Satan...what a concept

[B.G. Kent]

Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.
This is done in the attempt to support the Church's self-styled concept Of
Eve's Original Sin - a concept (developed and promoted by St. Augustine)
which, like so many doctrines of th early bishops, emerged from an
unhealthy sexual paranoia. Not only did the Christian bishops reinterpret
the story of Adam and Eve, they also had the story rewritten so that a few
verses of Genesis became great biographical books,aand it is from these
spurious works of fantasy that the familiar portrayals of satanic
involvement have emerged.

In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaisim to this day, Satan never
appears as Western Christendom has come to know him. The Christian
perception of Satan is that of an evil imperialist whose despicable horde
wages war upon God and humankind. But this Satan character was an
invention of the post-Jesus era, a fabulous myth with no more historic
worth than any figment of a Gothic novel.

In the Old Testament, 'satans' (though rarely mentioned) are portrayed as
obedient servants or sons of the gods (the bene ha-elohim) who perform
specific functions of strategic obstruction. The Hebrew root of the
definition is STN, which defines an opposer, adversary or accuser, whereas
the Greek equivalent was diabolos(whence,diabolical and devil),which
relates to an obstructor or slanderer. Until Christian times, the word
'satan' had no sinister connotation whatever and, in the old tradition,
members of a straightforward political opposition party would have been
called satans. In the book of 1 Samuel(29:4), David is himself referred to
as a satan (adversary) of the Philistines.

Whenever a bene ha-elohim satan appears in the Old Testament, he is seen
as a member of the heavenly court - a member who carries out God's more
aggressive dictates. In the book of Job (1:6-12,2:1-7)for example, a satan
is sent twice by God to tease and frustrate Job,but with the express
instruction that he should not seriously harm the man - an instruction
which is duly obeyed. In the book of Numbers, when Balaam decided to take
his ass where God had warned him not to go, 'God's anger was kindled...and
the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary[a satan:
le-satan-lo] against him'(Numbers 22:22). In this instance,although
performing an obstinate role of physical obstruction, the satan was acting
for Balaam's own benefit at God's command.

By the time of the Old Testament's penultimate book of Zechariah (3:1-2),
the appointed satan (chief magistrate) is portrayed with an independant
will, for here we see him in conflict with God in a social matter. In
this instance, the Jews returning from Babylonian exile were attempting
to regain their family stations in Jerusalem,but they arrived to find a
High Priest and a governing establishment already in place. God sided with
the residential Israelites in the dispute, but the satan took the side of
the disaffected Jews. None the less, despite the political stand-off,
there is stillno indication of anythign remotely dark in the character of
satan.

The sinister satanic figure (sometimes called Lucifer,Beelzebub or Belial-
meaning worthless)emerged mainly through the onset of Christian dualism -
the concept of two opposing and equally powerful gods. According to
different traditions, Satan was either the brother or the son of Jehovah,
or was even the competitive and aggressive aspect of Jehovah himself. In
essence, the Jehovah-Satan conflict was representative of the ancient
pre-Christian traditon of the symbolic battle of Light and Darkness as
perceived by Persian mystics. This tradition found its way into the
ascetic Judaism of sects such as the Essenes of Qumran, and it is to some
extent recognizable in the New Testament, but it was not apparent in the
Hebrew lore of the Old Testament wherein satans are seen to perform
specific duties of mundane opposition.

So, from what original concept or Bible entry was the modern Christan
image of Satan born? in the Old Testament book of Isaiah is a section
dealing with the prophesied fall of Babylon, and in referring to the city
and it despotic king, Isaiah says, 'How are you fallen from heaven,day
star,son of the dawn! How areyou fallen to earth,conqueror of nations!"
(Isaiah 14:12). Many centuries after this was written, the image of the
fallen day star (Venus) was redefined as 'light-bearer', and when
translated into Latin with a poper noun connotation it became 'Lucifer'.
Hence, Lucifer appeared in this Venus context in St Jerome's
fourth-century Vulgate Bible, to become associated with an evil satan some
1300 years later in Jon Milton's Paradise Lost :

Of Lucifer,so by allusion called,
Of that bright star to Satan paragon'd.


Today, the Isaiah verse in authorized Christian Bibles retains the
Latinized Lucifer entry which emanated from the Christan Church's creation
of its own Satan mythology during Roman Imperial times. The Roman faith
was based wholly on subjugating people at large to the dominion of the
bishops, and to facilitate this subordination an anti-God/anti-Christ
figurew was necessary as a perceived enemy. This enemy was said to be
Satan the evil one who would claim the souls of any who did not offer
absolute obedience to the Church. For this scheme of threat and
trepidation to succeed, it was imperative for people to believe that this
diabolical Satan had existed from the beginning of time, and there was no
earlier story with which he could be associated than that of Adam and Eve.

Laurence Gardner.

----

[This posting seems to be slightly confusing. It suggests that Satan
is a Christian creation, but notes a Jewish background for it. While
Satan isn't explicitly censured in Job, he seems hostile to mankind
there. In Zech 3:2 he is censured by God. This is developed more in
post-Biblical Judaism. See the Wikipedia article on Satan. The NT
seems to have a view pretty much identical to Christianity. (The
Wikipedia article has many of the references. It's not hard to come up
with more.) --clh]

[Dave]

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

The church has the advantage of having the New Testament as well as
the Old Testament. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both identify "the serpent
of old" as "the devil and Satan."

Dave

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

The church has the advantage of having the New Testament as well as
the Old Testament. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both identify "the serpent
of old" as "the devil and Satan."
Dave

B - in new versions perhaps. We have it based on Sumerian accounts however
and the Serpent was not evil but actually the fount of wisdom.

Bren

[Dave]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

The church has the advantage of having the New Testament as well as
the Old Testament. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both identify "the serpent
of old" as "the devil and Satan."

B - in new versions perhaps. We have it based on Sumerian accounts however
and the Serpent was not evil but actually the fount of wisdom.

New versions of Revelation? There were old versions? Oh, surely you
jest. And why would the chuch care what the Sumerians thought?

Dave

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

The church has the advantage of having the New Testament as well as
the Old Testament. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both identify "the serpent
of old" as "the devil and Satan."
Dave

B - in new versions perhaps. We have it based on Sumerian accounts however
and the Serpent was not evil but actually the fount of wisdom.

You miss the point. Why would _anyone_ take the Sumerian account as more correct
than the Biblical?

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

The church has the advantage of having the New Testament as well as
the Old Testament. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both identify "the serpent
of old" as "the devil and Satan."
Dave

B - in new versions perhaps. We have it based on Sumerian accounts however
and the Serpent was not evil but actually the fount of wisdom.

In Genesis the characteristic of the serpent is not evil but subtlety. He was
the first theologian. It has been said that theology is a uniquely Christian
sin.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

The church has the advantage of having the New Testament as well as
the Old Testament. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both identify "the serpent
of old" as "the devil and Satan."

