The Bible/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

**** There are a number of figures in the Bible who have been called "Satan." The serpent in Genesis, the "adversary" in Job, Lucifer in Isaiah and the Satan who tempts Jesus in the desert may all be the same being, they may be all different, or it may be some combination. Your theological mileage may vary.

** Bigger question might be why you're treating [[The Bible]] like it's a piece of fiction literature that was plotted out by a single source with one running plotline and foreshadowing.

** As to how, Satan likely turned someting during or after the earth's completion<ref>Job 38:4-7 infers that "''all'' the sons of God" were still good when God "founded the earth"</ref>. The reason why he (as the serpent) turned was because of [[Pride]]; he wanted to rule the earth instead of [[God]], and that's why he spitefully caused mankind to disobey God. Also, considering that the serpent is guilty of genocide on the ''entire human race'', I would consider him evil. He was the [[Big Bad]] since Genesis; Satan as "simply an agent to sort out the guilty" as seen in Job is only one interpretation that is not universally believed, others consider his actions there evil too. And no, Satan being the serpent doesn't open up any plot holes, you must be misunderstanding something. I will concede that it was rather late in [[The Bible]] (Revelation) that Satan was actually identified as the serpent, but considering Jesus and his followers considered Satan as evil and the [[Big Bad]] ''before'' Revelation was written, this was likely a common belief among Jews in the first century and before.

*** The claim that Satan, like man, possesses Free Will solves one problem, but creates another. Several times throughout the Old Testament, God is shown interfering in the affairs of men if they do something He doesn't like, up to and including killing them outright. Satan, supposedly, is the biggest doer-of-things-God-doesn't-like of them all. So why has God elected to wait until the End of the World (i.e. the time of the Revelation) to destroy Satan? Why hasn't He already destroyed Satan?

**** To make a point. Reading between the lines in Genesis chapter 3, Satan was challenging God's right to rule mankind in the Garden of Eden, inferring that humans would be better off if they were left on their own or in Satan's control. If God had killed off Satan, Adam, and Eve immediately, it would have looked like Satan was right or at least that he could pose some threat to God's sovereignty. Instead, God gave Satan and humans free reign on Earth for millennia in order to prove that Satan is a bad ruler and that humans would screw themselves over without God's guidance.

** It never actually says the snake was Satan, and many don't think he is. People inferred that from a reference to Satan as "the great serpent" or something like that, which sounds similar, but could just as likely refer to [[Reptiles Are Abhorent]] in general. What you pointed out is another reason that the "snake is Satan" theory just doesn't add up.

*** Adam and Eve were only like children in the sense that they didn't understand the difference between good and evil. They should have known (using just logic) that if God told them not to eat from the tree because they would die, that they would really die if they ate from the tree. In a more modern situation, imagine if you're in a laboratory and the head of research tells you that a beaker is full of acid. He walks out, then some guy comes up and tells you that the beaker is full of something that will cure every disease you've ever had. Who would you listen to?

**** [[Rhetorical Question Blunder|What is this "death" thing you speak of?]] [[Memetic Mutation|It is cake?]] The threat of death in a world where nothing has died is as empty as the threat of starvation to a wealthy glutton, if not more-so.

** It's simple. The fruit allowed them to determine good and evil for themselves (thus being "like god' the serpent didn't lie.) Without having a higher power tell them. They still ''knew'' right and wrong, as we can see.

*** A similar idea: That they already knew right and wrong, good and evil, and the serpent was bluffing them that they didn't.

*** You forget that [people take the story very literally. And also, what the snake promised was "knowledge" and hence "realization". The "punishments" could even be claimed to have been physically present before but not experienced; pregnancy would take 9 months, we assume early Spring and they would have Autumn/Winter timing.

** If anything it's a metaphor for the Agricultural Revolution and Mankind learning how to till the ground ("making" our food instead of waiting for "God to give it to us" upgrading from Hunter-gathering to Farming) , essentially upgrading us from just sapience to both it and sentience.

** Technically, even if Jesus had died peacefully in private, it still would have brought salvation into the world. The whole point was more or less that an innocent man tastes death so that sinful men could be spared eternal death/damnation. Jesus' death was so horrific because He wanted mankind to be aware of how much he loved them, showing how much he would suffer for us.

** To this troper this goes to show the problem with the codifying of theology... aka Bible [[Fanon]]. Nowhere in Canon does it even come close to saying what would have happened! But the questioner cannot be blamed for their assumption of what would have happened, because most of the prevalent Fanons have decided that it only could have worked that one way... putting God in a box.

