Atheists View of Religion

[waves]

Should we respect religious beliefs of others?


In the above article, the writer believes that what happened in the Garden of Eden is ridiculous, where a snake is talking to a female, that now if one visit a zoo and someone talks to a snake that they were lying.


As an atheist, you and others believe that man is an animal. That man evolved from monkeys. That all humans are descendants of an animal. So in other words, human abilities to speak was developed starting officially with a monkey millions of years ago according to your beliefs. But you think it is ridiculous for an animal to speak to a human. According to Atheists, humans are animals.


Yes, the Garden of Eden is real and what the Bible says is completely true whether you want to believe it or not. God exists, Jesus Christ exists, the Holy Ghost exists, and so does the Garden of Eden. Humans talking to animals occurs twice in the Bible. The first when Satan came and attempted Eve in the form of a serpent. The second one being when Balaam was beating his donkey, and God allowed him to speak in human speech. God created this entire world animals, humans and therefore it is not hard for God to allow an animal to speak when he finds it necessary.


In many different cultures, animals are said to be able to talk to humans. Remember Brother Anansi, I do. What about Greek and Roman beliefs. How about mermaids, half fish and half human. How about werewolves? Centaurs?

 

[Radrook]

Please note that the Bible doesn't claim that the snake was doing the talking. The Bible clearly explains that the snake was being used as a puppet by a rebel angel called Lucifer and later Satan and Devil.

Rev 20:1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the Abyss, holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

The donkey that spoke to Balaam was also described as being used by an angel as a puppet.

The Angel and Balaam's Donkey

Num 22:
…27When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick. 28And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"

The bush wasn't speaking to Moses-an angel was using the bush as a prop.

Exodus 3:2 ►
There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

 

[Kutte]

Should we respect religious beliefs of others?


In the above article, the writer believes that what happened in the Garden of Eden is ridiculous, where a snake is talking to a female, that now if one visit a zoo and someone talks to a snake that they were lying.


As an atheist, you and others believe that man is an animal. That man evolved from monkeys. That all humans are descendants of an animal. So in other words, human abilities to speak was developed starting officially with a monkey millions of years ago according to your beliefs. But you think it is ridiculous for an animal to speak to a human. According to Atheists, humans are animals.


Yes, the Garden of Eden is real and what the Bible says is completely true whether you want to believe it or not. God exists, Jesus Christ exists, the Holy Ghost exists, and so does the Garden of Eden. Humans talking to animals occurs twice in the Bible. The first when Satan came and attempted Eve in the form of a serpent. The second one being when Balaam was beating his donkey, and God allowed him to speak in human speech. God created this entire world animals, humans and therefore it is not hard for God to allow an animal to speak when he finds it necessary.


In many different cultures, animals are said to be able to talk to humans. Remember Brother Anansi, I do. What about Greek and Roman beliefs. How about mermaids, half fish and half human. How about werewolves? Centaurs?

Hi waves,
An atheist will also tell you that the story of Adam and Eve is a human fabrication which falls apart when considering that Adam and Eve, while supposedly lacking any awareness of good and bad, were in no position to determine who was telling them the truth, their supposed creator or the snake.
God bless

 

[-V-]

Hi waves,
An atheist will also tell you that the story of Adam and Eve is a human fabrication which falls apart when considering that Adam and Eve, while supposedly lacking any awareness of good and bad, were in no position to determine who was telling them the truth, their supposed creator or the snake.
God bless

And the response to that is there is no reason to think Adam & Eve "lacked awareness of good and bad". It is a common misconception that, since the tree was called "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," that Adam & Eve couldn't have known how to obey. The key is understanding that the OT was written in ancient Hebrew, not in modern English. They had their own culture, their own language, with their own idioms.

Look at the uses of "know" in the Old Testament. You'll find that "know" was quite often used to denote MORE than just factual awareness, that it was often tied to personal experience - something wasn't really "known" until it was personally experienced. Of particular note was the use of "knowing" a woman as a euphemism for having sex - personally experiencing a woman, so to speak.

So, the "knowledge" of good and evil is referring to personal experience. Adam & Eve knew full well that disobedience was wrong - they simply hadn't EXPERIENCED it yet.

