (who are never automatons, regardless of how much they do or do not know), the parent should be the who to make such a choice, and things often go terribly wrong when children make these choices for themselves.

I hope that clears up my post a little more.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by CJaKfOrEsT]

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
Actually, Dzonatas I meant "light", as in "shade", and not "light" as in "weight". If you change my usage of the word, in regards to morality, then my words take on a meaning completely other than my intention (to be honest, I can't even see how it makes sense, the way you thought I meant it

).

Sure, you meant darker-side, yet I meant heavier-side.

Let's take your rape example. Let's say the girl is a bot. To all others that witness that act, it looks like a dark act. On the heavier-side, the girl being a bot only reveals that no dark act was committed.

Of course, that assumes that most people don't know how to tell the difference between a human and a bot when when they nearly act and look the same.

The light-side doesn't make those kind of distinction. The light-side follows the "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!"

This was only said to draw up the distinction between darker side and heavier side. Here the heavier side deals with dark issues in ways the lighter-side does not phantom.

The 'weight' you associated to is what I redirect you to the weight of knowledge. The lighter side being less knowledge.

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
Regarding the identity of the "Serpent/Satan", the Book of Revelation refutes your above claim that they are "two different things"

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Revelation 12:7-11 (emphasis added)

We return to the issue of "siding with the serpent". To side with the serpent, as described in the Bible, is to side with the one who seeks to replace God, leading humanity into his futile rebellion, by tempting them to choose to replace God with themselves, as their own deity.

Have you ever questioned if what you read in those passages is actually a reverse look at good and evil. Maybe you were told which way you look at it and decided which way is good. Do you wonder if you ever could look at it in any other way? Maybe it has nothing to do with being 'good or evil' and more about being 'carelessly bored', which lead to a 'journey'.

The blood of the Lamb is a dead end. This is now being realized by many. And, those passages say nothing to say the names mentioned are the same.

Remember the rule, thou shalt not bare false witness.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by dzonatas]

[edit on 12-8-2009 by dzonatas]

reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT


Edit - nevermind.




[edit on 12-8-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT


If you think that Satan is in fact the Serpent then I would have to ask how he was able to demand Jesus to turn stones into bread?

I mean, if he was a simple serpent, Jesus would have cut his head off and be done with it.

Remember, God cursed the Serpent for his transgressions. "And you shall crawl on your belly and eat the dirt..." And all that jazz.

Therefore, if he is a serpent, that is how he remains.

Completely unable to tempt Jesus once, let alone thrice.

And don't tell me that only THAT part was a foretelling and not literal.

If god from the bible created us, and knows all, and his will be done etc...then he also created those who will go to hell. He created humans that from the very beginning he knew and even orchestrated their eventual damnation to hell. He knew from the very beginning that he would have to punish and kill some of his creations because of sin.

He knew before he created us by his own will that one day he would have to come to earth, die on a cross which would cause war, pain and bloodshed for centuries.

What kind of warped god is that?

God may exist but the religions of this world are nothing more than mans early attempts at trying to define a God in their own way. The world religions are used to control and set laws to live by and are by men for men.

The Bible is the original "Theory of Everything".