B - in new versions perhaps. We have it based on Sumerian accounts however
and the Serpent was not evil but actually the fount of wisdom.

New versions of Revelation? There were old versions? Oh, surely you
jest. And why would the chuch care what the Sumerians thought?

B - The new versions compared with the original Sumerian beliefs. Well
since the stories are based on Sumerian beliefs one would hope that
honesty would be important to them...I know this hasn't always been the
case. Sad.
New Testament idea of the serpent come from the Old Testament which comes
from the ancient Sumerian beliefs...that is the connection.

Post by Dave
Dave

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

The church has the advantage of having the New Testament as well as
the Old Testament. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 both identify "the serpent
of old" as "the devil and Satan."
Dave

B - in new versions perhaps. We have it based on Sumerian accounts however
and the Serpent was not evil but actually the fount of wisdom.

In Genesis the characteristic of the serpent is not evil but subtlety. He was
the first theologian. It has been said that theology is a uniquely Christian
sin.

B - Yes but he is also seen as an evil that is tempting Eve to
sin...instead of enlightening Eve to truth.

Bren

[Dave]

Post by B.G. Kent
New Testament idea of the serpent come from the Old Testament which comes
from the ancient Sumerian beliefs...that is the connection.

As you said in an earlier post, there is no identification of the
serpent as Satan in Genesis. The New Testament identification of the
serpent as Satan came to John by divine revelation.

Dave

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
New Testament idea of the serpent come from the Old Testament which comes
from the ancient Sumerian beliefs...that is the connection.

As you said in an earlier post, there is no identification of the
serpent as Satan in Genesis. The New Testament identification of the
serpent as Satan came to John by divine revelation.
Dave

B - Old Testament took the concept of the serpent as a negativity...the
New Testament took that to be Satan...the original serpent
...wisdom was written about in Sumerian texts. How do you pull down the
beliefs of one faith? demonize it's Gods.
If these things were so widely known by many ..why do so many..nay the
majority of Christians know so little about the Sumerian roots to the
faith?

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Dave

Post by B.G. Kent
New Testament idea of the serpent come from the Old Testament which comes
from the ancient Sumerian beliefs...that is the connection.

As you said in an earlier post, there is no identification of the
serpent as Satan in Genesis. The New Testament identification of the
serpent as Satan came to John by divine revelation.

And Christians read Genesis as Christians.

Even to the people who wrote the story down, God was not a God whose prime
characteristic was to be "in the beginning". He was the God of Exodus, who led
his people out of Egypt. They took stories from neighbouring peoples,
reinterpreting (and sometimes demythologising) them along the way, to fit
their own historical experience.

A God whose primary characteristic was to be "in the beginning" could be quite
unlike the God of Genesis. And as Christians we read it as the God who has
revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

One of the creation stories alluded to, though not explicitly quoted, in
Genesis, is that of the god Marduk who battles the chaos monster Tiamat, cuts
her in half and makes the firmament with one half and the earth with the
other. But the God of Genesis is undoubtedly the God who hacked Rahab in
pieces and made the depths of the sea a path for the redeemed to pass over
(Isaiah 51:9-12).

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <N0PZi.2322$***@trnddc07>, B.G. Kent says...
[snip]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Yes but he is also seen as an evil that is tempting Eve to
sin...instead of enlightening Eve to truth.

Why, yes. He _is_ seen as an evil tempting Eve to sin. That is because that IS
what he was. But you phrase your response as if there were a good reason to
believe he was 'enlightening' her. There isn't, he wasn't.

[B.G. Kent]

Also the concept of serpent as evil was not the original meaning. Serpents
for ages have been known as keepers of wisdom..we have the ancient symbol
of the ouroboros....the wisdom of the Dragon. Dragons which were used in
the name PenDragon (or head dragon) was a symbol of the greatness bestowed
upon those who have had symbolic mating of the wisdom and the land. It was
those that wanted to bow down to the jealous god Jehovah and who were
afraid of his supposed wrath that took people from a deep connection to
nature and God ...to a believe in God apart and condemning it's creation
if one did not do as "he" wanted.

Satan and the Serpent are two wholly different things. The wisdom was in
the serpent..he told us that we were part of God..not separate from...and
holding the wisdom of God within...Jehovah who was an ill-tempered god and
not ONENESS..but an aspect of jealousy and anger gone awry...did not want
us to have wisdom or knowledge. Anyone reading the pre-history to
Christianity and Judaism knows this.


I.M.O
Bren

[Jani]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Old Testament took the concept of the serpent as a negativity...the
New Testament took that to be Satan...

The salient characteristic of the serpent in Genesis is subtlety and
craftiness, not outright evil. I suppose you could make a case that God put
Adam and Eve in a no-win situation, and the serpent was the instrument of
that (rather as Satan acts on God's instructions in Job), but he has very
little power besides persuasion, and doesn't present any sort of challenge
to God when he's punished for his deeds. Also, both the negative *and* the
positive connotations of serpents persist into the NT; "brood of vipers" is
an insult, but being "wise as serpents" is advocated as a good thing. The
conflation of serpents, dragons and Satan doesn't appear until Revelation,
as far as I know.

the original serpent

Post by B.G. Kent
...wisdom was written about in Sumerian texts. How do you pull down the
beliefs of one faith? demonize it's Gods.

Tiamat is represented as a serpent, or a dragon, or as the mother of
serpents and dragons, in the Enuma Elish. She's not perceived as one of the
good guys.

Post by B.G. Kent
If these things were so widely known by many ..why do so many..nay the
majority of Christians know so little about the Sumerian roots to the
faith?

The "majority of Christians" where? Worldwide? In some specific country? On
Usenet? It certainly seems that the "majority of Christians" posting *here*,
for example, are aware of Sumerian mythology. If you're referring to
Christians everywhere, then literacy levels and access to source materials
would probably be relevant. Not to mention that some people simply aren't
interested in ancient history, or prefer to study the later development of
Christianity rather than pre-Christian myth. That said, I've come across
more Christians who are well-informed about the origins of their faith than
wiccans who are about theirs, despite the fact that the latter have only 50
years to look at, rather than 2,000.

Jani

[Jani]

Post by B.G. Kent
Also the concept of serpent as evil was not the original meaning. Serpents
for ages have been known as keepers of wisdom..we have the ancient symbol
of the ouroboros....the wisdom of the Dragon.

Almost all cultures have snakes, dragons or worms in their mythology. Some
of them are positive representations, some are not. The serpent as "wise" is
only one of these very diverse beliefs.

Dragons which were used in

Post by B.G. Kent
the name PenDragon (or head dragon) was a symbol of the greatness bestowed
upon those who have had symbolic mating of the wisdom and the land.

Pendragon is a British title, and the earliest record is, IIRC, in Geoffrey
of Monmouth. There are mentions of the Pendraig in Welsh poetry which may be
earlier, but in any case, the term refers to a war leader and has nothing to
do with "mating with the land". That's a fanciful modern invention
(interpreted rather more effectively in Borman's 'Excalibur', in my opinion,
than in anything Zimmer Bradley came up with).

