Son Of GOD

Very true. But both from an ancient religion perspective is entirely normal to personify divinity through animals, the snake can easily be a lower god/evil god, so considering it a demon is not entirely off possibilities.

Keep in mind that early judaism was a fertility rite and that God was a bull. There is a nice scene in the exodus in which Aaron makes a golden calf and Moses destroys it... But it is because the jews are iconoclasts, not because the bull doesn't represent God.

Anyways the duality between evil and good is more of a mysticism introduction to christianity that fully gained momentum at the middle ages -which were heavily influence by "hidden" knowledge. But yes, Satan is displayed as something very different in early scriptures.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It may have been a joke, but, I think you are dead right. I think eating natural hallucinogens had a huge role in the development of religion in all likelihood, including the jewish religion.

I was joking...but I do not disagree with you. In fact, it would appear that religion, in general, spawned from our shamans hallucinating. Of course, that was thousands of years ago, but the cave paintings may have/probably were created by hallucinating tribal shaman.

To apply it to my own religion, Joseph Smith went into the woods, off by himself, and had a vision. When he came back, he was extremely exhausted and even passed out. Sounds like he either had a monumental spiritual experience and it took its toll on him physically

OR

He went in the woods to trip balls and was exhausted from it when he came back to the farm. 😉

I jest...but I am jesting only at 95%. 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am unsure if the snake thing was real or not (leaning towards not real and just allegorical)...but if it was real, Eve most likely ate some shrooms in the Garden of Eden. Explain a talking snake that has a lawyer tongue that tried to convince a naked woman to eat some magical fruit?

Obviously, she was tripping.

I'm joking about 95%.

Really, though, the snake was "possesed" by Lucifer. That's what I would call "common christian" interpretation.

In the Bible the snake was...

...just a snake.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was joking...but I do not disagree with you. In fact, it would appear that religion, in general, spawned from our shamans hallucinating. Of course, that was thousands of years ago, but the cave paintings may have/probably were created by hallucinating tribal shaman.

To apply it to my own religion, Joseph Smith went into the woods, off by himself, and had a vision. When he came back, he was extremely exhausted and even passed out. Sounds like he either had a monumental spiritual experience and it took its toll on him physically

OR

He went in the woods to trip balls and was exhausted from it when he came back to the farm. 😉

I jest...but I am jesting only at 95%. 😐

Originally posted by King Kandy
I do not do discredit to the idea you can get good lessons from this kind of experience... but, I think it is way better to just have them for yourself, than to try and base your life around someone elses'...

This is where a belief that "prayer" and "personal revelation" are tools against idiots that try to sell God to you.

If someone claims to have had a religious vision, it is my opinion that you have every eternal right to verify whether or not it was real through a personal, sincere, prayer.

Meaning, you can have a personal vision that means something personal to someone else. A shared "vision" if you will. No drugs required, either.

The idea that a spirit can speak through an animal, is evident in Numbers 22-24 when Baalum had a conversation with his donkey on whether it was right and just to curse the Jews.

The serpent as Omega Vision pointed out, may have just been a serpent (what type of serpent is irrelevant). What is relevant is that a spirit (Satan's spirit) spoke through the serpent, and beguiled Eve.

Back to the pertinence of this thread, and it's opening statement, or question. According to scripture, unless a person repents of their sins, believes in their heart that Christ is their savior, and is baptized in Christ's name, they shall not have eternal life. now these are not my words, but words that were written in the bible.

According to scripture, the Jews used to perform animal sacrifices to atone for sin, and the bible says that God used to wink at those things, but that his spirit will one day cease to strive with man.

The Old Testament was how God used to deal with man. Jesus was born into this world to show man the path to salvation, and the way to get there.

So if the only way to become a child of God, is to be baptized, then what does this say about those who choose or chose not to be? Who's children are they? Certainly not Gods.

I can fully believe in the concept that not some people were born to go to hell, but that all people were born to go to hell, as they were born of sin, and shaped in iniquity. This is further backed by scripture, when it states that man has a dual nature. What are the two natures that scripture speaks of? Well we have Gods nature, and Satans nature.

Is there a such thing as legalism in Christianity? Of course there is. How can I say this? Well, the fact that a person must be baptized is just the tip of the iceberg. It also states that a person should be blameless in the sights of man, and therefore he/she can not be found guilty of fault. The bible says that Satan went to and fro seeking out whom he might destroy. Hmmm, let's think of how he did this. In Job, Satan approached a celestial assembly in which God sat with his sons (the angels) and asked God if he could kill Job. God answered no. Had Job been guilty of wickedness, the answer may have likely been different.

