CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You should read my argument on the other side. The meaning of the word Satan is "an adversary." That is every person in conflict with God. The ancients didn't look at Satan as an individual, nor did they look at hell as a real place. Hell fire in Aramaic translates to "mental suffering." The only people who regarded the underworld (hell) as real, were ancient Greek and Roman polytheists, but even they got over it. I assume that when Rome adopted Christianity, in order to convert with ease, they mixed some of their terms in there... For example, hell is also called Hades in the Bible. If you look at the Bible from an allegorical perspective, it makes a lot more sense, and Christians would be even better people because of it.
I would show you a video about how demons possess humans but you would say that the video I sent you was either fake or you would say that the person was doing that.
Faith is not proof.
It is because faith comes by hearing.
How can you know this for sure?
In the Bible, Jesus was casting out demons and it spoke about Satan.
Just because people modeled his image after different gods, doesn't mean he actually looks like that, nor does it mean he is supposed to he interpreted as real.
Jesus was tempted by Satan. He even said that hell was made for the destruction of Satan and his angels. There is way too much in the Bible talking about how Satan is an actual being. To deny all of them would take a lot of reading too much into it, similar to how Richard Carrier even denies that Jesus was a real person.
He even said that hell was made for the destruction of Satan and his angels.
Are you referring to Matthew 25:41? "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
Devil in Greek is different from Satan. Devil in Greek is diabolos, which means "prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely." Satan, which is of Hebrew origin, means "adversary". When the ancient Jews weren't looking at Satan as a mere metaphor for a negative human quality, they were referring to Satan as everyone who lives sinfully, not a single being, especially not a ruler of the underworld.
Angel in Greek, is aggelos, which is a "messenger." So, is it not likely that the devil is being referred to there as the opponent of Jesus' message, otherwise known as the adversary to the Kingdom of God, and his "angels" (messengers) are the people who indulge in sin and spread the wrong message? Those who are egotistical and materialistic are in hell, so to speak. Look at the verse in context: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not."
Doesn't that sound a bit selfish of the people he was referring to?
There is way too much in the Bible talking about how Satan is an actual being.
People interpreted symbolic messages literally.
Is wisdom a literal being? Proverbs 1:20 "Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:"
Is patience a literal being? James 1:4 "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing"
To deny all of them would take a lot of reading too much into it, similar to how Richard Carrier even denies that Jesus was a real person.
I disagree, I think interpreting them literally would be reading too little into them. You don't have to deny the existence of Jesus to see that much of the Bible is supposed to be interpreted symbolically.
Matthew 13:13
"Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."
Mark 3:23
"So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan?"
Satan and the temptation were separate from one another. Satan spoke even in this section. If you say that Satan is simply temptation, then you're contradicting the Bible, about how God is incapable of being tempted. Tempted has two sense: internal and external. God not being tempted is internal; Jesus being tempted here is external. To conclude that temptation is internal here is contradictory. You have to say that it was external to Him, Jesus, which means that Satan most likely is an actual being, who actually tempts people.
Devil in Greek is different from Satan. Devil in Greek is diabolos, which means "prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely." Satan, which is of Hebrew origin, means "adversary". When the ancient Jews weren't looking at Satan as a mere metaphor for a negative human quality, they were referring to Satan as everyone who lives sinfully, not a single being, especially not a ruler of the underworld.
What about it? The usage would be translated as, because of the singular article and because of it being a noun, 'the one who is prone to slander, or the one who is slanderous, or the one who is accusing falsely." Thats a person. Its throughout the rest of the Bible that Satan is a being.
Angel in Greek, is aggelos, which is a "messenger." So, is it not likely that the devil is being referred to there as the opponent of Jesus' message, otherwise known as the adversary to the Kingdom of God, and his "angels" (messengers) are the people who indulge in sin and spread the wrong message? Those who are egotistical and materialistic are in hell, so to speak. Look at the verse in context: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
The angels are referring to demons.
Doesn't that sound a bit selfish of the people he was referring to?
What about it? You have still yet to show anything about how Satan is not an actual being.
People interpreted symbolic messages literally.
I'm not denying that many parts of the Bible are metaphorical. But when you have an entire section of the Bible designated as a history, with genealogy, historical referencing, etc. we know it to be a history. When you get into doctrinal letters and books, then symbolism is fine.
I disagree, I think interpreting them literally would be reading too little into them. You don't have to deny the existence of Jesus to see that much of the Bible is supposed to be interpreted symbolically.
Did I deny that? I'm not denying that at all. But when you have historical books, doctrinal books, poetic books, etc. all saying that Satan is an actual being, then of course you are going to have to believe him as an actual being.
I keep saying that Satan is that negative tempting inner voice, why wouldn't he appear to talk?
If you say that Satan is simply temptation, then you're contradicting the Bible, about how God is incapable of being tempted.
Jesus didn't give in, did he?
Plus, even Jesus brought that up: Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”
Tempted has two sense: internal and external. God not being tempted is internal; Jesus being tempted here is external. To conclude that temptation is internal here is contradictory.
Giving in to temptation is always internal. Jesus was on a forty day fast, don't you think that realistically he'd have some voices in his head telling him to give in?
The usage would be translated as, because of the singular article and because of it being a noun, 'the one who is prone to slander, or the one who is slanderous, or the one who is accusing falsely."
What about it? You have still yet to show anything about how Satan is not an actual being.
I am not going to be able to supply you with absolute proof. I've given you plenty of reasons to assume that he isn't an actual being, but we both know that you don't want to be convinced.