It was

Post by B.G. Kent
those that wanted to bow down to the jealous god Jehovah and who were
afraid of his supposed wrath that took people from a deep connection to
nature and God ...to a believe in God apart and condemning it's creation
if one did not do as "he" wanted.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - that the Genesis creation story is
history rather than myth, or that it was myth deliberately constructed for
political reasons?

Post by B.G. Kent
Satan and the Serpent are two wholly different things. The wisdom was in
the serpent..he told us that we were part of God..not separate from...and
holding the wisdom of God within...Jehovah who was an ill-tempered god and
not ONENESS..but an aspect of jealousy and anger gone awry...did not want
us to have wisdom or knowledge.

The serpent didn't say anything about being "part of God", only that Adam
and Eve would be *like* God, or gods, specifically in their understanding of
good and evil.


Anyone reading the pre-history to

Post by B.G. Kent
Christianity and Judaism knows this.

Knows what, exactly? That the text says something quite different from what
it *does* say?

Jani

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Jani
The salient characteristic of the serpent in Genesis is subtlety and
craftiness, not outright evil. I suppose you could make a case that God put

You don't think trying to make Adam and Eve commit the first sin is
evil? The serpent clearly knew what God had commanded, and attempts to
twist things so that Eve violates the commandment.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Old Testament took the concept of the serpent as a negativity...the
New Testament took that to be Satan...

The salient characteristic of the serpent in Genesis is subtlety and
craftiness, not outright evil.

There is no such thing as "outright evil" on display. Such thinking
reveals a poor understanding of the nature of evil.

Post by Jani

Post by B.G. Kent
If these things were so widely known by many ..why do so many..nay the
majority of Christians know so little about the Sumerian roots to the
faith?

This is the old chicken and egg senario. And, no, if you had ever
pursued linguistic studies, you would understand why almost no
scholars that I'm aware of, root Hebrew in Sumerian.

As far as "christians [who] know so little," you [Brenda] should
talk! Especially when it come to the bible. Also, you need to be a
little more definitive in your use of the word "christian."
Obviously, it seems today that popular Protestantism is completely
indifferent when it comes to the subject of truth. As Marin Marty
aply describes it concerning America's religiosity as being little
more than a "nation of behavers" rather than a nation of believers.
The popular ranks of Protestantism focuses on universals, not
particulars. "Deeds, not creeds."

I feel this area of anti-knowledge applies to you specifically,
Brenda. Your posts have always been tainted with a disregard for
truth. Like the commoners, you regard truth as divisive and hold no
place in your heart for a clarity of distinctions or any sort of
serious thinking. Your's is the religion of "civility". The only
problems is, because you are not a serious thinker, you do not realize
that your civility is only pseudocivility or intolerant tolerance.
"Everyone is welcome" is you moto but in you naivette you blind
yourself to a deep-rooted relativism hostile to all serious
differences and distinctions. As GK Chesteron once wrote, "Tolerance
is the virtue of those who don't believe anything."

Post by Jani
The "majority of Christians" where? Worldwide? In some specific country? On
Usenet? It certainly seems that the "majority of Christians" posting *here*,
for example, are aware of Sumerian mythology.

Well, yes and no. There is much to be said about the Sumerian culture
and how it relates theologically. But Brenda has miss stated the case
in imagining that the early chapters of Genesis are merely a
hand-me-down rendition of the Sumerian account. Moses is not so much
the writer of those chapters as he is the editor of them. But one must
take into consideration (1) God had to reveal most of the first 3
chapters. There are not the produce of human invention. And (2), Adam
lived for a very long time. Noah's father was alive while Adam was
still a live. He could of heard the story of creation and the garden
account directly, first hand source. After the world-wide flood, this
account spread out via the sons of Noah. The flood epic has world-
wide and age-wide accountings. So Moses, having the full education of
Eygpt (now there's an interesting study of what all that involved) was
not naive to the garden story. But Moses was writing folk lore. He had
face-to-face encounters with God and, as the prophets that followed,
got his information from the Absolute source.

Post by Jani
If you're referring to
Christians everywhere, then literacy levels and access to source materials
would probably be relevant.

Actually, with the internet, that is a very weak argument. Rather it
has more to do with Catholics and Protestants alike not only ignorant
of theologically, but having no time or taste for it.

Post by Jani
Not to mention that some people simply aren't
interested in ancient history, or prefer to study the later development of
Christianity rather than pre-Christian myth. That said, I've come across
more Christians who are well-informed about the origins of their faith than
wiccans who are about theirs, despite the fact that the latter have only 50
years to look at, rather than 2,000.
Jani

If you want to read a really good but hard to swallow critique of
present day Christianity, especially dealing with Evangelicals, and
their largely anti- intellectual bias, find yourself a $2 copy of "Fit
Bodies Fat Minds" by Os Guinness on the internet. I'm not only an
Evangelical and not only a fundamentalist, but also a
dispensationalist and Guinness does not hold back on his critique of
how these paradigms have been popularly lived. I think he is honest
and provocative in his assessment but I think too many people will
lift him out of context. He doesn't, per se, have an axe to grind with
either fundies or dispensationalist. What he does seek to uncover is
the "herd" mentality of most of Protestantism.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani

Post by B.G. Kent
Also the concept of serpent as evil was not the original meaning. Serpents
for ages have been known as keepers of wisdom..we have the ancient symbol
of the ouroboros....the wisdom of the Dragon.

Almost all cultures have snakes, dragons or worms in their mythology.

"mythology" Are you perhaps being a bit presumptuous? There is good
scientific,
if not biblical evidence, that there use to be fire breathing
dragons. There are
insects that still evidence real fire exhaulation. So its not a
physical imposibility.
Also, is it so inconceiveable for a "dragon" to be in reference to a
very modern
termed animal, dinosaur?

[Steve Hayes]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Post by Jani
The salient characteristic of the serpent in Genesis is subtlety and
craftiness, not outright evil. I suppose you could make a case that God put

You don't think trying to make Adam and Eve commit the first sin is
evil? The serpent clearly knew what God had commanded, and attempts to
twist things so that Eve violates the commandment.

There are different ways of looking at it.

One is simply to look at the text in isolation, what the text actually says,
as Jani does.

Another is to compare and contrast it with other texts, as Bren does.

One interesting thing about reading the text as it is is that it is an account
of how evil enters God's good creation, of which the snake is a a part. And
the text simply says that evil enters the good creation without giving an
account of its source.

In the story the characteristic of the snake is not evil but subtlety. As I
pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, the snake was the first
theologian, he discussed what God had said, the words of God.

Questioning the word of God is a borderline activity. It is not necessarily
evil in itself, but can lead to evil, as it did in this case.

