The True Satan?

[PrinceMyshkin]

C.S. Lewis said that one of Satan's greatest achievements is his success at convincing the world that he doesn't exist. Proof positive just .5" above.

I've come to understand that anytime you mention the name of C.S. Lewis, you've abdicated your right (or obligation) to think for yourself. Might I suggest the (to me) equally plausible: Satan was never more successful at diverting us from dealing with the real nature and causes of evil in this life than when he invented the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God

Here we go again: And here YOU go again, borrowing from that great right-wing phiosopher, "Uncle" Ronald!the same idea you've posted elsewhere: Christians do not deal with reality but with some fantastic "mythological" world. Absurd. A belief in God necessitates a belief in Satan; if you believe in neither, fine - but please lay off the ridiculous assertion that Christians are not paying attention to the world; as a matter of fact, part of the reason we're so insistent about certain issues (morality, for instance) is that we're paying VERY close attention to the direction the world is heading.



This doesn't sound very tolerant - and we're supposed to be tolerant of ideologies we don't agree with - aren't we? If I posted the same sentence replacing the word "religion" with "homosexuality," I'd get quite a response - wouldn't I?

Like the Pope who was proclaimed infallible some time in the 19th C. you continue to speak for "the one true church." Only it isn't his.

[Pendragon]

Like the Pope who was proclaimed infallible some time in the 19th C. you continue to speak for "the one true church." Only it isn't his.

And yet this "infallible" Pope has a confessor, as we found out when there was an attempt on the life of Pope John-Paul II. If The Pope is indeed "infallible", why would he need a final confession when his life was in danger. To what wrong would he be confessing, being "infallible", which means "incapable of making a mistake or being wrong?"

Just wondering.

Proverbs 3:
[5] Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
[6] In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
[7] Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.


God Bless

Pen

[kilted exile]

Just addressing the infallibility of the papacy, as there is a extremely common misconception as to what this actually entails. It does not mean that the pope is always correct in everything he says. Instead it refers solely to matters dealing with Catholic doctrine.

[weepingforloman]

Exactly right, KE. He needs to be speaking as the official bishop of Rome, have the majority assent of the Church, and to be speaking on matters of faith or morals ONLY. I am not Catholic, but go to a high school that technically is, and we study this sort of thing.

[Pendragon]

Mea culpa I have done research, and you appear to be correct, I have attached my findings with the site address:

EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
· what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
· the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
· infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

With apologies,

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

I've come to understand that anytime you mention the name of C.S. Lewis, you've abdicated your right (or obligation) to think for yourself.

My friend, as gently as I can, I tell you that you understand little about me - and apparently you are unclear on what educated people do in debate: they often quote authorites; C.S. Lewis is one of Christianity's foremost classical apologists - I refer to him not because I can't think but because I can think - I read his books, considered what he had to say use his wisdom to support my position; how is that any different from anybody else arguing a case? Lay of the idea I don't think for myself - it is annoying. Deal with the content of my posts, not my personal psychology (of which you know virtually nothing).

Might I suggest the (to me) equally plausible: Satan was never more successful at diverting us from dealing with the real nature and causes of evil in this life than when he invented the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God

An absurd idea, totally absent of any real logic. Satan cannot "create" - he can only imitate. If one makes God imaginary (the creator of Satan) than Satan is doubly imaginary. Come on - I expect better.

[PrinceMyshkin]

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;414981]My friend, as gently as I can, I tell you that you understand little about me - and apparently you are unclear on what educated people do in debate: they often quote authorites; C.S. Lewis is one of Christianity's foremost classical apologists - I refer to him not because I can't think but because I can think - I read his books, considered what he had to say use his wisdom to support my position; how is that any different from anybody else arguing a case? Lay of the idea I don't think for myself - it is annoying. Deal with the content of my posts, not my personal psychology (of which you know virtually nothing).[QUOTE]

My apologies - qualified of course: in that Lewis, as far as I recall, may be the only Christian apologist you quote and you usually quote him as if his name alone were sufficient warrant of the validity of what he said. Then, evreytime I read a post of yours I am obliged to confront the Lewis quote of your signature, which drives me rancid. The scientist, Norbert Wiener, once said of certain fallacious physical theories that "They are not even bad" meaning that they were beyond spending time on. I feel that way about that quotation. I have tried elsewhere to explain why I think it is self-refuting, very nice as poetry but worthless as a statement of philosophical truth.

An absurd idea, totally absent of any real logic. Satan cannot "create" - he can only imitate. If one makes God imaginary (the creator of Satan) than Satan is doubly imaginary. Come on - I expect better.

But I regard Satan no differently than I do the Big Bad Wolf - except, of course, that Satan is credible to so many people long after they have stopped actually believing in the Big Bad Wolf, though he may remain in their memories as a delicious frisson from their youth.