However, in 1 Kings 11:14 "Now the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was a descendant of the king in Edom." The word used in Hebrew for adversary is satan.
But when you have an entire section of the Bible designated as a history, with genealogy, historical referencing, etc. we know it to be a history.
So, if part of a chapter is historical, then all of it is historical? Show me a chapter that is entirely metaphorical.
But when you have historical books, doctrinal books, poetic books, etc. all saying that Satan is an actual being, then of course you are going to have to believe him as an actual being.
As Jesus said, “I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
You don't think it is possible that the misinterpretations are what caught on?
Who in Jesus' lifetime said that Satan was an actual being?
Huge difference between a doctrinal statement and a historical narrative.
Jesus didn't give in, did he?
Thats irrelevant. Jesus didn't give in because it was an external temptation. The way you are describing Satan is of an internal temptation, when Jesus is not internally tempted. You proved my point. Jesus was even saying that it was external, meaning that there must be some sort of external substantiating force.
Giving in to temptation is always internal. Jesus was on a forty day fast, don't you think that realistically he'd have some voices in his head telling him to give in?
Not at all. That was the point of him being tempted: that He is perfect even in the worst of situations.
It's actually an adjective.
And when you put an adjective with an article is made into a noun. You take the meaning of the adjective and add "one" after it. I've taken Greek classes, and thats what you do. For example, if the adjective is "strong," then when you add an article in front of it, it become "the strong one." The base word here is an adjective, but the word here in meaning is a noun.
Demons are just "messengers" of the devil.
They are workers of the devil.
I am not going to be able to supply you with absolute proof. I've given you plenty of reasons to assume that he isn't an actual being, but we both know that you don't want to be convinced.
No you haven't actually. You've simply asserted that the Bible was meant to be taken allegorical, even in historical setting, without any backing. You don't think the Bible was to fully divinely inspired, so I can't argue against you. You can interpret the Bible any way when you do that.
You don't think it is possible that the misinterpretations are what caught on?
Thats why He sent the apostles, so that we might understand His truth more clearly. And the Apostles all speak truth to it. Moreover, the Old Testament speaks truth to him being real.
The way you are describing Satan is of an internal temptation, when Jesus is not internally tempted.
Can you have any control over your hunger? Jesus fasted for forty days. It even said that Jesus was hungry: "And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry." Would hunger not lead to the internal temptation to eat? “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
You proved my point. Jesus was even saying that it was external, meaning that there must be some sort of external substantiating force.
No I didn't. When did Jesus say it was external?
Not at all. That was the point of him being tempted: that He is perfect even in the worst of situations.
It seems to me like it was a show of Jesus' will power.
And when you put an adjective with an article is made into a noun. You take the meaning of the adjective and add "one" after it. I've taken Greek classes, and thats what you do.
Ah, interesting... But that in no way disputes the idea that the devil is a metaphor. They could have said the voice, that is singular, as well. After all, in this argument, Satan represents a human trait.
They are workers of the devil.
Okay... But the definition of demons in Greek also says "messengers."
No you haven't actually. You've simply asserted that the Bible was meant to be taken allegorical, even in historical setting, without any backing. You don't think the Bible was to fully divinely inspired, so I can't argue against you. You can interpret the Bible any way when you do that.
Actually, I have... And you conveniently keep avoiding those parts.
Can you have any control over your hunger? Jesus fasted for forty days. It even said that Jesus was hungry: "And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry." Would hunger not lead to the internal temptation to eat? “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
People's flesh is the basis of sin. Jesus had control over the flesh. He did not have internal temptations.
No I didn't. When did Jesus say it was external?
1. Jesus is God.
2. God is not tempted by things internal.
3. Jesus is not tempted by things internal.
4. Jesus is tempted here.
5. Jesus is tempted externally here.
6. External temptation requires an active and passive faculty.
7. Modes requires substances.
8. The active faculty of tempting has a substance.
9. Therefore, Jesus was tempted by an external substance.
Ah, interesting... But that in no way disputes the idea that the devil is a metaphor. They could have said the voice, that is singular, as well. After all, in this argument, Satan represents a human trait.
Satan is being used here as a noun. He is not a trait. He is thing. That is how it is used here. Hence, you can say that the word is not being used here to designate Satan, or you can say that you are wrong.
Okay... But the definition of demons in Greek also says "messengers."
No it doesn't.
δαιμόνιον,n \{dahee-mon'-ee-on}
1) the divine power, deity, divinity 2) a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men 3) evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil
Actually, I have... And you conveniently keep avoiding those parts.
If I did not agree with the statement and that statement was a bad argument, then I did not respond to it.
Here's the thing: you're arguing for your position. That is irrelevant to what the intention of the Bible authors meant Satan to mean.
People's flesh is the basis of sin. Jesus had control over the flesh. He did not have internal temptations.
I don't believe what you believe, so simply stating your belief does not refute my point in any way.
I am taking your opinions to mind, but in order for us to get anywhere, you're going to have to look at both opinions on equal terms so that we can come to a conclusion. I assume that you would like to convince me because you once told me that you are on this site to teach not to debate. Apparently you think you understand the subject well enough to be a teacher, so I'd like to see reasons why my interpretation can't work, other than that they contradict your possibly false interpretation.
Jesus was hungry, yes? To be hungry is to want to eat. To be tempted is to desire something. Jesus wanted food. How was that not an internal temptation?
Satan is being used here as a noun. He is not a trait. He is thing.