But the question, taken in itself, can be quite innocent. It is simply
intended to establish what God did in fact say.

And the first part of Eve's answer does this: God did tell them not to eat
from the tree in the middle of the garden. But the second part is an extensive
exaggeration of what God said, because it is not recorded that God told them
not to touch it. An ogre God is always more dramatic than the true God, and
this is something that we all like to do -- you can see it in this very
newsgroup -- exaggerating the supposed malicious intentions of other
participants. The story would have been forgotten, as the Sumerian texts were,
had it not described human behaviour so well. It is not just about a woman who
lived at the dawn of prehistory. The story continues to be current because it
is about US. It is not just about what Adam and Eve were like. It is about
what WE are like.

Reading the story in the light of other documents brings different insights,
as when St John in the book of Revelation refers to the snake as "the devil"
and "satan". But St John is not specific, he is not speaking only of the
incident in the garden, but of Rahab whom the Lord hacked in pieces. He is
encapsulating thousands of years of history in a single sentence.

Orthodox liturgical texts often do this, with references and allusions to all
parts of scripture, jumping backwards and forwards with bewildering rapidity,
creating a composite picture that is greater than the sum of its parts (ie
holistic). An example is a reference in a hymn to the virgin Mary as the
"heavenly jar of manna" -- four words that encapsulate a wealth of historical
theology. So with St John's reference to the dragon of his vision as the
"primeval serpent", "devil" and "satan" and the deceiver who deceived the
whole world. We must not look only at the beginning of the story, but where it
has brought us.

[Jani]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Post by Jani
The salient characteristic of the serpent in Genesis is subtlety and
craftiness, not outright evil. I suppose you could make a case that God
put

You don't think trying to make Adam and Eve commit the first sin is
evil?

No, I don't. It was a test. How could they have made a right choice without
being offered a wrong one?

The serpent clearly knew what God had commanded, and attempts to

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
twist things so that Eve violates the commandment.

It's not that much of a twist, really. He says they'll know good and evil,
and be "as gods" in that respect, and they won't die from touching the tree,
all of which turned out to be true.

Jani

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani

Post by B.G. Kent
Also the concept of serpent as evil was not the original meaning. Serpents
for ages have been known as keepers of wisdom..we have the ancient symbol
of the ouroboros....the wisdom of the Dragon.

Almost all cultures have snakes, dragons or worms in their mythology.

"mythology" Are you perhaps being a bit presumptuous?

No, he is not. And he is almost certainly using it in a somewhat different sense
from yours.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
here is good
scientific,
if not biblical evidence, that there use to be fire breathing
dragons.

No, there is not.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are
insects that still evidence real fire exhaulation.

Name one.
[snip]

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is the old chicken and egg senario. And, no, if you had ever
pursued linguistic studies, you would understand why almost no
scholars that I'm aware of, root Hebrew in Sumerian.

B - Never said that Sumerian was the root to Hebrew as in the
language...what I have said is that the mythos or creation concept has
been copied and changed by the Hebrews.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As far as "christians [who] know so little," you [Brenda] should
talk! Especially when it come to the bible.

B - because I don't believe as you do Isenders?



Also, you need to be a

Post by l***@hotmail.com
little more definitive in your use of the word "christian."

B - No.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I feel this area of anti-knowledge applies to you specifically,
Brenda. Your posts have always been tainted with a disregard for
truth.

B - LOL...your opinion old sock..your opinion.


Bren
kkk

[Jani]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
Almost all cultures have snakes, dragons or worms in their mythology.

"mythology" Are you perhaps being a bit presumptuous? There is good
scientific,
if not biblical evidence, that there use to be fire breathing
dragons.

I have never seen any scientific evidence for fire-breathing dragons: could
you point me to some references?



There are

Post by l***@hotmail.com
insects that still evidence real fire exhaulation.

Well, there's the bombardier beetle, but it's not exactly fire-breathing: it
isn't fire that it exudes, and it doesn't exude from the head end ;)


So its not a

Post by l***@hotmail.com
physical imposibility.
Also, is it so inconceiveable for a "dragon" to be in reference to a
very modern
termed animal, dinosaur?

You could have a folk-memory of dinosaurs if humans had been around at the
same time, sure, but they weren't.

Jani

[Jani]

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
The salient characteristic of the serpent in Genesis is subtlety and
craftiness, not outright evil.

There is no such thing as "outright evil" on display. Such thinking
reveals a poor understanding of the nature of evil.

Well, possibly, but I don't think that subtlety and evil are synonymous.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
The "majority of Christians" where? Worldwide? In some specific country?
On
Usenet? It certainly seems that the "majority of Christians" posting
*here*,
for example, are aware of Sumerian mythology.

Well, yes and no. There is much to be said about the Sumerian culture
and how it relates theologically. But Brenda has miss stated the case
in imagining that the early chapters of Genesis are merely a
hand-me-down rendition of the Sumerian account.

Also, whether you look at from a Christian or non-Christian perspective, the
relationship between the Sumerian narrative and the Hebrew one is rather
more complex than a straightforward "borrowing".


[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
If you're referring to
Christians everywhere, then literacy levels and access to source
materials
would probably be relevant.

Actually, with the internet, that is a very weak argument. Rather it
has more to do with Catholics and Protestants alike not only ignorant
of theologically, but having no time or taste for it.

I was talking about Christians *everywhere*, though, not just those in rich
developed countries. I'm pretty sure that even in the US, there are
Christians who don't have a reliable electricity supply or telephone line,
let alone Net access, and the situation is far worse in poorer countries.

[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you want to read a really good but hard to swallow critique of
present day Christianity, especially dealing with Evangelicals, and
their largely anti- intellectual bias, find yourself a $2 copy of "Fit
Bodies Fat Minds" by Os Guinness on the internet.

I had a look at it on Amazon; he seems to be dealing mainly with American
Christianity, which is a bit alien to me anyway, being British ;)

Jani

[Jani]

"Steve Hayes" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:B560j.1984$***@trnddc01...

[]

Post by Steve Hayes
One interesting thing about reading the text as it is is that it is an
account
of how evil enters God's good creation, of which the snake is a a part.
And
the text simply says that evil enters the good creation without giving an
account of its source.

What constitutes the evil? The temptation, or the response to temptation?
I'm wondering how Eve could be designated as "good" without having been
tested, and if God didn't authorise the test, who did?

Post by Steve Hayes
In the story the characteristic of the snake is not evil but subtlety. As
I
pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, the snake was the first
theologian, he discussed what God had said, the words of God.
Questioning the word of God is a borderline activity. It is not
necessarily
evil in itself, but can lead to evil, as it did in this case.

Hmm. Difference between discussing and questioning, perhaps?

Post by Steve Hayes
But the question, taken in itself, can be quite innocent. It is simply
intended to establish what God did in fact say.
And the first part of Eve's answer does this: God did tell them not to eat
from the tree in the middle of the garden. But the second part is an
extensive
exaggeration of what God said, because it is not recorded that God told
them
not to touch it.

