Belief In Fantasy Gods. Literalists And Fundamentals.

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh now the dinosaurs could write?

Why not, all you need is a thigh bone to figure out a dinosaur's hair color, eating habits and methods of hunting.Might as well attribute the ability to write because we found a finger bone

[BaseJester 1]

Do you know this...or are you hoping this is true?Cause the record of the story written by Someone who was there says differently.

If she knew she was wrong when she ate it, what did the apple change?

[Balloon guy 158]

If she knew she was wrong when she ate it, what did the apple change?

Who said it was an apple?Many scholars speculate that without one thing that was forbidden to Adam and Eve, then their love for God wasn't an option. If everything is legal for them, then they can never disobey.So by having a tree with fruit they were forbidden to eat, they were able to daily show their desire to love God from a position of choice.In the Apocryphal book; The first Book of Adam and Eve, they lasted one day before they ate the forbidden fruit.

[BaseJester 1]

Who said it was an apple?

Sigh. OK, the forbidden fruit.

Many scholars speculate that without one thing that was forbidden to Adam and Eve, then their love for God wasn't an option. If everything is legal for them, then they can never disobey.So by having a tree with fruit they were forbidden to eat, they were able to daily show their desire to love God from a position of choice.

Sure, that's the point of the story. It's just odd to believe that Eve knew eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil was evil.

[Greatest I am 0]

The only way you can argue your point is for me to accept your premise that the Bible is not the Word of God.I don't. It is.Now how can we discuss this is you refuse to base our discussion on things that are true?

So you believe in talking animals and that staffs can turn into snakes?If the Bible is God's words then prove it.You lok kind of old to believe in fantasy BTW.RegardsDL

[Greatest I am 0]

Sigh. OK, the forbidden fruit.Sure, that's the point of the story. It's just odd to believe that Eve knew eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil was evil.

Even stranger that God would not want man to develop the only trait that places us above the other dumb animals, our moral sense.Personally, if I would have been in the garden and Eve had decided not to eat, I would have force fed her.Only fools would want to give up their moral sense.Eve did the right thing in elevating man and Christianity is wrong in calling our elevation a fall.It is a fall only to those who want sheeple instead of moral people.Man's morals must be better than God's because we want our children to have a moral sense and God would deny us the knowledge of good and evil required to develop it.That is why Christians call it a fruit. To divert from the fact that it is an essential tool for man.RegardsDL

[Balloon guy 158]

Sigh. OK, the forbidden fruit.

Can I let you be sloppy when you never let me be sloppy?

Sure, that's the point of the story. It's just odd to believe that Eve knew eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil was evil.

Oh I see your point. You are misunderstanding the tree's description.Genesis chapter 2:

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

They didn't need to eat from the tree of life in order to live, why would they need to eat from other tree to know right from wrong?And the effects they would experience as described by God was that they would die. They would no longer live forever. Not they would understand good and evil. It was the serpent later who tried to sell that aspect of the tree's fruit's properties.But I think the majority of Biblical scholars will tell you, it's not that before this they were naive about right and wrong. The serpent tempted Eve by pointing out she would 'be like God' and have this knowledge.This was also Lucifer's sin. His desire to 'be like God'The sin was in desiring to 'be like God, having the knowledge of good and evil'Here is the text in Genesis chapter 3:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

So God told them they would die, the serpent told them they would not die.So you are basing your conclusion on what the serpent said about eating the fruit.The serpent was a liar.

[Balloon guy 158]

Even stranger that God would not want man to develop the only trait that places us above the other dumb animals, our moral sense.Personally, if I would have been in the garden and Eve had decided not to eat, I would have force fed her.Only fools would want to give up their moral sense.Eve did the right thing in elevating man and Christianity is wrong in calling our elevation a fall.It is a fall only to those who want sheeple instead of moral people.Man's morals must be better than God's because we want our children to have a moral sense and God would deny us the knowledge of good and evil required to develop it.That is why Christians call it a fruit. To divert from the fact that it is an essential tool for man.RegardsDL

Read my above quote and you will see why your conclusion are wrong also.As such maybe you need to rethink your 'knowledge' of what the Bible says.