A trait is a noun. Wisdom is a noun. Patience is a noun. Temptation is a noun. Pleasure is a noun.
δαιμόνιον,n \{dahee-mon'-ee-on}
1) the divine power, deity, divinity 2) a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men 3) evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil
I'll let you go ahead and find the word I was referring to. I'll give you a hint... Look at number three... You should also take a closer look at number two, because that supports some of my earlier arguments... And number one doesn't make much sense.
If I did not agree with the statement and that statement was a bad argument, then I did not respond to it.
Hmmm... I respond to most of your points, and you haven't convinced me yet, so I don't see why you can't do the same for me. Plus, since when do "teachers" ignore points that they think are bad or they don't agree with? After all, you don't agree with the points that you are responding to either, right?
Here's the thing: you're arguing for your position. That is irrelevant to what the intention of the Bible authors meant Satan to mean.
Oh, come on... You can do better than that. "You don't interpret the Bible the same way as I do, therefore you are wrong."
Human qualities were given genders throughout the Bible...
Proverbs 1:20 "Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares."
James 1:4 "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."
The ancient Jewish philosopher, Philo, said that Adam represents mind, Eve represents sense perception, and the serpent (Satan) represents pleasure. The Garden of Eden represents virtue. The combination of mind and sense perception led to pleasure, which then led to the loss of virtue (Adam and Eve being kicked out of Eden).
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was called the Tree of Knowledge of Everything in the ancient Hebrew translations. Eating the forbidden fruit led to the introduction of the ego and materialism, which is why Adam and Eve realized that they were naked after they ate it. To sin is to overindulge in worldly pleasures, which is to be materialistic and egotistical. In the Bible, Adam was made from the Earth, and Eve was made from Adam, making everything one... But they lost that knowledge after eating the forbidden fruit and saw the illusion of individuality.
Middle-Platonism is not the same as Biblical theology; do not synthesis them, especially since Genesis is considered as a history.
said that Adam represents mind, Eve represents sense perception,
Why did Adam jump with joy, then, when Eve (or sense perception) was created?
and the serpent (Satan) represents pleasure. The combination of mind and sense perception led to pleasure, which then led to the loss of virtue (Adam and Eve being kicked out of Eden).
Pleasure is good in the Bible, since Genesis 2 noted that the Garden of Eden, before Eve was created, "every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." Ecclesiastes, 1 Timothy, and many other places note that pleasure is a good thing. Do not combine Platonism to the Bible.
Eating the forbidden fruit led to the introduction of the ego and materialism, which is why Adam and Eve realized that they were naked after they ate it.
Nakedness throughout most of the Bible represents vulnerability. After the fall, man understood the vulnerability, so they tried to cover it up, which was insufficient, which is why God ended up covering them Himself, reflecting the covering over man with Jesus' blood. Ego and materialism make no sense with nakedness, nor in this context.
Middle-Platonism is not the same as Biblical theology; do not synthesis them, especially since Genesis is considered as a history.
Parts of Genesis are, but I believe that much of it, especially The Fall, is supposed to be interpreted allegorically.
Why did Adam jump with joy, then, when Eve (or sense perception) was created?
Well, he didn't, did he? What suggests otherwise?
Pleasure is good in the Bible, since Genesis 2 noted that the Garden of Eden, before Eve was created, "every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." Ecclesiastes, 1 Timothy, and many other places note that pleasure is a good thing.
Pleasure can be a good thing, but it also leads to bad things. Having sex is pleasureful (not a bad thing, but adultery is), taking drugs can be pleasureful, eating a forbidden fruit can be pleasureful. However, all of those things are tempting, as well. That little voice in our heads we have to try and fight off. Satan is that tempting negative voice that leads us into indulging in "sinful" pleasures. Material pleasures are different from spiritual pleasures, no?
Do not combine Platonism to the Bible.
I don't mean to be rude, but do not tell me what to do. I brought up Philo of Alexandria, whose concept of logos arguably had some major influence on Christianity. So, you may not want me to bring Platonism into the Bible, but tough shit... It's already in there.
After the fall, man understood the vulnerability, so they tried to cover it up, which was insufficient, which is why God ended up covering them Himself, reflecting the covering over man with Jesus' blood.
If we go by the interpretation that Adam is mind and Eve is sense perception, then "tunics of skin" sounds a lot like a body.
Ego and materialism make no sense with nakedness, nor in this context.
With the ego, you get a sense of self, but Adam and Eve were one, were they not? And Adam was made from the Earth... So, Adam and Eve were the Earth. They didn't realize they were naked until after they ate the fruit.
Materialism keeps man from entering the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven), does it not?
Matthew 19:24
"And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Mark 10:15
"Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
Matthew 21:43
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it."
Which tree contained the fruits that were not forbidden?
Parts of Genesis are, but I believe that much of it, especially The Fall, is supposed to be interpreted allegorically.
Such as? Jesus refers to Genesis as history.
Well, he didn't, did he? What suggests otherwise?
Genesis 2:23 is Adam bursting forth in joy.
Pleasure can be a good thing, but it also leads to bad things. Having sex is pleasureful (not a bad thing, but adultery is), taking drugs can be pleasureful, eating a forbidden fruit can be pleasureful. However, all of those things are tempting, as well. That little voice in our heads we have to try and fight off. Satan is that tempting negative voice that leads us into indulging in "sinful" pleasures. Material pleasures are different from spiritual pleasures, no?