 

[Kutte]

And the response to that is there is no reason to think Adam & Eve "lacked awareness of good and bad". It is a common misconception that, since the tree was called "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," that Adam & Eve couldn't have known how to obey. The key is understanding that the OT was written in ancient Hebrew, not in modern English. They had their own culture, their own language, with their own idioms.

Look at the uses of "know" in the Old Testament. You'll find that "know" was quite often used to denote MORE than just factual awareness, that it was often tied to personal experience - something wasn't really "known" until it was personally experienced. Of particular note was the use of "knowing" a woman as a euphemism for having sex - personally experiencing a woman, so to speak.

So, the "knowledge" of good and evil is referring to personal experience. Adam & Eve knew full well that disobedience was wrong - they simply hadn't EXPERIENCED it yet.

Hi -V-,
I appreciate your comment. Once we get into the realm of saying, well, this or that scriptural text doesn't mean what it says because it was written in ancient Hebrew or some other ancient language we are opening up a can of worms and we are beginning to come up with all sorts of explanations, if not excuses.

I have several bibles, German and English, and both versions point to the same, namely, because Adam and Eve became aware of good and bad (or if you prefer evil) only after following the advice of a snake.

Another logical explanation is worth considering. If one is being born into a paradise setting lacking the ability of comparison with a life of hardships there can be no appreciation for residing in paradise.
God bless

 

[Dan61861]

And the response to that is there is no reason to think Adam & Eve "lacked awareness of good and bad". It is a common misconception that, since the tree was called "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," that Adam & Eve couldn't have known how to obey. The key is understanding that the OT was written in ancient Hebrew, not in modern English. They had their own culture, their own language, with their own idioms.

Look at the uses of "know" in the Old Testament. You'll find that "know" was quite often used to denote MORE than just factual awareness, that it was often tied to personal experience - something wasn't really "known" until it was personally experienced. Of particular note was the use of "knowing" a woman as a euphemism for having sex - personally experiencing a woman, so to speak.

So, the "knowledge" of good and evil is referring to personal experience. Adam & Eve knew full well that disobedience was wrong - they simply hadn't EXPERIENCED it yet.

That was really good my friend.
In Christ
Daniel

 

[-V-]

Hi -V-,
I appreciate your comment. Once we get into the realm of saying, well, this or that scriptural text doesn't mean what it says because it was written in ancient Hebrew or some other ancient language we are opening up a can of worms and we are beginning to come up with all sorts of explanations, if not excuses.

Sorry, but that is horrible logic. When understanding something written in an ancient language by an ancient culture, it's utterly foolish to ignore the mechanics of that ancient language and how that culture viewed things.

That was really good my friend.
In Christ
Daniel

Thank you, sir.

 

[Kutte]

Sorry, but that is horrible logic. When understanding something written in an ancient language by an ancient culture, it's utterly foolish to ignore the mechanics of that ancient language and how that culture viewed things.

Hi -V-,

When making my rounds in internet forums, especially Islam, I come across discussions similar to the present one. However, Muslims usually refer to the Arabic texts of the Quran in an attempt
to argue that the quote I presented does not mean what it says because my reference book allegedly represents a bad translation.

I am not sure if the following is of interest to you, it is also off the topic. Nevertheless, allow me to present a verse from the Quran chapter 5, "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. And whoso among you take them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people."
In short, it took my discussion partner more than 1000 words while attempting to argue that the verse quoted does not mean what it says.
God bless

 

[-V-]

When making my rounds in internet forums, especially Islam, I come across discussions similar to the present one. However, Muslims usually refer to the Arabic texts of the Quran in an attempt
to argue that the quote I presented does not mean what it says because my reference book allegedly represents a bad translation.

I am not sure if the following is of interest to you, it is also off the topic. Nevertheless, allow me to present a verse from the Quran chapter 5, "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. And whoso among you take them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people."
In short, it took my discussion partner more than 1000 words while attempting to argue that the verse quoted does not mean what it says.
God bless

Ok. But none of that actually refutes anything I said.

 

[Kutte]

o

 

[Kutte]

Ok. But none of that actually refutes anything I said.