[Greatest I am 0]

Read my above quote and you will see why your conclusion are wrong also.As such maybe you need to rethink your 'knowledge' of what the Bible says.

I read your skewed version above. B S is as good as I can grant you.You said the snake lied yet A & E did not die.God said they would but only after He imposed their death sentence instead of forgiving them the way a loving God or father would.How in hell do you expect to be able to get the moral message of the Bible when you believe in real talking animals?Further, you might have noticed that God describes the snake as just an animal and that would mean that it was in Satan's control. Right?Then tell us if you can, why God would punish an animal who was innocent and in controlled by Satan?You might also tell us why God would allow Satan access to His brand new prototype humans?Not quite a fair fight in my book.Would you throw away the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil?RegardsDL

[BaseJester 1]

They didn't need to eat from the tree of life in order to live, why would they need to eat from other tree to know right from wrong?And the effects they would experience as described by God was that they would die. They would no longer live forever. Not they would understand good and evil. It was the serpent later who tried to sell that aspect of the tree's fruit's properties.

Well then God sucks at naming trees, doesn't he?

[Balloon guy 158]

I read your skewed version above. B S is as good as I can grant you.

You are a person who lives by the straw man argument. You create arguments that require the other side to grant you your interpretation of the truth. As such I will point out all the times you did this in this post, and show you why you are wrong. I do not hold out hope that this will help you, but maybe others reading this will at least not fall into the logical trap you are trying to put me in.

You said the snake lied yet A & E did not die.

They are in fact dead, as are most people that have ever lived. You must pigeon hole the meaning to imply that they would bite the fruit, then whammy they keel over dead as a doorknob. Seeing the fact that they didn't die right then would imply that it was similar to a judge sentencing someone to death, they don't die immediately. They did do a study at Harvard a few years back though, 10 out of 10 people die.

God said they would but only after He imposed their death sentence instead of forgiving them the way a loving God or father would.

You want to make the argument that 'any' father would just forgive any sins because that's the only way a loving father can act. This is completely false, a loving father can punish their child to teach them a greater lesson, can allow them to feel the ramifications for their actions, can place conditions on their child's actions. God clearly told them that to eat this fruit would cause their death. They ate the fruit. According to your argument, God must then change the rules and make Himself to be a liar, because they should never be responsible for their actions. It's clear why this broad brush is not reality.

How in hell do you expect to be able to get the moral message of the Bible when you believe in real talking animals?

There is nothing contradictory to believing in one thing reflecting on the truth or falseness of another. I can believe that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream ever, and also believe that The Lakers are the best NBA team franchise in the history of the world. Neither of those beliefs affect the other beliefs validity.

Further, you might have noticed that God describes the snake as just an animal and that would mean that it was in Satan's control. Right?Then tell us if you can, why God would punish an animal who was innocent and in controlled by Satan?

God is the Creator of all life. If He decides one life is to eat worms, and another one is to live in the depth of the ocean, what business is it of yours to judge that?Maybe God wanted the snake to be a constant reminder that we have sinned. By seeing his 'changed state' we can always remember that we are not as we were meant to be.Besides animals are under our dominion, they are not their own people.

You might also tell us why God would allow Satan access to His brand new prototype humans?Not quite a fair fight in my book.

You are implying that Adam was created and immediately unprepared to make the decision he needed to make with regards to eating the fruit.Why do you think you are correct in this.Is it in your experience in the creation of new life forms that they need a couple days before their brain works right?Or have you noticed when you make brand new forms of humans that they don't work right until they get upgrades?You have already posted in this thread that not only would you have eaten the fruit, it would be wrong not to eat the fruit. you've had a few years to think about, yet you came to the same conclusion as Eve.I guess you are admitting that the thinking process that comes up with the conclusion to eat the fruit is immature as well as incorrect.So I ask you, why are you so sure about your position then?