Material pleasures have been given to us by God for joy. Ecclesiastes tells us this. In spiritual pleasure, we take greater materialistic pleasures, making spiritual pleasures greater, and so on. God did not give us material pleasures that test us, and they are most certainly not distractions from truth, as a Platonist would claim.
I don't mean to be rude, but do not tell me what to do. I brought up Philo of Alexandria, whose concept of logos arguably had some major influence on Christianity. So, you may not want me to bring Platonism into the Bible, but tough shit... It's already in there.
Philo lived during the time of Christ. They were separate in thought. Sure, middle-Platonism led to neo-platonism, which influenced Christian thought, but this does not mean that we should now, in modern times, combine the two into one system. Back then, they were trying to reconcile one with the other; do we need to do that now? No.
Moreover, people back then, when trying to reconcile the two systems, were either philosophers trying to appease their religious neighbors, or they were theologians trying to appease their philosophic neighbors. If you want to believe the Bible, and then try to understand it through philosophy, that is one thing; but to use philosophy as the base, by the interpreting the Bible in it, is intellectually dishonest. The Bible is said to be the base, not the interpretation.
If we go by the interpretation that Adam is mind and Eve is sense perception, then "tunics of skin" sounds a lot like a body.
As if one can have sense perception without a body... So sense perception came before the body, which was One with mind, but there was no body. Somethings not consistent here, especially since the mind and the sense perception tried to make clothes for themselves.
With the ego, you get a sense of self, but Adam and Eve were one, were they not? And Adam was made from the Earth... So, Adam and Eve were the Earth. They didn't realize they were naked until after they ate the fruit.
They were separate things. They lived separately. Platonists have always had trouble reconciling individuality. They most certainly were separate. you could argue that they were different parts of the same thing, but they most certainly were separate things.
Materialism keeps man from entering the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven), does it not?
Making idols shows that one does not have God as the leader of one's life.
You're picking and choosing which Bible verses you want. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
Show me a verse that was spoken BY Jesus, in which he claims that all of Genesis, specifically The Fall, should be interpreted literally.
Genesis 2:23 is Adam bursting forth in joy.
And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Bursting forth with joy? That's not the impression I got from it. He's clearly stating the obvious, which is that they are one.
Material pleasures have been given to us by God for joy. Ecclesiastes tells us this.
Ecclesiastes 2:1 I said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure”; but surely, this also was vanity.
Ecclesiastes 2:10-11 Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them.
I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure,
For my heart rejoiced in all my labor;
And this was my reward from all my labor.
Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done
And on the labor in which I had toiled;
And indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind.
There was no profit under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 2:26 For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.
Ecclesiastes 4:13 Better a poor and wise youth
Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more.
Ecclesiastes 5:10 He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver;
Nor he who loves abundance, with increase.
This also is vanity.
Materialism is almost unavoidable, but becoming too preoccupied with materialistic things can lead to destruction. That is the message. You can enjoy food, friends, music and such, but becoming too preoccupied with things that don't last, is not good. Most atheists are materialists, that is why they can't grasp the concept of God. They look at things from a materialistic perspective, not a spiritual one... Do you disagree?
In spiritual pleasure, we take greater materialistic pleasures, making spiritual pleasures greater, and so on. God did not give us material pleasures that test us, and they are most certainly not distractions from truth, as a Platonist would claim.
They were not meant as distractions, but they are... Aren't they? An atheist can't look past the components in science. The government is more worried about control and money. Our society is fascinated with violence and weapons. If everyone saw the world from a proper spiritual perspective, would all of this happen?
Philo lived during the time of Christ. They were separate in thought. Sure, middle-Platonism led to neo-platonism, which influenced Christian thought, but this does not mean that we should now, in modern times, combine the two into one system. Back then, they were trying to reconcile one with the other; do we need to do that now? No.
I am convinced that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Not too many philosophers have made commentaries on both Old Testament and New Testament, and a Jewish one would obviously only refer to Old Testament. Philo was Jewish, so what he explains is applied to Old Testament. He had not been exposed to the idea that hell and Satan were supposed to be interpreted literally.
I don't think Philo and Jesus were too separate in thought. Jews did not believe in a literal hell or Satan, and Jesus was Jewish. However, polytheists believed in an evil god that was equal in power to a good god. Interpreting Satan literally seems to contradict monotheism.
If you want to believe the Bible, and then try to understand it through philosophy, that is one thing; but to use philosophy as the base, by the interpreting the Bible in it, is intellectually dishonest.
And what authority do you have to say that? I don't agree with your interpretation, it's that simple. I think it is "intellectually dishonest" of you to not ask these sort of questions.
The Bible is said to be the base, not the interpretation.
I think there have been several enlightened philosophers throughout history. Jesus was one of them.
As if one can have sense perception without a body...
Do you not understand what an allegory is? Also, do you think Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis, had a good understanding of biology and anatomy? At the core, we are spiritual beings, do you not believe that?
Somethings not consistent here, especially since the mind and the sense perception tried to make clothes for themselves.
Once again, you're mixing a literal interpretation with an allegorical interpretation. Mind and sense perception were given form for the metaphor, just as wisdom and patience were given genders later on. Jesus said he was a door in the Bible, do you believe that he was an actual door?
They were separate things. They lived separately. Platonists have always had trouble reconciling individuality.
So, if I pour you water in two separate cups out of the same bottle, are they no longer the same water?
They most certainly were separate. you could argue that they were different parts of the same thing, but they most certainly were separate things.