Hi -V-
Going back for a moment to one of your foregoing messages in which you said, "So, the "knowledge" of good and evil is referring to personal experience. Adam & Eve knew full well that disobedience was wrong - they simply hadn't EXPERIENCED it yet."
I like to dispute your view that Adam and Eve 'knew full well' that disobedience is wrong. Now, along comes this darn snake telling them not having to fear disobedience. How could these poor folks in Eden possibly make a sensible judgment while lacking any awareness of right and wrong, good and bad, even lacking the experience thereof.
Do you think Adam and his mate would still be walking around stark naked in Eden today if they would have refused to eat a fruit providing them of the knowledge of good and bad?
My best

 

[Kutte]

[

 

[-V-]

I like to dispute your view that Adam and Eve 'knew full well' that disobedience is wrong. Now, along comes this darn snake telling them not having to fear disobedience. How could these poor folks in Eden possibly make a sensible judgment while lacking any awareness of right and wrong, good and bad, even lacking the experience thereof.

You're confusing personally experiencing something with factual awareness of that thing. They're simply not the same thing. Not having personally experienced evil does NOT mean they "lacked any awareness" of it. For Christians who view the Bible as the Word of God, there has to be the presumption that what it says makes sense. And your view presents a situation where the Bible makes no sense. It makes no sense for God to instruct them to not eat of the tree if they had no understanding of the difference between obedience and disobedience.

Do you think Adam and his mate would still be walking around stark naked in Eden today if they would have refused to eat a fruit providing them of the knowledge of good and bad?
My best

If we're presuming that NO ONE ever sinned, then they could still be in Eden today with no clothes on. But I don't see the relevance of that at all.

 

[Kutte]

You're confusing personally experiencing something with factual awareness of that thing. They're simply not the same thing. Not having personally experienced evil does NOT mean they "lacked any awareness" of it. For Christians who view the Bible as the Word of God, there has to be the presumption that what it says makes sense. And your view presents a situation where the Bible makes no sense. It makes no sense for God to instruct them to not eat of the tree if they had no understanding of the difference between obedience and disobedience.


If we're presuming that NO ONE ever sinned, then they could still be in Eden today with no clothes on. But I don't see the relevance of that at all.

Dear -V-,

Am I confusing personal experiencing something with factual awareness? I don't think so. I may experience hunger which will make me aware of the need to eat something.

Is everything in the Bible a word from God? I don't think so because the Bible contains vulgarities and obscenities. Need proof? Just ask.

One can presume anything which doesn't necessarily make it true.

Indeed, it makes no sense to instruct someone not to do this or that if that someone had no understanding of good or bad consequences.
God bless

 

[-V-]

I may experience hunger which will make me aware of the need to eat something.

That's not analogous to what we're talking about, though. It doesn't even make sense, since "hunger" IS "the need to eat something". You claim that Adam & Eve could not have known right from wrong, while the text really only supports that they hadn't experienced it but did know how to be obedient, how to be good. Do you need to personally experience killing someone to know that murder is wrong? I should hope not. In the same way, just because they hadn't yet disobeyed God doesn't mean they didn't understand that they shouldn't do it.

Is everything in the Bible a word from God? I don't think so because the Bible contains vulgarities and obscenities. Need proof? Just ask.

Not everything is a quote of God, but everything in it *IS* the divinely inspired Word of God (something that is NOT debatable in this particular forum, fyi).

One can presume anything which doesn't necessarily make it true.

But we're not talking about just "anything", are we? No. We're talking about presuming the Bible is the infallible Word of God, which, in this forum, is considered an indisputable fact.

Indeed, it makes no sense to instruct someone not to do this or that if that someone had no understanding of good or bad consequences.

Which leaves us with either A) God's Word makes no sense, or B) your interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil" is incorrect.

 

[Kutte]

That's not analogous to what we're talking about, though. It doesn't even make sense, since "hunger" IS "the need to eat something". You claim that Adam & Eve could not have known right from wrong, while the text really only supports that they hadn't experienced it but did know how to be obedient, how to be good. Do you need to personally experience killing someone to know that murder is wrong? I should hope not. In the same way, just because they hadn't yet disobeyed God doesn't mean they didn't understand that they shouldn't do it.


Not everything is a quote of God, but everything in it *IS* the divinely inspired Word of God (something that is NOT debatable in this particular forum, fyi).


But we're not talking about just "anything", are we? No. We're talking about presuming the Bible is the infallible Word of God, which, in this forum, is considered an indisputable fact.


Which leaves us with either A) God's Word makes no sense, or B) your interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil" is incorrect.

Hello -V-,

Permit me to give you a quote from the Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. Since Bishop Spong is a Christian his words are in line with certain rules in this forum. It also shows the division existing within the Christian community.

