As I recall the story, the tempter was only ever identified as the Serpent. They were even cursed to always go on their belly afterwards, which I don’t recall Satan doing.
Depending on your mythology, Satan might have instigated that; but I don’t think it was ever established in the story
The way I was told the story, satan wasn’t cursed. He was just banned from the garden of eden. So he disguised himself as a snake, slithered into the garden, slithered up the tree, and started convincing eve to eat the apple.
Wait, if he was banned, who the fuck would he be fooling by disguising himself? God is the one who banned him and would know who he was. Otherwise if he didn’t disguise himself, what - the only 2 people in the universe would tell on him?
Sounds like a stupid interpretation of an already bad fable
Yahweh’s powers differed quite a bit in the fables especially back when he was just one of the pantheon of gods. But still
Yeah, I see a lot of people claiming that - but does the Bible make that claim?
Here’s how the serpent was cursed:
Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.
I don’t see Satan going on his belly, bruising our heels, or getting his head bruised! How did he escape a curse placed by God? Or is this just the snake’s origin story too? I’m not going to claim the serpent might not have been put up to it, but I don’t see Satan himself making an appearance here.
The types of christians who would dig this repressive mobile network are the kind who prefer overly simplified and easily digestible theology; that is to say the people who would pitch and want this phone definitely are in the “serpent is satan” camp not, “lets have a nuanced discussion about metaphors”. Not that they would accept the rebuttal, but i don’t think it’s invalid from the frameworks that produce this nonsense
As I recall the story, the tempter was only ever identified as the Serpent. They were even cursed to always go on their belly afterwards, which I don’t recall Satan doing.
Depending on your mythology, Satan might have instigated that; but I don’t think it was ever established in the story
Yeah, but the serpent WAS satan in disguise.
So God cursed Satan to crawl on his belly forever and Satan is like LOL I’ll transform to a different shape? Seems like a weak God.
The way I was told the story, satan wasn’t cursed. He was just banned from the garden of eden. So he disguised himself as a snake, slithered into the garden, slithered up the tree, and started convincing eve to eat the apple.
Wait, if he was banned, who the fuck would he be fooling by disguising himself? God is the one who banned him and would know who he was. Otherwise if he didn’t disguise himself, what - the only 2 people in the universe would tell on him?
Sounds like a stupid interpretation of an already bad fable
Yahweh’s powers differed quite a bit in the fables especially back when he was just one of the pantheon of gods. But still
Yeah, I see a lot of people claiming that - but does the Bible make that claim?
Here’s how the serpent was cursed:
I don’t see Satan going on his belly, bruising our heels, or getting his head bruised! How did he escape a curse placed by God? Or is this just the snake’s origin story too? I’m not going to claim the serpent might not have been put up to it, but I don’t see Satan himself making an appearance here.
That’s a common interpretation but it’s not actually confirmed anywhere in the bible that the serpent was Satan
The types of christians who would dig this repressive mobile network are the kind who prefer overly simplified and easily digestible theology; that is to say the people who would pitch and want this phone definitely are in the “serpent is satan” camp not, “lets have a nuanced discussion about metaphors”. Not that they would accept the rebuttal, but i don’t think it’s invalid from the frameworks that produce this nonsense