Would you throw away the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil?RegardsDL

Again, knowing good and evil was not the benefit of eating from that tree, dieing was. Any moral sense you have comes from your inherent understanding of God's laws for your life, not because Eve listened to the serpent

[colonel Feathers 5]

God likes to watch! He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for his own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, he sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, ****in' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!!!!!!!!!

Hope yuou are not trying to pass this off aas your own.I saw the movie too. Good one by the way.

[vbnautilus 48]

Of course by treating this story as history Christians miss the metaphor in it, which is its true value. It's the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" because in our natural, original state, before language and thought, there is no distinction between things: good and evil, up and down, me and you. The phrase which is translated as "good and evil" here is most probably a figure of speech which refers to pairs of opposites, not specifically good and evil. Eating of this tree "brings death" because it brings the distinction between life and death, between one's self and the entire flow of nature. It also leads to the "expulsion from the garden" because once one sees separations, between self and other, one becomes disconnected from nature at large.

[Balloon guy 158]

Of course by treating this story as history Christians miss the metaphor in it, which is its true value.

But it happened, and the 'true value' would be that all of mankind is laden with sin and until it is addressed we are lost. That would be a greater thing to take from this story.

It's the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" because in our natural, original state, before language and thought, there is no distinction between things: good and evil, up and down, me and you. The phrase which is translated as "good and evil" here is most probably a figure of speech which refers to pairs of opposites, not specifically good and evil.

I would point out again, the focus here was not going from a state of not knowing good and evil, right and wrong to a state of being aware of it. To imply that man was once unable to translate the concept of being self aware really is a stretch based not on any examples, but on a conjecture predicated on believing this reality, in order to justify the same reality. It was about being lied to and then being tempted by the desire to 'be like God' The serpent said : "Surely God did not say that" then tried to change what God said to:"What He meant was that once you eat of it, you will be like Him".Focusing on what the serpent said as being the important part is kind of psycho..I mean the story clearly shows that he lied to Eve, and that he lied because he wanted Adam and Eve to suffer. Now you are focusing on what he lied about and trying to argue that there is a deeper lesson that makes his LIE the valuable thing. This is a really bad thing to do.

Eating of this tree "brings death" because it brings the distinction between life and death, between one's self and the entire flow of nature. It also leads to the "expulsion from the garden" because once one sees separations, between self and other, one becomes disconnected from nature at large.

Eating of this tree brought separation from our Creator. The source of all our meaning, and the energy that holds all things together. As such we all have a hole in our souls that can only be filled by being reconciled to our Creator.We turned away from God and sought a path of self-focus. As such our lives are never to be satisfying. Like a drug addict trying to get back to his first high, always needing more and never being sated for more than a tiny moment. Like a person with fame and fortune, who falls into a life of loneliness and depression. Like a man of immense wealth who always chases more. We are all destined to never being content, never having true fulfillment. We pretend that fulfillment is right around the corner, just get this one thing, reach this one level of fame, one level of love, one level of employment. Once we land this one job, marry this one woman, gain this net worth.All while ignoring the hundreds, thousands even millions of people who have reached these levels and continued to strive for more.The old moral about the death bed and no one ever lamenting: "If I only had made a few million dollars more..." or " If I only could have had sex with these ten women..."And our condition was permanent, because only death could pay the price for this sin. Why? I don't know, because that's the way it is. God made the rules, the rules are set, to ask why is like asking why must I follow the laws of gravity? To try to get out of the rules by arguing that you don't think the rules are fair is pointless. Our understanding of the universe is so minute as to be almost non-existent. To try to argue with the One who made the universe and tell Him that what He did wasn't up to our conditions of what we think it should be is by it's very nature a completely unreasonable and foolish notion over-valuing our importance and our intelligence.The true beauty of the story is that this is but the beginning of a story that has at its conclusion the Creator of Existence wanting to spend eternity with you.Nothing can be more beautiful.