Different parts of the same thing came to be viewed as different, in general. I realize it is a difficult concept to grasp, but the world's religions have been trying to lead people to the realization that everything is one for thousands of years. That's what enlightenment is. That's what entering the Kingdom of God is. That's what Tao is. That's why Jesus can be the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit.
Making idols shows that one does not have God as the leader of one's life.
Then maybe you should distance yourself from the cross and artistic representations of Jesus.
You're picking and choosing which Bible verses you want. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
We can go over the entire Bible, if you want. Stop trying to insult me.
Show me a verse that was spoken BY Jesus, in which he claims that all of Genesis, specifically The Fall, should be interpreted literally.
When talking about marriage, it was in the tense of historical meaning. Sermon on the Mount--Matthew 5. --- correction Matthew 19 divorce
Bursting forth with joy? That's not the impression I got from it. He's clearly stating the obvious, which is that they are one.
This was marriage. He needed a helper. He was happy with it. Its in poetic form. Its a song of joy, just like the psalms.
Materialism is almost unavoidable, but becoming too preoccupied with materialistic things can lead to destruction. That is the message. You can enjoy food, friends, music and such, but becoming too preoccupied with things that don't last, is not good. Most atheists are materialists, that is why they can't grasp the concept of God. They look at things from a materialistic perspective, not a spiritual one... Do you disagree?
We are material people. Those who are meek will inherit the earth. Making idols of anything but God is evil, but no one claims that taking pleasures in material things is bad. Only Stoics would probably say that.
They were not meant as distractions, but they are... Aren't they? An atheist can't look past the components in science. The government is more worried about control and money. Our society is fascinated with violence and weapons. If everyone saw the world from a proper spiritual perspective, would all of this happen?
They are distractions only to those who have not God. To those who have God, it is wondrous.
I am convinced that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Not too many philosophers have made commentaries on both Old Testament and New Testament, and a Jewish one would obviously only refer to Old Testament. Philo was Jewish, so what he explains is applied to Old Testament. He had not been exposed to the idea that hell and Satan were supposed to be interpreted literally.
Hell and Satan are all over the Old Testament.
I don't think Philo and Jesus were too separate in thought. Jews did not believe in a literal hell or Satan, and Jesus was Jewish. However, polytheists believed in an evil god that was equal in power to a good god. Interpreting Satan literally seems to contradict monotheism.
The Jews also didn't think the Messiah would save them spiritually. Satan existing does not contradict monotheism. And if you want to say it does, then you can easily say that the Bible is henotheistic.
And what authority do you have to say that? I don't agree with your interpretation, it's that simple. I think it is "intellectually dishonest" of you to not ask these sort of questions.
The Bible is God's Word. God is authority. Moreover, you're interpreting the Bible, which was written before Plato, in a platonistic mindset.
Do you not understand what an allegory is? Also, do you think Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis, had a good understanding of biology and anatomy? At the core, we are spiritual beings, do you not believe that?
We are physical and spiritual beings. We are not meant to be disembodied minds. This is why the Bible, throughout, speaks of God making a new world, one in which Christ will reign physically on earth.
Once again, you're mixing a literal interpretation with an allegorical interpretation. Mind and sense perception were given form for the metaphor, just as wisdom and patience were given genders later on. Jesus said he was a door in the Bible, do you believe that he was an actual door?
I understand what an allegory is. But when if the allegory is not internally consistent, then it is wrong.
So, if I pour you water in two separate cups out of the same bottle, are they no longer the same water?
The water itself is not the same. We have different personalities; that is a given. To deny that is to deny a Moorean fact. We are not one. Its intuitive to think that. If we were one, then we would not have any separate thoughts. We do. Its obvious that we do.
Different parts of the same thing came to be viewed as different, in general. I realize it is a difficult concept to grasp, but the world's religions have been trying to lead people to the realization that everything is one for thousands of years. That's what enlightenment is. That's what entering the Kingdom of God is. That's what Tao is. That's why Jesus can be the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit.
We are separate beings. A thumb is different from a foot.
Then maybe you should distance yourself from the cross and artistic representations of Jesus.
This has no bearing on idols.
We can go over the entire Bible, if you want. Stop trying to insult me.
I'm not trying to insult you. You're being intellectually dishonest.
When talking about marriage, it was in the tense of historical meaning. Sermon on the Mount--Matthew 5.
How did you come to the conclusion that it was in a historical tense? It would help if you quoted the verses you are referring to.
This was marriage. He needed a helper. He was happy with it. Its in poetic form. Its a song of joy, just like the psalms.
That seems to be begging the question.
We are material people. Those who are meek will inherit the earth. Making idols of anything but God is evil, but no one claims that taking pleasures in material things is bad. Only Stoics would probably say that.
I never said you can't enjoy material things, but materialism can blind people. People should not become consumed with material things.
1 John 2:15-17 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
1 Timothy 6:9-10 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Matthew 6:19-21 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Mark 4:18-19 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful
Hell and Satan are all over the Old Testament.
I know... That's my point. They are all over, yet they weren't considered to be literal.
The Jews also didn't think the Messiah would save them spiritually. Satan existing does not contradict monotheism. And if you want to say it does, then you can easily say that the Bible is henotheistic.
What's your point? That doesn't mean they were wrong about Satan and hell being metaphors.
The Bible is God's Word. God is authority. Moreover, you're interpreting the Bible, which was written before Plato, in a platonistic mindset.
It's impossible for them to have thought alike? They weren't in the same area. I'm not even drawing from Plato's philosophy, other than Philo, whom I used specifically for Genesis.