That's what Eve says, though, not what the serpent says. Does that indicate
that Eve was already exaggerating what had been decreed by God, even before
the serpent asked the question?



[]

Post by Steve Hayes
Reading the story in the light of other documents brings different
insights,
as when St John in the book of Revelation refers to the snake as "the
devil"
and "satan". But St John is not specific, he is not speaking only of the
incident in the garden, but of Rahab whom the Lord hacked in pieces. He is
encapsulating thousands of years of history in a single sentence.

And he's also recording a personal revelation: an intuitive interpretation
rather than an analytical one.

Post by Steve Hayes
Orthodox liturgical texts often do this, with references and allusions to
all
parts of scripture, jumping backwards and forwards with bewildering
rapidity,
creating a composite picture that is greater than the sum of its parts (ie
holistic). An example is a reference in a hymn to the virgin Mary as the
"heavenly jar of manna" -- four words that encapsulate a wealth of
historical
theology. So with St John's reference to the dragon of his vision as the
"primeval serpent", "devil" and "satan" and the deceiver who deceived the
whole world. We must not look only at the beginning of the story, but
where it
has brought us.

Yes, I understand what you mean: the retrospective viewpoint explains the
parts, and draws them together into a coherent whole. To me, as an outsider,
it's a restricted worldview, but I can see why it isn't to Christians.

Jani

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani

Post by B.G. Kent
Also the concept of serpent as evil was not the original meaning. Serpents
for ages have been known as keepers of wisdom..we have the ancient symbol
of the ouroboros....the wisdom of the Dragon.

Almost all cultures have snakes, dragons or worms in their mythology.

"mythology" Are you perhaps being a bit presumptuous? There is good
scientific,
if not biblical evidence, that there use to be fire breathing
dragons.

B - source please.

thanks
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jani
[]

Post by Steve Hayes
One interesting thing about reading the text as it is is that it is an
account
of how evil enters God's good creation, of which the snake is a a part.
And
the text simply says that evil enters the good creation without giving an
account of its source.

What constitutes the evil? The temptation, or the response to temptation?

Why not both? The serpent was punished for tempting (Gen 3:14) and Eve was
punished for falling to temptation (Gen 3:15-16).

Post by Jani
I'm wondering how Eve could be designated as "good" without having been
tested, and if God didn't authorise the test, who did?

Well, don't wonder for too long. Genesis has God calling her good _before_ she
was tested:

And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
(Gen 1:31 JPS)

Remember that Eve's creation took place _before_ this in Gen 1:27.

[snip]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Jani
[]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by Jani
The salient characteristic of the serpent in Genesis is subtlety and
craftiness, not outright evil.

There is no such thing as "outright evil" on display. Such thinking
reveals a poor understanding of the nature of evil.

Well, possibly, but I don't think that subtlety and evil are synonymous.

I was wondering when someone would make this elementary and important
observation!

The very same word (H6175) is used in Pro 12:23, where it has to be in a
_positive_ sense. Yet it is again used in a negative sense in Pro 12:16. One
must read the context carefully.

[snip]

[B.G. Kent]

Post by B.G. Kent
[This posting seems to be slightly confusing. It suggests that Satan
is a Christian creation, but notes a Jewish background for it. While
Satan isn't explicitly censured in Job, he seems hostile to mankind
there. In Zech 3:2 he is censured by God. This is developed more in
post-Biblical Judaism. See the Wikipedia article on Satan. The NT
seems to have a view pretty much identical to Christianity. (The
Wikipedia article has many of the references. It's not hard to come up
with more.) --clh]

B - actually it doesn't. It talks about the CURRENT concept of Satan in
Christianity as a Christian invention..not Satan as a whole. I don't like
Wikipedia and have
been warned against using it as source due to the fact that Wikipedia can
be addended to and changed by anyone.
You say the NT seems to be identical to Christianity? the NT is about
Christianity ....I don't understand what you mean by that.

blessings
Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.
This is done in the attempt to support the Church's self-styled concept Of
Eve's Original Sin - a concept (developed and promoted by St. Augustine)
which, like so many doctrines of th early bishops, emerged from an
unhealthy sexual paranoia. Not only did the Christian bishops reinterpret
the story of Adam and Eve, they also had the story rewritten so that a few
verses of Genesis became great biographical books,aand it is from these
spurious works of fantasy that the familiar portrayals of satanic
involvement have emerged.

Perhaps that is because the church doesn't read Genesis with blinkers, but
reads the whole Bible, and sees beyond it as well.

You are forever saying that we shouldn't just look to the Bible, so why do you
do so in this instance? And not merely confining it to the Bible, but to one
part of one book?

Consider, for example, Revelation 12:9: "The great dragon, the primeval
serpent, known as the devil or Satan, who had deceived all the world, was
hurled down to the earth and his angels were hurled down with him."

Genesis may not mention Satan, but Revelation does, and interprets the snake
of Genesis in that light.

And what are these "great biographical books" you are talking about? Could you
name some of them?

Post by B.G. Kent
In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaisim to this day, Satan never
appears as Western Christendom has come to know him. The Christian
perception of Satan is that of an evil imperialist whose despicable horde
wages war upon God and humankind. But this Satan character was an
invention of the post-Jesus era, a fabulous myth with no more historic
worth than any figment of a Gothic novel.

I doubt that you will find that the Old Testament view of Satan has any more
"historic" [sic] validity -- it's all myth, but, as Nicolas Berdyaev reminds
us,

Myth is a reality immeasurably greater than concept. It is
high time that we stopped identifying myth with invention,
with the illusions of primitive mentality, and with anything,
in fact, which is essentially opposed to reality... The
creation of myths among peoples denotes a real spiritual life,
more real indeed than that of abstract concepts and rational
thought. Myth is always concrete and expresses life better
than abstract thought can do; its nature is bound up with that
of symbol. Myth is the concrete recital of events and original
phenomena of the spiritual life symbolized in the natural
world, which has engraved itself on the language memory and
creative energy of the people... it brings two worlds together
symbolically.

Post by B.G. Kent
In the Old Testament, 'satans' (though rarely mentioned) are portrayed as
obedient servants or sons of the gods (the bene ha-elohim) who perform
specific functions of strategic obstruction. The Hebrew root of the
definition is STN, which defines an opposer, adversary or accuser, whereas
the Greek equivalent was diabolos(whence,diabolical and devil),which
relates to an obstructor or slanderer. Until Christian times, the word
'satan' had no sinister connotation whatever and, in the old tradition,
members of a straightforward political opposition party would have been
called satans. In the book of 1 Samuel(29:4), David is himself referred to
as a satan (adversary) of the Philistines.

Quite. The word "satan" means "adversary" or "accuser", and in the Old
Testament the satan often acts like a public prosecutor in a law court. In
fact "Satan" is a nown rather than a name, it is an office rather than a
distinct person. So "The satan" is like "the prosecutor" in a court of law,
who is an official of the court, and whose job it is to bring accusations
against the accused.