** He is called "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," so we can assume that He knew even before Creation. As a practical matter, He personally told Isaiah about the manner of His death, and if His Incarnation concealed any knowledge from Him, the crucifixion wasn't among that. He knew full well He would have to be crucified, and He was prepared for it. Even so, He was afraid when the hour approached, but He was more committed than afraid, so He went through with it.

** This is something this (Christian) Troper has thought about a lot, and has come to the conclusion that God probably took this into account. This Troper is pretty sure God wouldn't overlook such a blatant flaw in His own religion.

** You're thinking about it as if Heaven is exactly the same as Earth, except nobody dies. That's not the case. Heaven is something that we, as mortal humans, simply cannot understand. If you're trying to understand God as if He is human or as if Heaven is something like Earth, then you're doing it wrong.

*** The point is eternal life, as Jesus said in John 17:3. To explain, we were created to be in a relationship with God, and when we sinned, we separated ourselves from Him. Essentially, salvation is when this relationship is mended by faith in Christ and repentance (a change of heart rather than change of lifestyle, though the former ought to create the latter). While God id not COMPLETELY knowable, He does reveal that which we can understand.

** The idea of repentance is SINCERE desire to reform and to not do the action again. As in you recognize you did the wrong and that you want to change. Forgiveness is the striking from the record your sins, in exchange for you changing your life. The rules show us that we screwed up.

*** People on death row are more than willing to be SINCERE about not being the action again. Of course the issues then rises that free will is redundant because use of it IS IN FACT "sin" and hence we are PUNISHED for using it. And then what about those who ONLY restrain themselves BECAUSE they will be rewarded for doing what the Bible says? Aren't they LESS moral than the one who rejects the Bible but does "good acts" because he SINCERELY wants to.

** Calm down there Troper. Remember, this isn't for complaining about religions you don't like. But in answer to your questions:

*** Kill meant something different in those days, i.e. murder. The commandment is stating thou shall not murder. Killing in war has never been generally considered murder (whether or not that's a wallbanger is another page).

*** dude really? it's a metaphor...the eye represents anyone or anything that causes one to sin(even if it as close to you as an organ) get rid off it,your better off without. jesus commonly spoked in metaphor. which even confused he followers at times.

** [[Fair for Its Day]]; that ''was'' the legal policy in many countries for years, at least with hands rather than eyes.

**** Madness? [[This Is Sparta]]! But I don't know of anyone who takes those quotes literally. The moral's usually taken as "if you're being tempted to sin, then don't just try to will the sin away, get rid of the temptation itself". Like, if you're trying to quit smoking, then throw away every single cigarette and make it so you can't buy any more, so when you're being tempted later, you won't be able to act on it. But if the issue is more that certain people have no problem taking things like that figuratively but suddenly get all literal with stuff like "the Earth is only 7000 years old" ...yeah, that one baffles me too.

*** The Bible

** Catholicism does acknowledge that Peter had a wife and that is was perfectly valid for him to have a wife. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, meaning that, if the Pope wanted to, he could wake up tomorrow morning and make it completely licit for a Priest to have a wife.

** Christ is God too. God the Father, God the Son (a.k.a. Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit are all God. Not parts of God, but God. How the three can be one is a question smarter people than I have spent 2000 years to try to figure that one out.

*** [[Wild Mass Guessing|I've got an idea.]] God the Father is the original God aka YHWH, the [[Knight Templar]] with a hint of [[Blue and Orange Morality]]. Jesus is God on a human level, and thus a pacifist. Finally, the Holy Spirit is the medium between the two.

***** It still says "''all'' scripture". I understand where you are coming from, but the context of verse 15 applies ''only'' to Timothy, thus to him, verse 16 refers to the Old Testament. But to readers living after the Bible's completion, verse 16 refers to the ''entire'' Bible, even those written ''after'' 2 Timothy. You forget that [[The Bible]] has more than one audience.

***** Isn't that taking the verse a bit out of context and stretching it because how could anybody use that verse to justify the N.T canon? Also at the time it was written the scriptures were already completed as the Old Testament canon or the Jewish tanakh.

** Um, for one thing, the serpent did ''not'' give humanity free will or teach them good and evil. If humanity didn't have free will beforehand, it would have been impossible for them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. And how is tricking humanity into dying ''not'' a [[Moral Event Horizon]]? Also, don't forget that with death also came sin and the [[Humans Are Flawed]] and [[Humans Are Bastards]] tropes.

* How does the law saying "don't boil a goat in its mother's milk" get interpreted to mean "don't have meat and dairy at the same meal"? It seems pretty obvious to me that the intended meaning is "boiling an animal in it's own mother's milk is cruel and unusual, don't do this cruel and unusual thing to your animals".