We are physical and spiritual beings. We are not meant to be disembodied minds. This is why the Bible, throughout, speaks of God making a new world, one in which Christ will reign physically on earth.
We are physical beings while on Earth. Our actual bodies do not go to the afterlife.
2 Corinthians 5:5 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.
I think the "new world" ruled by Christ will be as a result of people becoming more spiritual. I don't think it means that Jesus will literally come down and rule. Christ seems more like a title, like Buddha. It's actually an adjective. Buddhists believe that they can reach a point where they too can become Buddhas. Maybe it is the same with Christ... Or it may just mean that his teachings will finally be understood by everyone.
I understand what an allegory is. But when if the allegory is not internally consistent, then it is wrong.
The Bible had many different authors, but it could still be consistent.
The water itself is not the same. We have different personalities; that is a given. To deny that is to deny a Moorean fact.
The water is the same, how is it not?
We have different personalities, yes. I can also wiggle my right hand while keeping my left hand still. We are limited, just as the the same water poured in two different cups is limited. I can stir one cup of water, turn it into tea, whatever... And do different things to the other cup of water... Then I can pour them both back into the same bottle. They were never not that water, though.
We are not one. Its intuitive to think that. If we were one, then we would not have any separate thoughts. We do. Its obvious that we do.
If you lost your arm, is that no longer your arm? If you cut your hair, is that no longer your hair on the floor? If you make a pot from clay on the ground, is it no longer that clay? Scientifically speaking, at our core, everything is energy... The same energy, which can be neither created nor destroyed.
When you grew from your mother's egg and your fathers sperm, which grew from them, are you no longer those things, and are those no longer them? Was your body not also your mothers when you were attached to her by the umbilical cord?
We are separate beings. A thumb is different from a foot.
So, is a wave different from the ocean?
This has no bearing on idols.
It kind of does. When people prayed to idols, they thought of them as representations of their actual gods. Why is the cross or the image of Jesus even in churches to begin with?
I'm not trying to insult you. You're being intellectually dishonest.
See, that's another little jab. Have you ever thought that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do?
How did you come to the conclusion that it was in a historical tense? It would help if you quoted the verses you are referring to.
Matthew 19:
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
That seems to be begging the question.
Thats not begging the question at all. Thats what the verse is talking about. God promised Adam a helper; God marched all the animals in front of him; no helped suitable for Adam was found; God created Eve; Adam says this snippet, which is in poet dialogue. This seems to me that he is bursting forth in joy.
I know... That's my point. They are all over, yet they weren't considered to be literal.
What's your point? That doesn't mean they were wrong about Satan and hell being metaphors.
Most people did not understand the truth of the Scriptures until after Christ. Peter, an apostle of God, did not believe Jesus was going to die on the cross. The Jews did not believe many things that were revealed in the New Testament, though these things were in the Old Testament hidden in subtlety. The Jews are not reliable indicators for what the Bible says.
It's impossible for them to have thought alike? They weren't in the same area. I'm not even drawing from Plato's philosophy, other than Philo, whom I used specifically for Genesis.
They are not alike, though. There is no doctrine that is like Christianity. People think there to be, but there really isn't.
We are physical beings while on Earth. Our actual bodies do not go to the afterlife.
Our bodies will be resurrected. Do not think like the Jews did. You're proving my point previously.
I think the "new world" ruled by Christ will be as a result of people becoming more spiritual. I don't think it means that Jesus will literally come down and rule. Christ seems more like a title, like Buddha. It's actually an adjective. Buddhists believe that they can reach a point where they too can become Buddhas. Maybe it is the same with Christ... Or it may just mean that his teachings will finally be understood by everyone.
1 Corinthians 15
The water is the same, how is it not?
The water I drank a few minutes ago is not the same water that is in the stream down the road.
It kind of does. When people prayed to idols, they thought of them as representations of their actual gods. Why is the cross or the image of Jesus even in churches to begin with?
They are representatives of Christ.
See, that's another little jab. Have you ever thought that maybe you don't know as much as you think you do?
I never claimed that I new a lot. I'm simply claiming that what you are doing here is intellectual dishonesty. You're doing the very same thing that the Mormons, the Muslims, etc. do. You cannot argue against a person who takes Scripture as partly being divinely inspired. Its picking a choosing to fit your doctrine and beliefs.
I guess that explains why I couldn't find it in Matthew 5 ;)
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
How does that put it into a historical tense? Jesus' parables taught moral and spiritual lessons, as well. They aren't supposed to be interpreted literally, though.
God promised Adam a helper; God marched all the animals in front of him; no helped suitable for Adam was found; God created Eve; Adam says this snippet, which is in poet dialogue. This seems to me that he is bursting forth in joy.
"Seems to me" are the keywords there. You don't actually know if he was bursting with joy, nor do I... But I don't believe that was the purpose of that dialogue.
Most people did not understand the truth of the Scriptures until after Christ.
So, where in the Bible does Jesus point out that their interpretations of Satan and hell were wrong?
The Jews did not believe many things that were revealed in the New Testament, though these things were in the Old Testament hidden in subtlety. The Jews are not reliable indicators for what the Bible says.
You don't know that.
Our bodies will be resurrected. Do not think like the Jews did. You're proving my point previously.
The only thing I seem to be proving is your inability to question your beliefs.
You aren't reading the verses I am posting, are you? Our body is like a temple, as is said in the Bible. A temple contains things. Adam was made from clay. A pot is also made from clay, as they were especially in ancient times. A pot is a vessel, just as our body is a vessel.
