Hey Zoopi, You seem to be following me around from board to board like a stalker. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but maybe not. Are you stalking me?
I generally lurk on certain religion-related boards (the God's Not Dead movies, Saving Christmas, etc), but your posts tend to - ahem - "inspire" me to come out and respond.
However, looking back over my previous posts, it's true that the number of times I've responded to you is rather excessive. After this discussion, I'll try to stop doing it so often.
it did that by playing dead for a long while, until just the right moment occurred to avenge itself.
Let's go through this snake's actions from the beginning.
First, it was captured (presumably by a hunter of some kind), sold to a restaurant, and beheaded. Not very cunning.
Then, its head remained alive for several minutes while the chef was preparing a meal. This doesn't require cunning either. As explained in the article, it's a perfectly natural phenomena that sometimes occurs to snakes.
Finally, when the chef picked up the head, it closed its jaws and bit the chef. This is another natural response that you would expect a snake to do when grabbed, and still doesn't require any cunning.
In short, there is nothing in this snake's actions that suggests it premeditated the "murder" at all. In fact, if the chef had just picked up the head in a slightly different way, this supposed "cunning" snake's "plot" would've been entirely impossible. It's pure chance that the chef's finger just so happened to be close to its fangs. It's also pure chance that the snake was able to survive the beheading, because as the article explained, it's rare for a snake to remain alive after losing its body.
That is unquestionably one of - if not the - most cunning murders that an animal has ever committed against a human.
How do you know? Have you looked at every murder an animal has ever committed against a human and concluded that they are less cunning?
Because as God said, the serpent is the most cunning creature in all the land.
How do you know God said that?
God is right and the Bible is true.
Even if I accepted that the serpent is the most cunning creature in all the land, it wouldn't prove the Bible is true). At best, it would prove that one statement the Bible claims God made is true.
* * *
As for the whole Strawman issue, you say "Christians believe in a talking satan, not a talking snake. The serpent could talk because it was possessed by satan." That seems to be a direct contradiction. You say you don't believe in a talking snake, and yet you then say "The serpent could talk". So which is it? Do you believe there was a talking serpent or not?
Also, the modern snake/ancient serpent distinction seems irrelevant. I never said that you believe modern snakes could talk. I just said you believe in a talking snake (sometime, someplace).
reply
share