Open Bible

>Open Bible
>Chapter 1
>A talking snake

People died over this bullshit?

The snake doesn't show up until chapter 3, dumbass.

It's not a snake, dumbasses, it's a serpent.

heh he didn't stop at the part the universe was willed into existence from nothing heh what a pleb

*The talking snake doesn't appear until chapter 3

Sorry, did I confuse it with the talking Donkey story? Or the guy who singlehandedly massacred armies? Maybe the part where the guy walked on water?

yes, and will continue to die over it

Same fucking thing

>implying christians read the Bible

They just cherry pick some verses to post on Facebook.

The serpent is definitely not the same as a snake. There are at least a couple major differences, spiritually and physically.

Is that why Yahweh cursed all snakes to have no legs?

Was he the one who burned spots into the leopard too?

>The serpent is definitely not the same as a snake

It literally is.

>Open surgery book where cute animals discuss everything you have to know
>Chapter 3, a fucking talking snake

This is 100% bullshit, in the original Hebrew and Greek they are the same thing.

Why are we using English translations of the Hebrew?

Nachash means both "serpent" and "snake" in English

You sound like a Jew. Are you a JOO? What the fuck do JOOZ know about the bible?

The Jews invented the bible you stupid /pol/fag

there's a lot of jews on here. Apparently they feel more comfortable here than they do in /pol/, only they shouldnt. History buffs will respond to jews rewriting history in the same negative light as they do reactionary conservatives.

Sorry "chosen" people, but fans of history and fans of jews are two mutually exclusive things, because nobody that has read your real history is very sympathetic to your cause.

Can somebody explain Genesis 12? Was Abram literally conning the egyptians?

We have two choices:
1. We live in a cosmic soup devoid of Providence, where we exist for the continuation of our species "just cus" and for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
2. We exist in a universe with Providence, where we will be judged according to our deeds and thoughts in this life.

Neither can be proved through deduction or scientific methods, but when you choose the second option, it transforms your life for the better.

I find too often that atheists will complain about cherry-picking, while they go ahead and cherry pick the low hanging Southern Baptist fruit to confirm their biases.

If you would like to see the Christian view articulated properly, you should watch Richard Dawkins debating John Lennox.

Pax Christi, stranger.

Of course obviously there are more than two choices, there are infinity of choices. Your argument boils down to "My feelings are true, or else my fears are true, so I choose my feelings". That's fine, but it says nothing about the universe.

As you say, peace.

Early church philosophers very quickly came to the idea that the bible must have been allusion, metaphor and suchlike, at least the more abstract sections. People died because they believed in a higher ideal than themselves, and they lived in a society that promised them the chance at fulfillment in exchange for fulfilling the virtues of that ideal.