1 Corinthians 15
That can be read allegorically, as well. When God told Adam and Eve that on the day they ate the fruit they would die, he was referring to a spiritual death, not a literal death. According to the Bible, they physically died like 900 years later, right?
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses
The water I drank a few minutes ago is not the same water that is in the stream down the road.
If it came from the stream it is.
They are representatives of Christ.
Just as idols are representations of gods? Do you really think Jesus wants to come back and see crosses everywhere? lol
I'm simply claiming that what you are doing here is intellectual dishonesty. You're doing the very same thing that the Mormons, the Muslims, etc. do. You cannot argue against a person who takes Scripture as partly being divinely inspired. Its picking a choosing to fit your doctrine and beliefs.
This is not comparable to the Mormons and the Muslims. They have different texts. The regular Bible is enough for my interpretation. I have read stories about people who have died and come back and reported the same things I'm telling you. They aren't the reason I interpret the Bible this way, but it just further reinforces my argument, assuming that they did actually experience the afterlife.
I think Jesus, in a sense, was divinely inspired. I think he understood the world in a way that was strange to people during that time, and he needed to put it in terms they'd understand. I don't think all of the writers were as in tune, and some probably added a few bits.
Sometimes Western interpretations don't translate over too well with Eastern religions.
How does that put it into a historical tense? Jesus' parables taught moral and spiritual lessons, as well. They aren't supposed to be interpreted literally, though.
What else do you take 'beginning' to mean?
"Seems to me" are the keywords there. You don't actually know if he was bursting with joy, nor do I... But I don't believe that was the purpose of that dialogue.
Of course it was.
So, where in the Bible does Jesus point out that their interpretations of Satan and hell were wrong?
He says very clearly that there is an actual enemy and an actual place of eternal fire.
You don't know that.
Paul tells us this. History also tells us this.
The only thing I seem to be proving is your inability to question your beliefs.
I've questioned them, and the questioning went unfounded.
You aren't reading the verses I am posting, are you? Our body is like a temple, as is said in the Bible. A temple contains things. Adam was made from clay. A pot is also made from clay, as they were especially in ancient times. A pot is a vessel, just as our body is a vessel.
Did I ever say that bodies aren't vessels? That doesn't mean that our bodies are not a part of our being.
That can be read allegorically, as well. When God told Adam and Eve that on the day they ate the fruit they would die, he was referring to a spiritual death, not a literal death. According to the Bible, they physically died like 900 years later, right?
We are raised both spiritually and physically. You're picking and choosing again.
This is not comparable to the Mormons and the Muslims. They have different texts. The regular Bible is enough for my interpretation. I have read stories about people who have died and come back and reported the same things I'm telling you. They aren't the reason I interpret the Bible this way, but it just further reinforces my argument, assuming that they did actually experience the afterlife.
Okay, I'm going to stop here. You're still picking and choosing. I can pick and choose whatever I want and make it support my belief. Don't do that. Be intellectually honest. Stop committing ad hocs.
So what if it says "beginning"? That doesn't make it any less of an allegory. I suppose you believe the sun was created on the fourth day?
He says very clearly that there is an actual enemy and an actual place of eternal fire.
Then show me.
Paul tells us this. History also tells us this.
History tells us that the Jews didn't buy into New Testament, and they still don't. So, what historical sources said that they didn't understand Old Testament?
Did I ever say that bodies aren't vessels? That doesn't mean that our bodies are not a part of our being.
Part of our being here on Earth.
We are raised both spiritually and physically. You're picking and choosing again.
You can cut the asshole remarks, man. I don't debate with people for an insult-fest. I have supplied a ton of verses to you... You have addressed none. The only one I see picking and choosing is you.
Okay, I'm going to stop here. You're still picking and choosing. I can pick and choose whatever I want and make it support my belief. Don't do that. Be intellectually honest. Stop committing ad hocs.
Stop being an arrogant prick and grow up. I told you we could go through the Bible verse by verse, and you had no comment. If you don't want to respond, then that is fine. I'm totally unimpressed... Good luck with your "teaching."
Human qualities were given genders throughout the Bible...
However it is obvious that the author is personifying the trait. In the terms of Satan, this is no where clear at all.
The Book of Job is a definite characterization of Satan and it is here Satan is definitely used as a being rather than a consciousness. Many Jews who write on the topic Satan, acknowledge Satan as a being in Job, but never address this! Why? Because it would destroy their interpretation.
The reason the mention of Satan in Job is important is because:
1) Satan is an actual being in the book
2) it is the first book written in the Hebrew bible, and pre-dates Genesis
Genesis 1:7-12
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.
Here, Satan is directly speaking to God himself. He is not referred to as the downfalls or obstacles of person, but a being speaking directly to God. No where does the "consciousness" interpretation work with this passage. Reason being, the Hebrew translation or definition of Satan is adversary or obstacle. How could God serve as an obstacle or adversary to Himself? He can't, and God is addressing an actual being, and this was also the first writing of the Hebrew bible. This is never addressed by modern Hebrew scholars.
However it is obvious that the author is personifying the trait. In the terms of Satan, this is no where clear at all.
It seems obvious because chokmah (Hebrew for wisdom) has been translated into English, but satan remained in Hebrew. Only in a few parts did they actually translate it into it's actual English equivalent, which is adversary.
Check out some verses from Proverbs 8: "Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man."
Imagine if the English translators kept Chokmah... People would think that "she" was a literal being.