[vbnautilus 48]

I would point out again, the focus here was not going from a state of not knowing good and evil, right and wrong to a state of being aware of it. To imply that man was once unable to translate the concept of being self aware really is a stretch based not on any examples, but on a conjecture predicated on believing this reality, in order to justify the same reality.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for this, both historically, and in each of our own lives. Think back to your birthday (167 years ago), and try to remember what it was like to be you then. What was it like?

Eating of this tree brought separation from our Creator. The source of all our meaning, and the energy that holds all things together. As such we all have a hole in our souls that can only be filled by being reconciled to our Creator.We turned away from God and sought a path of self-focus. As such our lives are never to be satisfying.

This part I don't disagree with, although I wouldn't put it in exactly those words. My point is that the metaphor is useful because it is template you can apply to yourself. You are the one who ate the apple, not some historical person 6,000 years ago. We both ate it at some point.

And our condition was permanent, because only death could pay the price for this sin. Why? I don't know, because that's the way it is. God made the rules, the rules are set, to ask why is like asking why must I follow the laws of gravity? To try to get out of the rules by arguing that you don't think the rules are fair is pointless. Our understanding of the universe is so minute as to be almost non-existent. To try to argue with the One who made the universe and tell Him that what He did wasn't up to our conditions of what we think it should be is by it's very nature a completely unreasonable and foolish notion over-valuing our importance and our intelligence.

Fortunately our understanding of mythology is well beyond our understanding of the universe. There absolutely is a way out of the separation from creation, and it doesn't require death. Well, not physical death.

The true beauty of the story is that this is but the beginning of a story that has at its conclusion the Creator of Existence wanting to spend eternity with you.

You never separated from the creator. By definition, you can't! You only thought you did, which is an illusion of the mind that comes along with language (the tree of knowledge!) Welcome back to the garden!

[Balloon guy 158]

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for this, both historically, and in each of our own lives. Think back to your birthday (167 years ago), and try to remember what it was like to be you then. What was it like?

People had more respect for their elders I can tell you!

This part I don't disagree with, although I wouldn't put it in exactly those words. My point is that the metaphor is useful because it is template you can apply to yourself. You are the one who ate the apple, not some historical person 6,000 years ago. We both ate it at some point.

There is a way to interpret the Bible that metaphor-izes everything. It doesn't work for me because it allows too much subjective interpretations. Although it is a good way to glean good lessons for life, it isn't valuable to base your understanding of it's historic value.

Fortunately our understanding of mythology is well beyond our understanding of the universe. There absolutely is a way out of the separation from creation, and it doesn't require death. Well, not physical death.

Well with this logic, we can make up anything and claim it is true. After all, when you are basing your logic on your understanding of make-believe, you really have no way to be wrong.

You never separated from the creator. By definition, you can't! You only thought you did, which is an illusion of the mind that comes along with language (the tree of knowledge!) Welcome back to the garden!

I thought it would be greener, you know maybe a few more pomegranate trees.This new-age view of the world really parallels the lie told by satan in the garden. You are like God. The problem with it is that you must base this on subject reality.The Bible lets you base this on what the Creator has to say on the subject. I trust His opinion more than my own.

[vbnautilus 48]

There is a way to interpret the Bible that metaphor-izes everything. It doesn't work for me because it allows too much subjective interpretations. Although it is a good way to glean good lessons for life, it isn't valuable to base your understanding of it's historic value.

Seems to me even among those who believe the bible is historically true there are a myriad of interpretations. Treating it as historical does not make the interpretation issue go away. That's one of the problems with treating something written as an absolute authority.

Well with this logic, we can make up anything and claim it is true. After all, when you are basing your logic on your understanding of make-believe, you really have no way to be wrong.

I'm certainly not saying anything is true simply because an ancient myth says it is. We do have ways of telling true from false.

