The True Satan?

[linz]

It is my belief that Satan has a reason. I cannot prove what is scriptural, but by paying attention to the descriptions of the fiery red dragon mentioned in Revelations, "who accuses us day and night before our God" one is too quickly reminded of the Job. It seems very frightening to me and yet profoundly comforting in a way, the implications of Job. First off, I realize mentioning that comfort is not exactly an ideal word association with Job. But, the sorrows of Job led by 'The Watcher of Men' is not merely a display, but to the purpose of, that after Job triumph of suffering, no evil can touch him. I myself have not suffered much in my own life, and have not been just always, but I often think about righteousness, and it is to this end that I would say definitively that Job is the most intense and profound writing of religious text that I have ever come across. If this 'Watcher of Men' is Satan, then he himself admits the afflictions are for the purpose of becoming free of evil. But remember God for 'Both the deceived and the deceiver are His'.

I am in the process of studying Job. I might add more information are thoughts to this thread.

[weepingforloman]

This reminds me of Weston in "Perelandra..." Satan is evil in and of himself. If his actions work to the greater benefit of God and man, then that is only because God turns all to good in the end. He desires evil-- he is not a driving force to good, he really wants us to be evil. But, because God's will is inexorable, even his evil serves good.

[linz]

This reminds me of Weston in "Perelandra..." Satan is evil in and of himself. If his actions work to the greater benefit of God and man, then that is only because God turns all to good in the end. He desires evil-- he is not a driving force to good, he really wants us to be evil. But, because God's will is inexorable, even his evil serves good.

Then why did the 'Watcher of Men' say, "After the six sorrows, with the seventh, no evil can touch him."?

[Scheherazade]

Please note that any off-topic posts will be deleted.

[JGL57]

I perceive Satan as science fiction. That is on topic.

[linz]

I perceive Satan as science fiction. That is on topic.


How can you have a clue of the depths of such things with just whiffing it away haughtily as you did? I understand you better than you think, I was the most tyrannical atheist imaginable, and still hold many disagreements with the religiously assumed of the evangelical movement in the U.S.A. But I don't judge them or you as I am taught not to. I can tell you're clever, perhaps you should not be stepping in the Religious arena, if you are just going to trodden it under foot.

[hyperborean]

I perceive Satan as science fiction. That is on topic.

I perceive him as that as well. Still on topic.

[linz]

There are things mentioned in Job, of such a profound pain and fear of Creator, that only through seeking death more than the finest treasure, can be unlocked the secret things of wisdom.

[Redzeppelin]

I perceive Satan as science fiction. That is on topic.

On topic and irrelevant.


I perceive him as that as well. Still on topic.

Cf. 1 inch above.


How can you have a clue of the depths of such things with just whiffing it away haughtily as you did? I understand you better than you think, I was the most tyrannical atheist imaginable, and still hold many disagreements with the religiously assumed of the evangelical movement in the U.S.A. But I don't judge them or you as I am taught not to. I can tell you're clever, perhaps you should not be stepping in the Religious arena, if you are just going to trodden it under foot.


Well said.

Job is a magnificently troubling book - one with tremendously important meditations on suffering, evil, good, God, the Devil.

[linz]

At the end of the 28th chapter an answer comes like this, "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding."

I have spotted the use of 'to and fro' in reference to the movement of a leaf by the wind, and in this fabulous passage, "He breaks open a shaft away from people; in places forgotten by feet they hang far away from men; they swing to and fro." When The Lord asks Satan where he came from, Satan replies "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."

Very Interesting.

[ennison]

You perceive him as science-fiction! Maybe we should rest our case for his/its existence. Science-fiction has had a history of being fact before too long.

A late friend of mine used to describe Satan as a dog on Christ's long leash. It was an image that I found difficult to accept but my friend was a man given to the striking and unsettling image. A man who'd cheated death at sea more than once and had risen by self education to have a great turn of phrase in his native Gaelic when discussing these important matters.

