Comparison of the serpent in Genesis 3 and the Dragon in Revelation 12

Genesis 3 - Serpent
Revelation 12 - "old serpent"
Genesis 3 - Serpent deceived Adam and Eve (all living humans)
Revelation 12 - "which deceiveth the whole world"
Genesis 3 - Cast down
Revelation 12 - Cast down

The subject, the actions commited and the consequence are all the same.

Add in what Jesus said of the Devil "He was a murderer from the beginning, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies"

Satan's lie resulted in the deaths of Adam, Eve and all of their decendants. Satan is called the father of lies, which would mean Satan was the first liar. And Jesus used the word beginning...like how the Garden of Eden was there in the beginning.

All this tied together explains why Christians believe that the serpent in Genesis 3 is, in fact, Satan.

I didn't say anything about a serpent being tricked by satan. Satan is called the dragon...do you think he's a dragon? He's called "old serpent"...do you think he's an old snake? They are terms used to describe Satan, as you might call someone a "backstabber" even if they didn't physically stab you in the back. The serpent wasn't tricked, it wasn't used, it was satan and probably looked just like he can today, an angel of light.

from the net

God created the serpent (Gen. 3,1); another being called "satan" did not turn into the serpent; if we believe this, we are effectively saying that one person can enter the life of someone else and control it. This is a pagan idea, not a Biblical one. If it is argued that God would not have created the serpent because of the great sin it enticed Adam and Eve to commit, remember that sin entered the world from man (Rom.5:12); the serpent was therefore amoral, speaking from its own natural observations, and was not as such responsible to God and therefore did not commit sin.

Some suggest that the serpent of Genesis 3 is related to the seraphim. However, the normal Hebrew word for "serpent", which is used in Genesis 3, is totally unrelated to the word for "seraphim". The Hebrew word translated "seraphim" basically means "a fiery one" and is translated "fiery serpent"...

I'll be honest, this sort of post really pisses me off. You don't tell me anything, just quote a source. So I'm left wondering...what point does he think this proves? Is the fact that it's "from the net" supposed to mean something to me? Oh well, I guess I'll have to wait and see if you plan to explain what you feel this proves and why it should carry weight in this conversation.

I put in "from the net" so people know they are not my words. I think it is very important not to take credit for others work. At the end it says that the serpent is a serpent not a fiery snake like you are claiming.

I never once claimed that "the serpent" was a fiery serpent. I'm going to assume you are confused instead of calling it a strawman fallacy.

This is your comparison of a serpent and a dragon(I would call that a fiery serpent that has been translated to modern language) The claim of the author I posted is that the two words are not equal at all.

Evil does not exist. The word is simply an adjective. What is evil is just someone's opinion. That's like asking if God "created" bad. Huh?

Anyone who calls someone else "evil" scares the crap out of me. Why? Because in the old testament, book of Joshua, God (or someone impersonating God) ordered Joshua to murder all the men, women, children and animals in the city. And in the entire land.
Why? Because heaven forbid, they were "evil."

Imagine for a minute that you were one of these soldiers in the army of Joshua and you were order to chop off the head of children, babies, women etc. without mercy....oh, because they are "evil."

I smell a rat in that story.

That is NOT YOUR story....sorry. That is a small piece of the propaganda (myth) that religions have been spewing for years. (Yawn) Satan does not exist. Evil does not exist. The word "sin" has no meaning to anyone except Christians.

They say if you repeat a bald faced lie enough times some people are going to start believing it. (Well I may have quoted that wrong. Perhaps they did not say "bald faced") but you get the point.

There is no such thing as "sin" outside of the Christian definition of it.

Manson was dysfunctional, a criminal, a law breaker, and perhaps even insane. Hitler suffered from some sort of brain disease. If you want to define "sin" as some sort of mental or other kind of sickness okay.. you can call them sinners. But sin is not defined as a sickness. It is defined by Christianity specifically as someone who breaks the 10 commandments, or refuses to accept Jesus as their savior or any other thing the church decides is "sin."

Did God create the curve ball? Or the slider? Did he "create" the push up, or the deep knee bend? Or are these "actions" his creation is capable of executing? Answer that, and you'll have a better sense to the question "Did God create evil".

No it doesn't. What "thing" exists that God didn't create?

Now that is a good question Rabbit! It gets to the heart of the thread. I can conjure up a guess - but I don't think I can totally comprehend why.

Where did you get this? No one is "born a sinner" One is not a "sinner", until they sin.

organized religion created evil

such means

organized religion is the root of all evil

spider:



Are you that ignorant?

If one believes in the Bible, then one believes in evil. One then must be able to justify this evil, in order to come to terms with an all-loving, all-knowledgable, and all-powerful 'God'. Most often, I have witnessed the attempt to make it acceptable by depending on a theory of 'Gods' will. With things being said like this: 'God' works in mysterious ways, etc... etc..

Evil itself is not the problem with an omni-god concept. It would be necessary to balance the spectrum, as it were...



And you said.



Are you kidding me? It is Christianity that holds the notion that evil is necessary, do not ask me to defend Christian beliefs...

Answer your own question... what evil is necessary with an omni-god?

I can tell you, without a doubt, that the incestual rape of a four-year-old little girl is not necessary.

Keep in mind, this omni-god, who helps you out because you believe and pray, just sits by the sidelines while this unnecessary evil happens...





There is good reason that perhaps the most brilliant mind of our time(Einstein) studied Spinoza's writings...

There are also very good reasons that theists who read and understand his writings say.. "oh, sh**"



The only logical fallacy here is an omni-god.

WHEN IS EVIL NECESSARY?

Don't say that Christians say evil is necessary, I sure as hell don't. Tell me, when is evil necessary? My point? EVIL IS NOT NECESSARY. You build up these strawmen and then you act so afronted! Why does a little girl need to be the victim of incestuous rape? *sob* *cry* Your God, whom I don't believe in, is so evil! *boohoo!*

Cut it with the logical fallacies, so that we can actually discuss the subject like adults. You guys always cry about "Christians shoving their beliefs down our throats", but you have absolutely no problem shoving your words down mine.

but if God is all knowing like it says in the bible...wouldn't he have seen that, and then in essence then be the creator of it?

God isn't all knowing. God knows everything that has happened, is happening or will happen. God can't know something which is a lie. If God KNEW that Satan was going to tempt Eve, so God never created Satan...God knows something which will never happen, therefore God believes a lie. For God to know that something will happen, it has to happen.

It's called personal responsiblity, we are all responsible for our own actions, we can't go crying "But God didn't stop me!"

Oh I agree we are responsible for our own actions, however you say God isn't all knowing then you say that God knows everything that has happened is happening and that will happen...isn't that all knowing? How can it be both?

Your double talk confuses me tho..... Cohearant sentences with structure please.