In the Old Testament, there was no such thing of men/women receiving the Holy Ghost/Spirit, and it dwelling within them. The spirit of God, was said to inspire people in the old times, but never was there an indwelling of his spirit until Christ died, and was resurrected.

Jesus said: "I will pray to the Father, and he will send a comforter (Holy Ghost/Spirit) in my name". Who's name? Jesus' name. So I am convinced that the Holy Spirit is in fact the Spirit of Christ, according to scripture.

There came a day, that the Pharisee's came before Jesus, and before they uttered one word, Jesus told them that "If they destroy this temple that "He" would raise it back up in three days. They laughed at him and said that how could he raise a temple in three days that took a many many months to build. Jesus was talking about his body, and not the synagogue, that he stood beside. Let me clarify something. The bible later said that God raised Jesus from the dead in three days. Hold on a second, if Jesus said that he would raise himself up in three days, was it God speaking through him, or was Jesus God? The mystery of the trinity?

I'll leave off with this. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word dwelled with man, and they knew Him not.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where a belief that "prayer" and "personal revelation" are tools against idiots that try to sell God to you.

If someone claims to have had a religious vision, it is my opinion that you have every eternal right to verify whether or not it was real through a personal, sincere, prayer.

Meaning, you can have a personal vision that means something personal to someone else. A shared "vision" if you will. No drugs required, either.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you think the revelation is valid because it comes from God? Or would it be just as valid if it came from your own mind alone?

If we go by catholic theology, if having hallucinations makes you pious then it's a miracle.

Originally posted by Stoic

The serpent as Omega Vision pointed out, may have just been a serpent (what type of serpent is irrelevant). What is relevant is that a spirit (Satan's spirit) spoke through the serpent, and beguiled Eve.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's from John Milton's Paradise Lost lol.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's from John Milton's Paradise Lost lol.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.

To be perfectly honest, I have never once read Paradise Lost, by this John Milton. Believe me if you want to, but this is the truth.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's from John Milton's Paradise Lost lol.

There's nothing in the original story to suggest that it was anything more than a snake. And if you read the Epic of Gilgamesh (which many parts of the Bible were taken/copied/stolen from/inspired by) you'll see that it's an ordinary serpent of no particular significance that also steals man's eternal life. There's a tale in North American native mythology (you'll forgive me if I can't remember which tribe) that also has a serpent stealing the elixir of the Gods and is punished by the Gods, condemned to crawl on his belly and lick dust.

Saying it was Satan is revisionism, to the ancients snakes on their own were evil and "subtle" enough to **** with people for the lulz.

But gods are originally animals, so the revisionism is happening the other way around 🙂

Originally posted by Bentley
Anyways the duality between evil and good is more of a mysticism introduction to christianity that fully gained momentum at the middle ages -which were heavily influence by "hidden" knowledge. But yes, Satan is displayed as something very different in early scriptures.

Well the duality between good and evil is certainly present in the Bible. Most notiably in Revelations. However, you are right in early scripture (the Old Testement) Satan is quite different. In fact, in Job, it appears he is wworking with God rather than against him.

Dualism has been in Christianity from the earliest days, though, it was formulated in a very different manner. Early gnostics saw the dualism as not between God and Satan, but between Christ and Jehovah. Or, sometimes, between spirit and flesh.

Originally posted by Stoic
To be perfectly honest, I have never once read Paradise Lost, by this John Milton. Believe me if you want to, but this is the truth.

In the Bible a serpent shows up and tempts Eve. That's all.

In Paradise Lost Lucifer comes to the garden, possesses a serpent and uses it as a puppet to seduce/tempt Eve into sin.

Satan/Lucifer's first appearance in the Bible is in Job. And his role as an adversary is only (to my knowledge) established in the New Testament when he attempts to tempt Jesus.

Tbh though my interpretation (one not directly supported by the text, admittedly) is that God created the serpent specifically to tempt Eve.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Tbh though my interpretation (one not directly supported by the text, admittedly) is that God created the serpent specifically to tempt Eve.

Something that in turn damned humanity and made the serpent crawl. I guess it is possible -inside regular theology- if you adhere to the notion of kairos time, which basically makes the choice of Eve a moment of free will, she could always say no to the serpent and thus not fall from grace.

For me the implication would be more important for the beast itself, because for God to punish the serpent the transgression must've been done by the beast itself -the best would have the opportunity to sin, but taking the opportunity was by its own will-. So animals would've freewill.