The Book of Job is a definite characterization of Satan and it is here Satan is definitely used as a being rather than a consciousness. Many Jews who write on the topic Satan, acknowledge Satan as a being in Job, but never address this! Why? Because it would destroy their interpretation.
I will admit that the best evidence for Satan being a literal being is the Book of Job... That being said, the Book of Job is a poem, and the only book in Old Testament that has been considered to be entirely allegorical, that I know of. Like I said, satan is Hebrew for "adversary." For example: Numbers 22:22 "And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him." In Hebrew, it says satan instead of adversary.
1 Samuel 29:4 "And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, Make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?"
Also says "satan" in place of adversary in Hebrew.
1 Kings 11:14 "And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom."
Also, 1 King 11:23 and 1 King 11:25... They all say adversary, but in Hebrew they say satan.
Satan is an actual being in the book
All it seems to be saying is "the adversary." Take a look at this: 2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
Now, let's take a look at 1 Chronicles 21:1 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.
It is the exact same scene, except in one it is God who makes David number Israel, and in the other it is Satan. Which is the correct verse?
it is the first book written in the Hebrew bible, and pre-dates Genesis
Well, it is the earliest Biblical text discovered, correct? We're not sure which were the first stories that were passed around orally, nor have we come to the conclusion that we'll never find any earlier Biblical texts.
Genesis 1:7-12
Job ;)
Here, Satan is directly speaking to God himself. He is not referred to as the downfalls or obstacles of person, but a being speaking directly to God. No where does the "consciousness" interpretation work with this passage.
You have to realize that we are dealing with an Eastern religion, an ancient one at that. They told stories metaphorically back then, and as you've seen, personified traits. Only living beings cry, so why did wisdom cry?
An adversary is an opponent. Possibly an opponent to spiritual enlightenment or entering the Kingdom of God, something along those lines. Any "sinful" or "evil" act could be looked at as an adversary in that sense. Anything that takes you off the spiritual path.
How could God serve as an obstacle or adversary to Himself? He can't, and God is addressing an actual being, and this was also the first writing of the Hebrew bible.
Actually, I know of a pretty good reason, but that would require me to explain an interpretation of the Bible that you are not used to. I'm not sure if you'd want to read all of that.
I will admit that the best evidence for Satan being a literal being is the Book of Job... That being said, the Book of Job is a poem, and the only book in Old Testament that has been considered to be entirely allegorical, that I know of. Like I said, satan is Hebrew for "adversary." For example: Numbers 22:22 "And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him." In Hebrew, it says satan instead of adversary
Haha I haven't even gotten to my best piece of evidence yet. Anyways, something I noticed that hasn't been addressed. When "adversary" is used there is this small word called "an" in front of it. When "Satan" is used, obviously there is no "an" in front of it. I thought this was another "for the sake of translation" thing, but "an" is actually apart of the Hebrew as well. So when "adversary" is used, it is just than, an adversary. However, when Satan is used it can be translated as an the Christian concept of Satan or more descriptively "THE adversary".
Anyways, something I noticed that hasn't been addressed. When "adversary" is used there is this small word called "an" in front of it. When "Satan" is used, obviously there is no "an" in front of it.
Probably because there is no word for "an" in Hebrew.
I thought this was another "for the sake of translation" thing, but "an" is actually apart of the Hebrew as well.
So, what is the Hebrew word for "an," then?
So when "adversary" is used, it is just than, an adversary. However, when Satan is used it can be translated as an the Christian concept of Satan or more descriptively "THE adversary".
Matthew 12:26 "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?"
An adversary can not cast out THE adversary. That is the meaning of that verse (although, it could just as well be "an adversary cannot cast out an adversary"). An adversary would be an opponent to the "Kingdom of God", because they are non-spiritualistic. They are likely materialistic and filled with hate and negative emotions... That is THE adversary. It can be summed up in a single word, just as THE universe is a term that describes everything collectively, Satan can be looked at as a term that describes everything that takes us away from the spiritual path. When people are "ruled" by Satan, they are in hell. The goal is to reach the Kingdom of God, also known as the Kingdom of Heaven. We want to avoid the Kingdom of Satan, also known as the Kingdom of Hell. They are internal kingdoms. Entering the Kingdom of God is like reaching enlightenment. Entering the Kingdom of Satan is the opposite.
Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Matthew 12:28 "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you."
Mark 10:15 "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."
I typed such a long argument for you, and you only responded to a single point... Oh well, I'll take what I can get ;)
If he is, then the authors of the bible are completely delusional. I think that everything in the Bible is probably metaphoric. Either that or they were con artists. Take your pick. I think the bible has beautiful themes, but that the stories are probably metaphorical, representing the morals that are stated in the stories individually. It sounds like a better reason, to me, to listen to an argument from the bible than just insisting that god exists no fucking reason.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that god is not provable nor disprovable thus far, other than by earthly logic which probably wouldn't be how he operated if he existed. Then again, the religious never provide factual proof of god, or even theoretical proof, just opinionated BS which isn't proof. But it's more likely to me, that the stories of the bible are meant to be good morals.
Also, a lot of people think the authors of the bible were nut jobs. Some believe that they were "wise men." If they were wise, even if the bible was false, that would be a better argument for the bible than the argument fifty trillion overly religious people insist upon every second and a half.
You should read my argument above, if you haven't already. I explained what I think they have misinterpreted.
I think the Bible is a mix of the original messages and stuff added later, most likely for the purpose of control... Or they misunderstood the other messages. Most of it should be looked at as metaphors. People seem to forget that although Christianity is largest in the West, it was created in the East... And probably added on to by the Romans.