I think this must be (yet again) my farewell to any of these discussions. They are like a drug to me, and you guys are the pushers! I DO enjoy arguing (as do you, dare I say) and where else but in respect of religion or politics (out of bounds on this site) can one find arguments as vehement as one might like and with adversaries one's equal in pig-headedness?

[kiobe]

An absurd idea, totally absent of any real logic. Satan cannot "create" - he can only imitate. If one makes God imaginary (the creator of Satan) than Satan is doubly imaginary. Come on - I expect better.

I'm sorry Red, that made me laugh. It reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer thinks he found a 'pigman' and argues with george about whether or not this, yet unverified 'pigman', would actually own a two seater car.

The rules and mental contortions that one must deal with in order to give creedance to the supposed existance of a omnipotent evil being and an omniscient benevolent being have as much logic as the Seinfeld episode.

As we all know the Easter Bunny walks upright.

[weepingforloman]

Satan is not omnipotent, first of all. If he were, we would all be screwed.

We cannot, of course, prove Satan from the abstract. I don't think anyone would claim this. We cannot prove him at all. But the belief in God is somewhat more logical (I will not say entirely logical, I have no desire to debate this here), and if God is real, it is not illogical to believe scripture. And scripture clearly maintains the existence of Satan. Or Beelzebub, Lucifer, or any other name you'd like to throw out there.

[Redzeppelin]

My apologies - qualified of course: in that Lewis, as far as I recall, may be the only Christian apologist you quote and you usually quote him as if his name alone were sufficient warrant of the validity of what he said. Then, evreytime I read a post of yours I am obliged to confront the Lewis quote of your signature, which drives me rancid. The scientist, Norbert Wiener, once said of certain fallacious physical theories that "They are not even bad" meaning that they were beyond spending time on. I feel that way about that quotation. I have tried elsewhere to explain why I think it is self-refuting, very nice as poetry but worthless as a statement of philosophical truth.

How many Christian apologist would you like me to quote? I am most familiar with Lewis - the other apologists I read I'm not as familiar with and to refer to them would require me to go find the reference - Lewis I can recall from memory so it's convenient. As well, his name carries sufficient authority in Christian circles and even his atheist opponents respected his formidable intellect (he was, after all, an Oxford don) and his debate ability (word is that he was never bested in an argument at the Oxford Socratic Club - a debate forum for Christians and Naturalists). You're not required to agree with my signature or even like it - it's MINE; as well, I actually find it rather humorous that it has the power to annoy you.

Note: Those that choose to view the world via naturalism/materialism could easily say the same thing as Lews just by swapping out "Christianity" and inserting "Naturalism/materialism/atheism" instead).

But I regard Satan no differently than I do the Big Bad Wolf - except, of course, that Satan is credible to so many people long after they have stopped actually believing in the Big Bad Wolf, though he may remain in their memories as a delicious frisson from their youth.

Well of course you do - if you don't believe in God, why should you take the devil seriously (unless, of course, he IS real - because if he is then that means God is real too...then the big cosmic Homer Simpson "D'oh!" from all those who thought otherwise...).

I think this must be (yet again) my farewell to any of these discussions. They are like a drug to me, and you guys are the pushers! I DO enjoy arguing (as do you, dare I say) and where else but in respect of religion or politics (out of bounds on this site) can one find arguments as vehement as one might like and with adversaries one's equal in pig-headedness?

I prefer "firm in my position" personally - "pig-headedness" carries a rather negative connotation.

I'm sorry Red, that made me laugh. It reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer thinks he found a 'pigman' and argues with george about whether or not this, yet unverified 'pigman', would actually own a two seater car.

No apology necessary; the idea of Satan creating God is like suggesting a child created his father. Absurd.

The rules and mental contortions that one must deal with in order to give creedance to the supposed existance of a omnipotent evil being and an omniscient benevolent being have as much logic as the Seinfeld episode.

How about you give me a general rundown of the "rules" and "mental contortions" that I have to deal with in order to maintain my poor, deluded belief system? That would be most enlightening.

As we all know the Easter Bunny walks upright.

Right. And?

[kiobe]

How about you give me a general rundown of the "rules" and "mental contortions" that I have to deal with in order to maintain my poor, deluded belief system? That would be most enlightening.



Right. And?[/QUOTE]

@Kiobe> That's not what I said. Well first, it is not my mission to persuade anyone to give up thier beliefs or system of belief. I am here only to learn through debate about the beliefs of others.

The rules and mental contortions are what we non-belivers have to climb over in order to understand just where the belivers are comming from. From my view, there is no logic in a supernatural being. From my view, there is far more beauty in a goldfinch as seen from the side of natural history and evolution, than there would be in the idea that a supernatural being created it, as it is, from a menu, if you will, as part of so many other animals created on the second day or fifth day or whenever.

