Nope. But at the same time, I don't need to discount what I hadn't heard of before as a lie, right after I hear about it, unless I've previously established through experience it's deceptive nature.Apparently you think it's obvious that in order to know who is or is not part of some narrative, you have to believe it's a true story.
Why would they need to assume anything other than a written text had basis in history?But that's absurd on its face. If it were true, then nobody would be able to say whether or not Julius Caesar was referred to in the Iliad unless they believed it was a true story.
Sounds like you have already decided that your lack of knowledge and awareness means that any experience you lack makes the experiences of others invalid, because there's nothing there which would make it valid.(Possible good-faith response to this: "no, that's not the assumption I was making; rather, this comment was based on the truism that..." [followed by an actual, relevant truism]. Likely SteveB response to this: " 'Apparently'... Have you ever considered that what's 'apparent' to you is not apparent to me, and that is why I know Jesus while you are choosing to go to the lake of fire in order to avoid Him?" [followed by seven hundred words of irrelevant Bible quotations].)
Sarcasm.You are the one who said I was an expert.
Curious.However, I do know that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel, and that is enough to defeat you in this discussion.
But apparently you don't actually know how to do any research to learn the background of why it's believed that satan is the serpent of Genesis 3, the satan of Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28.Because I can read the Bible without believing it is true, and I can see that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel.
Ah. So you know what you don't actually know, just because you don't want to know and learn?No I will not because it is not true.
Curious thing about the Genesis 3 passage....And one reason for knowing that is the way Christianity twists its own sacred texts. Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel, and yet Christianity uses those books to support its view of Satan.
Well, when I talk with people who have repeatedly stated they know everything and refuse to learn anything beyond what they believe they already know....Clearly you cannot support Christianity here. You know you do not have a leg to stand on, so can offer nothing to suggest I might be wrong.
I'm going to let you decide whether or not you will read the articles I linked above.Because Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel.
I've presented the facts.You can either turn a blind eye to the facts, and continue to embrace a religion that, to be frank, makes stuff up. Or you can deal with the very simple fact that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel. If you continue to do the former, why would you imagine anyone will take you seriously, Steve?
When @The Pixie said that Satan does not appear in the Book of Genesis, Steve replied "yet you don't believe any of this, so why would I think you actually know what you're talking about." But now he denies that he was claiming you need to believe a story in order to know, for example, who does or doesn't appear in the story. In a way it's understandable that he would deny claiming that, because the claim is very obviously ridiculous. But his denial is also ridiculous, because we know very well that:Nope.
This would be an excellent reply if I had said, "you need to start with the assumption that Genesis is a lie." But I didn't say that. I didn't come close to saying it. Nor did I imply it, or suggest it. It is not at all an excellent reply to what I did say, which was that Steve was making the ridiculous assumption that you needed to believe a story in order to know anything about it. In fact it is not a reply at all to that. (Devastating answers to questions which were never asked, and failure to answer questions which were asked, are also common events on The SteveB Show.)But at the same time, I don't need to discount what I hadn't heard of before as a lie, right after I hear about it, unless I've previously established through experience it's deceptive nature.
How exactly could you wonder why I should start with arguing that, when I didn't start with arguing that? I also didn't end with arguing that or middle with arguing that; I simply didn't argue that at all. I said nothing whatsoever about Jesus; I only said something about SteveB making an obviously silly assumption in his claim. (Steve being unable to distinguish between an attack on Jesus and a criticism of SteveB is yet another common plot development on The SteveB Show.)So, I find myself wondering why you should start with arguing that Jesus isn't who he claims to be, when you have no knowledge.
Yeah, it is not like he will miss the sons and daughters that were killed, right? Their loss was "no more that a light momentary affliction".
When you rationalise murder so casually, you have lost the argument.
And the idea of Job gaining those "insights" without the suffering being inflicted in the first place... was dismissed out of hand, for some reason.
How have you concluded that from my post? What you mean is that I refuse to swallow your nonsense unquestioningly. And I never will, Steve. I will always question what you say, in part because you have been proven wrong so often.Curious.
So you don't actually like learning for yourself, even after the descriptions for the kind of research you need to do are given to you.
Of course they do. Christians have been pedalling this nonsense for millenia.Well, I can't help you with this, but here's some materials that give the historical background of this issue.
This matter of satan, Lucifer, the kings of Babylon and tyre are not new issues. They date back millennia.
So did you already know Bibles do not mention Lucifer? Why did you even mention him when modern translations omit him altogether?So, blaming me for just accepting what others think without question speaks more to your own intellectual laziness than mine.
Just tell me how you have determined that Isaiah 14 is about Lucifer.If I had to detail everything I've learned over the past 44+ years, and where I learned it, and why I've come to believe it, you'd fall asleep in 30 minutes.
A lot - all but the Christian evangelicals - agree with me. Include most of the web site you found!So, if you actually want to know, you need to learn.
Learn to read, learn to understand, learn to ask questions of actual experts, who have far more education than either of us combined.
Did you read those links? From the first:Many Christians still use Isaiah 14:12–14 to explain the origin of evil and the notion that Satan was called Lucifer before his fall. But can this interpretation be sustained by the biblical text?www.ministrymagazine.org
The common interpretation of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, is telling about Satan and him being cast down. Has anyone ever hear a different interpretation before? If so, what was it? Thank you,hermeneutics.stackexchange.com
Like Isaiah, Ezekiel also has oracles against the nations: Ammon (25:1-7), Moab (25:8-11), Edom (25:12-14), Philistia (25:15-17), Tyre (26:1-28:19), Sidon (28:20-26), and Egypt (29:1-32:32). The passage sometimes applied to the devil, 28:12b-19, is in the heart of an oracle against the ruler of...craigkeener.com
And apparently you could not be bothered to read the web sites you presented as supporting your position. At least I was prepared to do that!But apparently you don't actually know how to do any research to learn the background of why it's believed that satan is the serpent of Genesis 3, the satan of Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28.
The evidence points to that being more the case for you Steve. I am the one who was prepared to read those four linked web pages.Why is this? Did you lose your ability to learn and reason after you finished your education?
As I showed in post #55, this is about a huge sea monster, a dragon with seven heads, the Leviathan. It is not about a snake.Curious thing about the Genesis 3 passage....
Rev 12:9 WEB The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
You seem to be describing yourself. You are so sure you are right, you did not even bother to read those links.Well, when I talk with people who have repeatedly stated they know everything and refuse to learn anything beyond what they believe they already know....
I'm not particularly concerned about it.
I decided to read them.I'm going to let you decide whether or not you will read the articles I linked above.
You might like to look up what "hope" and "disappoint" actually mean. It makes no sense to hope for a disappointment.I'm hoping you disappoint me by actually reading them. Because at this point, it's become quite clear that you don't want to know anything beyond your present ideas. So I'm really looking forward to you disappointing me.
You have presented your opinion that Revelation refers to the serpent in Genesis. No more than that.I've presented the facts.
So why is murder wrong? The victim will be raised again, just like Job's children.When Job is raised from the dead his children will be too. For a believer death is not final.
Do you think Job's kids dying was the result of human sin?Suffering is the result of human sin. God uses the suffering which already exists to bring about good.
Human sin caused the curse. Nice try though.So he caused cancer, not human sin.
Careful calling people fools, your neck is in the noose when you do it, atheist.Please relay this to all the "cancer because sin" fools in here.
Why did human sin cause the curse?Human sin caused the curse.
After having Psalm 14:1 thrown in my face for the past twenty-odd years, you people need to learn to give and take.Careful calling people fools, your neck is in the noose when you do it, atheist.