[weepingforloman]

Then why did the 'Watcher of Men' say, "After the six sorrows, with the seventh, no evil can touch him."?

God's commands are authoratative-- He can restrain Satan, and did so.

[linz]

God's commands are authoratative-- He can restrain Satan, and did so.

I don't think he has restained him quite yet, after all, in those days he will be cast to earth.

[weepingforloman]

If God could not restrain Him, why did He appear before God and have to attain permission to torment Job?

[linz]

If God could not restrain Him, why did He appear before God and have to attain permission to torment Job?

Why did God have to ask him who he was?

[weepingforloman]

He asked Satan WHERE he had been. Where. Not who.

[linz]

You're right, Sorry. But look close at my post above analyzing the 'to and fro' subject and tell me what you think. It is in this same thread.

[JGL57]

I wish to modify my previous post.

Satan is bad science fiction.

[linz]

I finished Job, for some reason I thought it would be much longer. None-the-less, what is says is unmatched. The imagery of it is the most vivid possible. As all of us know, righteous thought this day and age, isn't limited to the religious. But in those days, while all shared without modern understandings, still these words ring forth. That fortunate people given the circumstances of luck, have truly fallen, if they contain little conscience of concern of those endless builders of civilizations builders. And those fortunate but who haven't fallen, will be made to build there own sanctuary, through sweat and blood, but come out unbound by anything. And to the one who leads us into tribulation, by paths forgotten by men, shall ultimate not make us forget goodness in the end.

[linz]

In Job, Satan describes himself as "Walking to and fro on earth.", and later in the book we come across a passage describing an action by God, "He breaks open a shaft away from people; in places forgotten by feet they hang far away from men; they swing to and fro." The words to and fro appear in both.

I've done some small and general studies of Carl Jung and some of the basic concepts of his analytical psychology. 'The Ego' is the conscience self, and 'The Persona' is a mask built, learned beginning in childhood to display or correct society face. It is how you communicate in the world. Children learn it by being punished in school and taught by parents, and eventually it is simply who we are socially. 'The Shadow' is all these repressed things unaccepted by society that we store in the unconscious which are only utilize in private. Jung theorized that 'The Shadow' sometimes reveals itself in a dream as an enemy and is similarly menacing. Sometimes it can appear as the enemy of your particular nation, such that if you were an American your 'Shadow' might appear as a Islamic Terrorist. Another example is a junkie's 'Shadow' being an accusing police officer. 'The Moral Complex' also imposes restrictions on our 'Ego' and 'Persona' and is demonized in 'The Shadow'.

Maybe this has actual implications on God's breaking open a shaft away from people and places forgotten by feet i. e. 'The Shadow' literally being Satan. In other words our sins and evils are in us all to an extent, therefore hypocrisy is inevitable. And the 'Shadows' was menace in dreams, but become something menacing to our very right to life and needs to be conquered to enter heaven.

If you still do not understand than maybe this will help; In the Holocaust, Hitler convinced many German's rather successfully that 'The Shadow' was Jewish people.

[JGL57]

In Job, Satan describes himself as "Walking to and fro on earth.", and later in the book we come across a passage describing an action by God, "He breaks open a shaft away from people; in places forgotten by feet they hang far away from men; they swing to and fro." The words to and fro appear in both.

I've done some small and general studies of Carl Jung and some of the basic concepts of his analytical psychology. 'The Ego' is the conscience self, and 'The Persona' is a mask built, learned beginning in childhood to display or correct society face. It is how you communicate in the world. Children learn it by being punished in school and taught by parents, and eventually it is simply who we are socially. 'The Shadow' is all these repressed things unaccepted by society that we store in the unconscious which are only utilize in private. Jung theorized that 'The Shadow' sometimes reveals itself in a dream as an enemy and is similarly menacing. Sometimes it can appear as the enemy of your particular nation, such that if you were an American your 'Shadow' might appear as a Islamic Terrorist. Another example is a junkie's 'Shadow' being an accusing police officer. 'The Moral Complex' also imposes restrictions on our 'Ego' and 'Persona' and is demonized in 'The Shadow'.