I thought it would be greener, you know maybe a few more pomegranate trees.

I'd bet there are more pomegranate trees now than 6000 years ago. All those martinis and all.

This new-age view of the world really parallels the lie told by satan in the garden. You are like God. The problem with it is that you must base this on subject reality.

You are not like god, you are god. So is everything else.

The Bible lets you base this on what the Creator has to say on the subject. I trust His opinion more than my own.

Your opinion is his opinion. You think you invented that mind of yours? (obviously being god doesn't stop you from being embarrassingly wrong!)

[brvheart 1,752]

I dont know if it's BG new attitude or what, but your guys conversations are almost delightful now.This post was accidentally placed in this thread. Nothing to see here.

[Balloon guy 158]

Seems to me even among those who believe the bible is historically true there are a myriad of interpretations. Treating it as historical does not make the interpretation issue go away. That's one of the problems with treating something written as an absolute authority.

This is completely misleading statement.There are not myriad of interpretations of the Bible.In fact there are about 3 that I know of. 2 of them are by larger cults (Jws and Mormons) the rest are the right ones. Ther are a lot of translations, but pretty much 99.9% of the translations all say the same thing. We are sinners, Christ died for our sins, by asking for His forgiveness you are redeemed.Just because one of them says Jesus cried, and another says Jesus wept, this doesn't change any of the meanings to justify the notion of saying there are a myriad of interpretations means that there are saying different things.The historical interpretation is only problematic if you try to limit God. Saying He couldn't make the entire world flood is not a Bible problem, it's a problem of not understanding who God is.

I'm certainly not saying anything is true simply because an ancient myth says it is. We do have ways of telling true from false.

I use a coin often, so far I am right about 60% of the time. That's some run good right there.

I'd bet there are more pomegranate trees now than 6000 years ago. All those martinis and all.

I don't drink so I don't know why this statement is funny, but I trust that many times you are, so I will lol quietly.

You are not like god, you are god. So is everything else.

Yea...no.I don't think it takes much thought to figure out why I am not God.

Your opinion is his opinion. You think you invented that mind of yours? (obviously being god doesn't stop you from being embarrassingly wrong!)

Oh one of us will be embarrassed one day....If it's me you get to make fun of me, and I will shrug and laugh if off.If it's you...

[Balloon guy 158]

I dont know if it's BG new attitude or what, but your guys conversations are almost delightful now.This post was accidentally placed in this thread. Nothing to see here.

Me and vb always talked like this. He is a smart guy who can argue his position well. He also has enough humility to realize that declaring his way the only way isn't something to argue with arrogance.I also hold out hope that when he holds his baby girl for the first time, watches her grow and experiences that miracle, he will soften his position on what is truth.

[vbnautilus 48]

I dont know if it's BG new attitude or what, but your guys conversations are almost delightful now.

They always have been!

[BaseJester 1]

BG, I'd encourage you to try read Genesis without thinking about how it fits into a Christian theology. Just once, try to read Genesis to follow the meaning of the author.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, I'd encourage you to try read Genesis without thinking about how it fits into a Christian theology. Just once, try to read Genesis to follow the meaning of the author.

You are implying that I am 'missing it'.I think you are way off here. Especially since most of my understanding of the Bible and Genesis are right in line with the vast majority of Christians alive and dead.It would be better for you to explain what you think the real meaning is eluding me then to make this type of ambiguous statement that reeks of a superior knowledge looking down on the masses with disdain.

[BaseJester 1]

You are implying that I am 'missing it'.I think you are way off here. Especially since most of my understanding of the Bible and Genesis are right in line with the vast majority of Christians alive and dead.It would be better for you to explain what you think the real meaning is eluding me then to make this type of ambiguous statement that reeks of a superior knowledge looking down on the masses with disdain.