You can see that in Job chapter 2 and Zechariah chapter 3.

Post by B.G. Kent
Whenever a bene ha-elohim satan appears in the Old Testament, he is seen
as a member of the heavenly court - a member who carries out God's more
aggressive dictates. In the book of Job (1:6-12,2:1-7)for example, a satan
is sent twice by God to tease and frustrate Job,but with the express
instruction that he should not seriously harm the man - an instruction
which is duly obeyed. In the book of Numbers, when Balaam decided to take
his ass where God had warned him not to go, 'God's anger was kindled...and
le-satan-lo] against him'(Numbers 22:22). In this instance,although
performing an obstinate role of physical obstruction, the satan was acting
for Balaam's own benefit at God's command.

But you have mixed up the numbers there. Bene elohim is plural -- sons of
gods, ie gods, or, as they are sometimes called, angels.

Post by B.G. Kent
By the time of the Old Testament's penultimate book of Zechariah (3:1-2),
the appointed satan (chief magistrate) is portrayed with an independant
will, for here we see him in conflict with God in a social matter. In
this instance, the Jews returning from Babylonian exile were attempting
to regain their family stations in Jerusalem,but they arrived to find a
High Priest and a governing establishment already in place. God sided with
the residential Israelites in the dispute, but the satan took the side of
the disaffected Jews. None the less, despite the political stand-off,
there is stillno indication of anythign remotely dark in the character of
satan.

But the Christian interpretation of this is that the High Priest Joshua is
accused by the satan (the accuser, the prosecutor), But the "angel of the
Lord" (the defence attorney) says that Joshua's dirty clothes should be taken
off him , and that he should be given clean clothes.

And Joshua is a type of Jesus (Jesus is simply the Greek form of Joshua), who,
as the Epistle to the Hebrews says, is our great high priest. His dirty
clothes (representing his sins) are not his sins but ours. They got dirty when
he was baptised, immersed in the muddy and humdrum waters of the Jordan, at
the lowest place on the surface of the earth, where he stepped into the water
to take our sins upon him (and trampled upon the heads of the dragons that
lurked there).

And because the dirty clothes were taken from him, and clean clothes put on
him, as St Paul says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who
are in Christ Jesus", because the accuser of our brethren, who accused them
day and night before our God, has been cast down.

Post by B.G. Kent
The sinister satanic figure (sometimes called Lucifer,Beelzebub or Belial-
meaning worthless)emerged mainly through the onset of Christian dualism -
the concept of two opposing and equally powerful gods. According to
different traditions, Satan was either the brother or the son of Jehovah,
or was even the competitive and aggressive aspect of Jehovah himself. In
essence, the Jehovah-Satan conflict was representative of the ancient
pre-Christian traditon of the symbolic battle of Light and Darkness as
perceived by Persian mystics. This tradition found its way into the
ascetic Judaism of sects such as the Essenes of Qumran, and it is to some
extent recognizable in the New Testament, but it was not apparent in the
Hebrew lore of the Old Testament wherein satans are seen to perform
specific duties of mundane opposition.

But that is misleading, because it is NOT the Christian tradition, which has
been summed up quite well by Charles Stewart in his book "Demons and the
devil":

The Orthodox moral world emerges as an arena in which good
struggles against evil, the kingdom of heaven against the
kingdom of earth. In life, humans are enjoined to embrace
Christ, who assists their attainment of Christian virtues:
modesty, humility, patience and love. At the same time, lack
of discernment and incontinence impede the realization of
these virtues and thereby conduce to sin; sin in turn places
one closer to the Devil... Since the resurrection of Christ
the results of this struggle have not been in doubt. So long
as people affirm their faith in Christ, especially at moments
of demonic assault, there is no need to fear the influence of
the Devil. He exists only as an oxymoron, a powerless force.

and

"The main doctrinal point is simple: NO DUALISM. Satan is
not to be regarded as a power equal to God. He is God's
creation and operates subject to divine will." Other points:
(1) Satan has no independent power. He may tempt, but his
success is strictly dependent on lapses in human will; (2)
Satan is immaterial; there no excessive concern with his form
or geographical associations; (3) as he has no real power,
there is no reason to appeal to him. All rites, sorcery, black
magic, astrology and the like that appeal to demons or the
devil are fruitless; (4) Satan's field of operations is
narrow, and the harm he can provoke is limited; (5) Satan is
strictly and intrinsically evil. The Church does not accept
the existence of intermediate or ambiguous fairy-like
creatures such as neraides, gorgones and kallikantzaroi; (6)
Satan is singular. He is the leader of demons who are fallen
angels of the same order as himself. There is no real concern
for the names of demons.

Post by B.G. Kent
So, from what original concept or Bible entry was the modern Christan
image of Satan born? in the Old Testament book of Isaiah is a section
dealing with the prophesied fall of Babylon, and in referring to the city
and it despotic king, Isaiah says, 'How are you fallen from heaven,day
star,son of the dawn! How areyou fallen to earth,conqueror of nations!"
(Isaiah 14:12). Many centuries after this was written, the image of the
fallen day star (Venus) was redefined as 'light-bearer', and when
translated into Latin with a poper noun connotation it became 'Lucifer'.
Hence, Lucifer appeared in this Venus context in St Jerome's
fourth-century Vulgate Bible, to become associated with an evil satan some

Not quite.

Yes, "Lucifer" is the Latin name of the planet Venus as seen in the morning
sky - Eosphoros. And it is simply the brightest object in the heavens after
the sun and moon. And it is used as an epithet for the King of Babylon, who
was the most powerful ruler around at the time that Isaiah 14 was written.

It is political satire, saying that no matter how brightly the king's star
shines, he will die like other mortals, and when he comes to Sheol (Hades) all
the other kings will say "So you too have been brought to nothing, like
ourselves. You too have become like us. Your magnificence has been flung down
to Sheol".

So the bright star, the bright spark, has flopped.

And that could be sung about the downfall of any earthly tyrant. Where is
Hitler today, with his thousand-year Reich? In Sheol, and his star has fallen.

And so the church has applied it to the tyrant of tyrants, the accuser of our
brethren, who accused them day and night before our God -- he has been thrown
down. He was a jumped up public prosdecutor who thought the judge, God
himself, was too soft on criminals, so he thought he could so a better job as
judge than God himself. But the prosecutor who coveted the Judge's job
overlooked one thing: he was such a martinet for God's justice that he
entirely overlooked God's mercy, and when he brought his accusation against
Jesus/Joshua he not only lost his case, he lost his job. He was fired from
being prosecutor, the accuser of our brethren is cast down. Like the King of
Babylon, like Hitler, like any earthly tyrant, Lucifer, Daystar son of dawn,
has fallen from the heavens.

Post by B.G. Kent
Of Lucifer,so by allusion called,
Of that bright star to Satan paragon'd.