Which is as close as you get into animal theology in the bible.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well the mainstream Sunday School version of the Fall of Man has more in common with the scene from Paradise Lost than it does with the actual scriptures. Just as Sunday School/mainstream modern views on Hell have more to do with Dante's Inferno than what's actually in the Bible.

In the Bible a serpent shows up and tempts Eve. That's all.

In Paradise Lost Lucifer comes to the garden, possesses a serpent and uses it as a puppet to seduce/tempt Eve into sin.

Satan/Lucifer's first appearance in the Bible is in Job. And his role as an adversary is only (to my knowledge) established in the New Testament when he attempts to tempt Jesus.

Tbh though my interpretation (one not directly supported by the text, admittedly) is that God created the serpent specifically to tempt Eve.

The crazy thing here is that I don't go to church either. I have yet o find one in the city that I live in, that I agree with, and had to rebuke a Preacher after his sermon for praying and teaching his congregation to pray for the dead. <-- (Real talk). So Sunday school is also out for me. It's not that I wouldn't go to church just that we are clear on that, I just don't want to.

I've always said that I love God, but that his children at times leaves much to be desired.

Do you believe that there are demonically possessed people? People that are bound up by demons, because of the doorways that they allowed to exist in their lives? I do. The spirit of God took possesion of Baalum's ass (Donkey) and spoke to Baalum in the book of Numbers... So how is it not possible that the spirit of Satan, could not take possession of a serpent that walked upright, and tempt Eve with the power to see?

You know the bible says that from the mouths of two or more witnesses, shall the truth be known. My point in this saying, is just that I am not familiar with Sunday school teachings. Nor am I familiar with this book Paradise Lost, by John Milton. There can be but one full truth, on any given subject correct?

You may be correct in your revelation, of what God intended in terms of sending Satan to tempt Eve. I can not contest this. It was not written, but you may be right, or you may be wrong. Satan had his own agenda, and still does, and did not need a reason to hate man for being the apple of God's eye. After all, he was once the most blessed in Heaven.

I stand by my belief though, that not all people are the children of God, although God desires for all people to make it to his kingdom. There's much to learn from the parable, of all people being "born into sin, and shaped in iniquity". Even more when you consider that none may enter the Kingdom of God, unless they are baptized in Jesus' name. it sucks, for some, but if what was written is true, it is something that will never change.

Originally posted by Bentley
Something that in turn damned humanity and made the serpent crawl. I guess it is possible -inside regular theology- if you adhere to the notion of kairos time, which basically makes the choice of Eve a moment of free will, she could always say no to the serpent and thus not fall from grace.

For me the implication would be more important for the beast itself, because for God to punish the serpent the transgression must've been done by the beast itself -the best would have the opportunity to sin, but taking the opportunity was by its own will-. So animals would've freewill.

Which is as close as you get into animal theology in the bible.

You seem confused. No offense intended. Perhaps you should speak to someone. Perhaps an overseer, because it can be a dangerous thing, to lean on your own understanding, when it comes to things such as these.

Originally posted by ares834
Well the duality between good and evil is certainly present in the Bible. Most notiably in Revelations. However, you are right in early scripture (the Old Testement) Satan is quite different. In fact, in Job, it appears he is wworking with God rather than against him.

I disagree on the Job thing. Satan basically asked God if God would remove Job's happiness and to show God that his love/trust in Job was unfounded. God was like, "nah, you're wrong."

Apparently, Satan could not do anything against Job due to his righteousness. Satan is virtually powerless. So he needed God's help (God can control nature, Satan cannot...being a spirit).

My thing is: why in the world would God agree to such a thing? Is that not "tempting God"? The Mormons believe the conversation between God and Satan is slightly different: Satan was not given no power over nature, it was God's doing, only. The Job account says God gave Satan the power to do so: an impossibility especially if you consider Lucifer to be a fallen angel. God would not give out his power/authority to evil, ever, at any point. That's about as unrighteous of a depiction of God as we can get. We would have a "gray God" rather than a "white God", if that makes sense (think Jedi).

Originally posted by Stoic
You seem confused. No offense intended. Perhaps you should speak to someone. Perhaps an overseer, because it can be a dangerous thing, to lean on your own understanding, when it comes to things such as these.

Well, it wasn't a real argument to begin with, but I don't see anything particularly confusing about it. If we are going ahead and saying the Serpent was a regular animal, it makes sense for the animal to be free and disobeying God.