Now regarding your claim, that every word in the Bible *IS* a divinely inspired Word of God, Bishop Spong says the following:

"This is the word of the Lord".

That is the liturgical phrase used in Christian churches. It is a strange, even misleading, phrase. Yet Sunday after Sunday it is repeated, reinforcing in the psyches of worshipers a rather outdated attitude toward Holy Scripture.

In many of its details, the Bible is simply wrong! Epilepsy is not caused by demon possession. David did not write the Psalms. The earth is not the center of the universe. On other issues of great public concern, the Bible is no longer even regarded as moral. Its verses have been used to affirm war, slavery, segregation and apartheid. It defines women as inferior creatures and suggests that homosexuals persons be put to death."

Let me stop right here. I really don't like long posts. God bless

 

[-V-]

Epilepsy is not caused by demon possession

The Bible NEVER claims, "epilepsy is caused by demon possession." It presents a case of a boy who was possessed who had symptoms similar to epilepsy. All it says is that the father *claimed* the boy had epilepsy. The Bible recording what the man claimed is NOT the same thing as the Bible itself claiming epilepsy is caused by demons.

David did not write the Psalms.

He wrote SOME of them. The Bible doesn't say he wrote them all.

The earth is not the center of the universe.

The Bible NEVER claims that.

On other issues of great public concern, the Bible is no longer even regarded as moral.

Not moral because some bishop says so? Sorry, but I'll take God's word on what is moral over what ANY human being says.

Its verses have been used to affirm war, slavery, segregation and apartheid.

You can't judge the Bible by those who abuse it.

It defines women as inferior creatures

No, it doesn't.

and suggests that homosexuals persons be put to death

Go ahead and PROVE that is immoral. Someone just saying so doesn't quite cut it.

 

[Kutte]

The Bible NEVER claims, "epilepsy is caused by demon possession." It presents a case of a boy who was possessed who had symptoms similar to epilepsy. All it says is that the father *claimed* the boy had epilepsy. The Bible recording what the man claimed is NOT the same thing as the Bible itself claiming epilepsy is caused by demons.


He wrote SOME of them. The Bible doesn't say he wrote them all.


The Bible NEVER claims that.


Not moral because some bishop says so? Sorry, but I'll take God's word on what is moral over what ANY human being says.


You can't judge the Bible by those who abuse it.


No, it doesn't.


Go ahead and PROVE that is immoral. Someone just saying so doesn't quite cut it.

Hi -V-,
You may want to address your dispute with Bishop John Shelby Spong's assertions by going to www.bishopspong.com/bible.
Tell me if the following scripture reference has been inspired by God:
EZ 4:12 (KJV) "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread..."
Someone must have complained and the Lord permitted that someone to use dung from cows instead of mans dung for preparing bread. EZ 4:15 (KJV)
My best

 

[-V-]

You may want to address your dispute with Bishop John Shelby Spong's assertions

I don't need to. As far as I can see, they've been clearly refuted.

Tell me if the following scripture reference has been inspired by God:
EZ 4:12 (KJV) "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread..."

Of course it's divinely inspired.

Someone must have complained and the Lord permitted that someone to use dung from cows instead of mans dung for preparing bread. EZ 4:15 (KJV)

"Someone must have"? You say that as though you don't know the context and are just guessing. I suggest you actually find out before basing any argument on it.

This is really straying way off the topic of the thread. You should start a new one in an appropriate area of the forums if you need to go on.

 

[Kutte]

I don't need to. As far as I can see, they've been clearly refuted.


Of course it's divinely inspired.


"Someone must have"? You say that as though you don't know the context and are just guessing. I suggest you actually find out before basing any argument on it.

This is really straying way off the topic of the thread. You should start a new one in an appropriate area of the forums if you need to go on.

Hi -V-,
Come on now! You don't honestly believe that God wanted people in ancient Israel to bake their bread with dung coming out of man and their children to eat defiled bread, do you? What we have here are not words inspired by God but man made fantasy products from people living at that time. It is an Insult towards God to imply that He divinely inspired people to behave that way.

This thread deals very much with the topic at hand, because, although I am not an atheist, but atheists will tell you that anyone who believes that every word in the Bible is God's word or has been inspired by God, cannot be taken seriously.

God bless