Milton was just repeating what the Church had taught for centuries.

Post by B.G. Kent
Today, the Isaiah verse in authorized Christian Bibles retains the
Latinized Lucifer entry which emanated from the Christan Church's creation
of its own Satan mythology during Roman Imperial times. The Roman faith
was based wholly on subjugating people at large to the dominion of the
bishops, and to facilitate this subordination an anti-God/anti-Christ
figurew was necessary as a perceived enemy.

And that is simply a travesty of history.

Read "The martyrdom of Polycarp" and see what the Roman state did to Christian
bishops.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent
Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention,direct or indirect,of
Satan's involvement,and yet it has become common practise for the church
to portray the serpent as an emissary of Satan,or even as Satan himself.

Perhaps that is because the church doesn't read Genesis with blinkers, but
reads the whole Bible, and sees beyond it as well.

B - I suppose some churches do.

Post by Steve Hayes
You are forever saying that we shouldn't just look to the Bible, so why do you
do so in this instance? And not merely confining it to the Bible, but to one
part of one book?

B - I believe in looking at all texts...all translations..all musings on
God and meditation within. I simply am bringing out one other authors work
to think on.


Blessings
Bren

[Bob]

Post by Steve Hayes
(1) Satan has no independent power. He may tempt, but his
success is strictly dependent on lapses in human will;

When he directly appears in the bible, it always is related to
temptation. I have often wondered if the name "satan" is just an
excuse term for human weakness rather than a spiritual being. It's a
whole lot easier to blame someone else for our lapses in good
judgment, and "satan" is a good scapegoat.

Bob

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob

Post by Steve Hayes
(1) Satan has no independent power. He may tempt, but his
success is strictly dependent on lapses in human will;

When he directly appears in the bible, it always is related to
temptation. I have often wondered if the name "satan" is just an
excuse term for human weakness rather than a spiritual being. It's a
whole lot easier to blame someone else for our lapses in good
judgment, and "satan" is a good scapegoat.

If his success is strictly dependent on lapses of human will, that's really
not on.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Bob

Post by Steve Hayes
(1) Satan has no independent power. He may tempt, but his
success is strictly dependent on lapses in human will;

When he directly appears in the bible, it always is related to
temptation. I have often wondered if the name "satan" is just an
excuse term for human weakness rather than a spiritual being. It's a
whole lot easier to blame someone else for our lapses in good
judgment, and "satan" is a good scapegoat.

B - Considering that there were many satans in Sumerian mythos before
the Torah was even written and that it meant Adversary in Hebrew as
well...I believe it just refers to those that are against us or
others..not a specific being.

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Bob

Post by Steve Hayes
(1) Satan has no independent power. He may tempt, but his
success is strictly dependent on lapses in human will;

When he directly appears in the bible, it always is related to
temptation. I have often wondered if the name "satan" is just an
excuse term for human weakness rather than a spiritual being. It's a
whole lot easier to blame someone else for our lapses in good
judgment, and "satan" is a good scapegoat.

B - Considering that there were many satans in Sumerian mythos before
the Torah was even written and that it meant Adversary in Hebrew as
well...I believe it just refers to those that are against us or
others..not a specific being.

Like Peter, when Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, satan."

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
In the Hebrew Bible,

which you evince having no knowledge of

Post by B.G. Kent
'God's anger was kindled...and
le-satan-lo] against him'(Numbers 22:22). In this instance,although
performing an obstinate role of physical obstruction, the satan was acting
for Balaam's own benefit at God's command.

Really? I mean, even if you have no knowledge of Hebrew you could
at least look up the passage in a general work, say in K and D's
exposition. And if you had an interlinear, you would recognize that
"adversary" is not a reference to a name or discriptive of a person.
You would also see, if you knew Hebrew, that "adversary" relates
back to The Angel of YHVH, or YHVH as the Exegete to man, i.e.
Dabar [1 Sam 3:21] or Logos.

You write this long post but your research is atrocious. You
exhibit why there are seminaries and why there is a need for
formal theological training.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You write this long post but your research is atrocious. You
exhibit why there are seminaries and why there is a need for
formal theological training.

B - I really wonder why Isenders that you are so afraid of different views
left as they are...different concepts left as they are so that people can
make up their own minds and chew the fat so to speak on different ways.
You seem so fearful that if people grab hold of something you don't
believe in that they will wreak havoc or something. I simply believe that
all views can be posted here..on Christianity. I never said that I totally
believe one way over another because I find snippets of truth in many
things for God is the string in the necklace of pearls known as
religions..I am a Theosophist and truth is the only religion really...and
I find truth in many places....and falsehoods as well in many places
including the falsehoods that people fool themselves with...hypocrisy etc.
I find it simply amazing that I can give someone else's view on this list
and you will tear it down as if It is my own dogma. My only "dogma" is
that I believe in freedom to believe as one wishes.
period.

try to relax ...

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You write this long post but your research is atrocious. You
exhibit why there are seminaries and why there is a need for
formal theological training.

B - and you exhibit where there is a need for open minds...comparative
studying...humility and the ability to allow freedom to learn and suppose
and muse. Your ego seems rather rampant and you continually talk about how
others aren't that "good" at their history etc....in part saying how
"good"
you are. I feel for you.

Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You write this long post but your research is atrocious. You
exhibit why there are seminaries and why there is a need for
formal theological training.

B - I really wonder why Isenders that you are so afraid of different views

Oh no, my dear. You haven't assumed correctly. Reading different
views is why I've been here for nearly 20 yrs. It is why my library,
one
that has been thoroughly read and studied, is so diverse.

You confuse diversity with validity. Your statements have no
concourse with reality. You just make it up as you go.

As I have repeatedly concluded, you only have a "designer" view
of reality. You pick and choose what you want to be true and then
you believe it. You have no means of validation except your
"inner light".

Post by B.G. Kent
left as they are...different concepts left as they are so that people can
make up their own minds and chew the fat so to speak on different ways.
You seem so fearful that if people grab hold of something you don't
believe in that they will wreak havoc or something.

Again, your standing outside of the ball park imagining all sorts of
vanities. Like everything else you try to discern, you've completely
concluded the wrong reality.

The only thing I am fearful of is God. And when anyone falsely
assumes Him to be other than He has revealed Himself to be,
then that individual is an idolator. The idol in the hand was first
born in the imagination of the mind. God is by definition The
sovereign reality. You either accept Him as He has revealed
Himself to be or you stand condemned. This is the whole point
of Rom 1:18-3:20. Therefore "you are without excuse!"

Post by B.G. Kent
I simply believe that

Simple? Yes. Now there is something that I think you have actually
correctly described. "Believed?" What does that mean? Belief/faith
is ALWAYS founded upon knowledge. If you input incorrect date in
that knowledge bank, then to that degree your faith is fixed on an
incorrect object, and in this case, an imaginary one.