It's not eluding you; you're not chasing it.What in the book of Genesis leads you to believe that the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil didn't grant knowledge of good & evil? (Hint: Nothing. It's clear that it did. Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness after they ate. This other thing you're presenting isn't an interpretation. It's just an imprint of theology onto the story.)You're getting disdain because I'm frustrated by your willingness to ignore the obvious and state that I'm missing the True Meaning. The snake doesn't have man's interests at heart, but he's not completely full of shit, either. Knowledge of Good & Evil does make man more like God. Why the **** do you think the text of Genesis refers to the Tree by that name? If I write a fable with a character I call Jack Blueberry-eater, wouldn't you feel an "interpretation" in which he doesn't eat blueberries to be suspect?Your argument by majority is full of shit, too. Not only because it's not really an argument, but it ignores all the Jews and Muslims (not to mention sane Christians) who don't share your opinion.****.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's not eluding you; you're not chasing it.What in the book of Genesis leads you to believe that the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil didn't grant knowledge of good & evil? (Hint: Nothing. It's clear that it did. Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness after they ate. This other thing you're presenting isn't an interpretation. It's just an imprint of theology onto the story.)You're getting disdain because I'm frustrated by your willingness to ignore the obvious and state that I'm missing the True Meaning. The snake doesn't have man's interests at heart, but he's not completely full of s, either. Knowledge of Good & Evil does make man more like God. Why the **** do you think the text of Genesis refers to the Tree by that name? If I write a fable with a character I call Jack Blueberry-eater, wouldn't you feel an "interpretation" in which he doesn't eat blueberries to be suspect?Your argument by majority is full of t, too. Not only because it's not really an argument, but it ignores all the Jews and Muslims (not to mention sane Christians) who don't share your opinion.****.

If you want to act all frustrated you should have at least presented some kind of objection before you act like I am 'dodging' you.It really makes you look bad to flip out and cuss up a storm when you are the one who caused your own frustration.All you said was that I don't get it, I need to reread this with a different mindset to understand why this isn't what I think it is. You never once presented any reason for this explanation, so forgive me for not knowing what your point was when you went out of your way to not present it.So I pointed out that I in fact do get it, and it is in line with hundreds if not thousands of scholars through history who have delved into the story of Adam and Eve and the garden from all angles, with full understanding of the Hebrew languages, idioms usages and historical context.You are trying to tell me that I am being closed minded for not seeing what is so clear, that this tree made Adam and Eve aware for the first time of good and evil.Yet as I have pointed out 4 times now, this is the explanation from Satan, not God, of what will happen when you eat the fruit of this tree.God only said that if you eat from this tree, you will die. He never said you will gain the knowledge of good and evil.Satan said if you eat from this tree you will gain the knowledge of good and evil and be like God.You are trying to tell me that I need to understand the meaning behind what Satan said about the tree's purpose.I chose to treat everything that Satan had to say as suspect. I don't think I need to say why. So even from a secular mythological perspective, the clear antagonist, who seeks to mislead and cause trouble for Eve, is the source of your interpretation.From what school of thought would anyone read a story where the bad guy lies to a woman and we are supposed to take the lie he spoke as truth for the real meaning behind the story?Adam and Eve sinned, and with sin comes separation from God. Their nakedness can be interrupted as their souls being exposed to God because they had stained them. The literal translation that they were ashamed of their physical nakedness is clarified when God asked Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" The fact is, being aware of being naked isn't good or evil, so why would their 'gaining the knowledge of good and evil" make them aware of being naked if that is in fact what they received from the tree?In other words, the act of being ashamed could not enter a perfect man, so he must have gotten it from an outside source. Other than being aware of their nakedness, the only other change that Adam and Eve exhibited is the ability to lie to God and to pass off the blame. Eve said 'it's not my fault, it was the snake who tricked me'. Adam said 'it's not my fault, it was the woman, who by the way, You gave me!'We have no record or ability to make the assumption that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil before the fruit was eaten. Only way you can make this leap is to believe that Satan was telling them the truth. So unless you are defending Satan, then you are misunderstanding the text, and cussing at me only weakens your position.