There are really too many to mention and to keep on topic we can discuss satan.

In proving or disproving something, first that something must exist. I can prove to you that a coffee mug exists on my desk, but if there is no mug there, I cannot prove or disprove that it ever existed on my desk. If after, and only after, a discussion of the possibility of a mug existing on my desk, 5 people see a ring left there and 5 people don't, it's the suggestion of the possibility that leads the 5 to believe they see a ring, not the actual existance of a ring. " I think I see a ring, therefore a mug must have existed here". The percieved existance of a ring does not prove the existance of the coffee mug when the existance of the ring is in question and has not been proven.

[Redzeppelin]

That's not what I said. Well first, it is not my mission to persuade anyone to give up thier beliefs or system of belief. I am here only to learn through debate about the beliefs of others.

I concur.

The rules and mental contortions are what we non-belivers have to climb over in order to understand just where the belivers are comming from.

Example?

Where we're coming from is very simply explained: we believe a Divine Being named "God" created the universe and that He left us a written record of His character as revealed through His interaction with first His chosen people then with all of humanity - this would be the Bible. Once those two foundational principles are accepted, then everything else gets rather clear. The only "mental contortion" non-believers seem to struggle with is their refusal to see the universe in any terms except that which they can empirically verifiy.

From my view, there is no logic in a supernatural being. From my view, there is far more beauty in a goldfinch as seen from the side of natural history and evolution, than there would be in the idea that a supernatural being created it, as it is, from a menu, if you will, as part of so many other animals created on the second day or fifth day or whenever.

Right - and from my view, the odds of abiogenesis (calculated by using the odds of a number of necessary occurrences) of 1 in 10 to the 33,000 power (roughly) strikes me as beyond logical - no matter how much time the universe has existed (which has also been calculated that - even at 15 billion years - is still not sufficient time to deal with the incredible odds necessary for abiogenesis). To me, those numbers pose some serious "mental contortions." As well, if we're impressed by human creations (a song, a picture, a building) why isn't the idea of a Being fashioning a living creature not amazing to you? The idea that a mind created things like animals and plants and the human body - that doesn't take your breath away? And please don't try to make God sound like some conveyor-belt production factory - we have no idea how He went about creating each individual creature.

There are really too many to mention and to keep on topic we can discuss satan.

Because I know you are a reasonable person, I won't call this a cop out. There are others here posting for whom that term would be entirely appropriate.

In proving or disproving something, first that something must exist. I can prove to you that a coffee mug exists on my desk, but if there is no mug there, I cannot prove or disprove that it ever existed on my desk. If after, and only after, a discussion of the possibility of a mug existing on my desk, 5 people see a ring left there and 5 people don't, it's the suggestion of the possibility that leads the 5 to believe they see a ring, not the actual existance of a ring. " I think I see a ring, therefore a mug must have existed here". The percieved existance of a ring does not prove the existance of the coffee mug when the existance of the ring is in question and has not been proven.

But what if - from where you and I were standing in the room, we both could and could not see the object at the same time? Suppose we are in my classroom and I have a coffee cup that I can see from where I'm standing but you cannot. Unless you choose to come see from my perspective, you might claim the cup doesn't exist (unless you trusted my opinion on its word). I think this is how it is with many things we believe - from where we're standing, we can see it, but others cannot.

By the way, your analogy also suggests why evolution can only be accepted as theory and not fact.

[weepingforloman]

From my view, there is far more beauty in a goldfinch as seen from the side of natural history and evolution, than there would be in the idea that a supernatural being created it

Would you then say that the mind of a great artist is less beautiful than his creation? Would you say that a man is less beautiful than what he says? Consider God as He is, not as the trappings of tradition and culturalization would have Him be: the source of all goodness, in fact, the only Good. He is, was, and always will be, the Most Beautiful. Ponder for a moment the love of God, who stepped down from glory in Heaven, who left behind the splendor and majesty to which all earthly beauty is as a mud clod is to a star, and who took on the weakness and pain of flesh, who allowed Himself to be taunted and abused, who allowed Himself even to die, who is the source of all life, solely for the sake of redeeming the few men who would take up their crosses, and follow Him. What is a goldfinch to that?

[Logos]

Just because you don't agree with someone's faith, belief, or opinion, doesn't give you the right to denigrate them or call them names, or insinuate that they're less intelligent than you, etc. etc. I'm kinda tired of editing people's posts. Any more reference to current politics, making fun of or calling people names or comparing them to animals etc etc etc will get this topic closed.

[Whifflingpin]

"Would you then say ...? Would you say ...? Consider ... He is.... Ponder for a moment .... What is a goldfinch to that?"

The difference, perhaps, to Kiobe et al, is that the goldfinch is real, present and observable, while those other things are fancy and supposition.

A bird in the bush is worth many bats in the belfry.