Post by B.G. Kent
all views can be posted here..on Christianity. I never said that I totally
believe one way over another because I find snippets of truth in many
things for God is the string in the necklace of pearls known as
religions..

"Designer god."

"Oh I like this. I think I'll add a dash of that. Ooo! Don't like
that.
In the trash with you. Oh, isn't this quite delightful. Oh it makes
me
feel so warm and fuzzy inside. Yes, I must add some of that. There
you go. Two heaping spoon fulls. "

Post by B.G. Kent
I am a Theosophist and truth is the only religion really...

But you have no means of verifying that so called truth. You have
only your own guidence system. God is incomprehensible. You
must allow Him to reveal Himself. You do not get to pick and choose
what you will or will not believe about His revelation. You must
accept it all or reject it all. You can't sit on the fence. TRUTH,
not "truths" dear.

Post by B.G. Kent
I find truth in many places....and falsehoods as well in many places
including the falsehoods that people fool themselves with...hypocrisy etc.

obviously! You do it repeatedly. But why should anyone assume it
to be otherwise when, other than you yourself, you have no
authoritative
to discern truth from non-truth.

Post by B.G. Kent
I find it simply amazing that I can give someone else's view on this list
and you will tear it down as if It is my own dogma. My only "dogma" is
that I believe in freedom to believe as one wishes.
period. Try to relax.

The problem is, there is no relaxation in hell! Ideas do have
consequences.
You get this one wrong and you will suffer for it eternally -with no
hope
for a pardon. This is not a game of trivial pursuit. These things
have
eternal consequence. Don't you get that? God is by nature
antithetical
to that which is contrary to Him. He is not a bunch of ideas. He is
The
Idea. There is no confusion in God. He is who He has revealed
Himself
to be. He is the Creator of the universe, the Designer of all that is
and is
to come. When He reveals that you must believe Him as He is or
suffer eternal damnation, do you think He is just a silly poo bear?
So it
seems, unfortunately.

I've used the illustration before but you seem not glean its truth.
I'm
driving down US 1 along the California coast and speed up around a
corner only to see that a land slide has taken out the road. I only
barely manage to jump out of my car before it flies off the cliff.

Now after a time, my senses coming to me just how fortunate I
was not to go down with that vehicle, I turn and head back the way
I came. It is not long before I see another car headed my way.

Now here is where you fail in your appreciation of why I stand
so fixed in opposition to you. I know that if I do not warn this
on coming car of the danger ahead, it will likewise drive off the
cliff. The good Samaritan does everything he can to avoid that.
I have tried to get you to see that your "designer" religion may
feel like a shiny warm womb to you know, but it is in the end
going to be your cold tin coffin that offers no protection for
you from the wrath to come. God is love but as He has revealed,
that love is not separate from the government of His holiness.
Christ's death on that cross is all the verification you need. You
either believe in that as your final salvation or you die in flames.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You write this long post but your research is atrocious. You
exhibit why there are seminaries and why there is a need for
formal theological training.

B - and you exhibit where there is a need for open minds...comparative
studying...humility and the ability to allow freedom to learn and suppose
and muse. Your ego seems rather rampant and you continually talk about how
others aren't that "good" at their history etc....in part saying how
"good"
you are. I feel for you.

1 Tim. 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being
quite deceived, fell into transgression.

[AJA]

Post by B.G. Kent
..I am a Theosophist and truth is the only religion really..

If it's a religion of the self, it's fabulous as long as it lasts. (CSL)
Now the muddy waters are parting. Thanks for clearing things up.
Who is the artibiter of truth, by the way?
Blessings,
Ann

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You write this long post but your research is atrocious. You
exhibit why there are seminaries and why there is a need for
formal theological training.

B - I really wonder why Isenders that you are so afraid of different views

Oh no, my dear. You haven't assumed correctly. Reading different
views is why I've been here for nearly 20 yrs. It is why my library,
one
that has been thoroughly read and studied, is so diverse.
You confuse diversity with validity. Your statements have no
concourse with reality. You just make it up as you go.

B - LOL...prove your "reality" hon.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I have repeatedly concluded, you only have a "designer" view
of reality. You pick and choose what you want to be true and then
you believe it. You have no means of validation except your
"inner light".

B - as opposed to you who has just a book written by other
humans...fallible humans.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The only thing I am fearful of is God. And when anyone falsely
assumes Him to be other than He has revealed Himself to be,
then that individual is an idolator. The idol in the hand was first
born in the imagination of the mind. God is by definition The
sovereign reality. You either accept Him as He has revealed
Himself to be or you stand condemned. This is the whole point
of Rom 1:18-3:20. Therefore "you are without excuse!"

B - Sigh...you don't get it do you Isenders? you're "proving your point"
with a book that cannot be proven. Your argument against my own beliefs is
circular...self-serving...and without anything solid.

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent
all views can be posted here..on Christianity. I never said that I totally
believe one way over another because I find snippets of truth in many
things for God is the string in the necklace of pearls known as
religions..

"Designer god."

B - as opposed to your buying someone else's designer god Isenders?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Oh I like this. I think I'll add a dash of that. Ooo! Don't like
that.

B - again..you havn't a clue. I feel sorry for you ..but that doesn't
help..it will only be with going onwards and going inward.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But you have no means of verifying that so called truth. You have only

B - Neither do you..except your idol..a book..which does not prove
anything.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The problem is, there is no relaxation in hell! Ideas do have
consequences.

B - Oh for the love of God. Sigh..once again..I am casting pearls before
swine. My mistake.

Blessings to you dear Isenders. God loves you.

I won't be reading yours again..unless someone tells me that you have
dropped the ego.

I wish you well but it took me a long time to realize that responding to
you is like having a conversation with a black hole.

hugs,
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by AJA

Post by B.G. Kent
..I am a Theosophist and truth is the only religion really..

If it's a religion of the self, it's fabulous as long as it lasts.

B - actually it is not a religion but rather a group of people that seek
the truth in the varying religions and science and beyond. Freedom to
think..to explore...to query and to embrace.

Post by AJA
Now the muddy waters are parting. Thanks for clearing things up.

B - lotus grows to the light through the mud.

Post by AJA
Who is the artibiter of truth, by the way?

B - personally..I believe it is God...but that's just me.

Post by AJA
Blessings,
Ann

Blessings
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You write this long post but your research is atrocious. You
exhibit why there are seminaries and why there is a need for
formal theological training.

B - I really wonder why Isenders that you are so afraid of different views

Oh no, my dear. You haven't assumed correctly. Reading different
views is why I've been here for nearly 20 yrs. It is why my library,
one
that has been thoroughly read and studied, is so diverse.
You confuse diversity with validity. Your statements have no
concourse with reality. You just make it up as you go.

B - LOL...prove your "reality" hon.

You, Bren, have just proved one reality: your own blind insistence on a childish
sort of solipsism. That _is_ the only possible explanation of your challenge,
demanding he 'prove' reality.

[snip]