Maybe this has actual implications on God's breaking open a shaft away from people and places forgotten by feet i. e. 'The Shadow' literally being Satan. In other words our sins and evils are in us all to an extent, therefore hypocrisy is inevitable. And the 'Shadows' was menace in dreams, but become something menacing to our very right to life and needs to be conquered to enter heaven.

If you still do not understand than maybe this will help; In the Holocaust, Hitler convinced many German's rather successfully that 'The Shadow' was Jewish people.

Well, I would agree that in attempting to understand the concepts of Lucifer and Satan, the meaning of the story of Job, and similar questions that the popular dogfight of the dogmatically religious with their "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." vs. the majority of atheists who response with something like "That's a load of superstition nonsense - why don't you rubes get a clue?" is not going to get us all anywhere except to eventually take us back to the Australopithecus days of setting disputes with sticks and rocks.

I think we need to take it to a higher intellectual level. The use of the psychoanalysis method by Jung, Freud, Adler, and the general scientific approach to understanding exemplified by comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell can actually shed real light on these issues, obviating the need for sheer belief in the unbelievable and/or questioning of someone's level of intelligence or saneness.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I had one teacher in my Religious Education class (she emotionally scarred me btw), say that everything that distracts us from God is Satan. Intense!!

[weepingforloman]

And probably incorrect. We distract ourselves fairly easily.

[Mortis Anarchy]

And probably incorrect. We distract ourselves fairly easily.

I totally agree...she really freaked me out. Didn't like me much cause I wore a Bob Marley shirt and listened to Led Zeppelin.

I don't really know what to say...is he like God, everywhere around us, or only in the bad stuff?

[weepingforloman]

Satan, from scriptural clues, appears to be more finite in his scope than God. He mentions walking "to and fro" on the earth in the book of Job, and Paul says he is "like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour."

Who could hate Bob Marley?!?

[Mortis Anarchy]

I KNOW! She was convinced I was a pot head...I've never done drugs in my life!

I heard this Baptist Minister say that Satan is in all of us, just waiting to get out and do his dirty deeds...done dirt cheap.:D

[weepingforloman]

Good AC/DC reference. I don't smoke pot either, and I LOVE Marley. My brother got to see the Wailers last year, and I was totally jealous.

Ah, poor misguided fire'n'brimstone. Glad I'm not a Southern Baptist!

[Mortis Anarchy]

OH man! That would have been really cool!

Back to the subject, before this gets shutdown!

In Job then, does it mean that Satan is just waiting for the right time?

[weepingforloman]

The Book of Job also records Satan going before God to ask permission to torture Job. Even the devil is not outside God's sovereignty (for those who can tell, yes, I happen to be a Calvinist).

[Pendragon]

Satan could come up before God because he was a fallen archangel, cast out of heaven for fomenting war. Man doesn't need all that much help to do evil, mankind does fine on their own. "The devil made me do it!" used to be a catch-phrase. The Devil gets blamed for a lot of things he didn't do.

You started with the book of Job. Satan indeed got God's permission to strike at Job. But his so-called friends did a good job of tormenting the poor man on their own, did they not? Job began to wish he had never been born, not from what he was going through, but because his friends keep falsely accusing him. He knew he hadn't done anything and it was just a trial. People can be cruel.

Satan is a tempter, not one who forces people to do anything. People will do anything on their own.

Oh, and I don't think he looks like this, either: http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Devil.gif

[weepingforloman]

I don't think I ever suggested Satan is inexorable. And, yes, we are most certainly disposed to evil ourselves.

[Warm-Blooded]

let me tell you that there are alot of devils dwell inside everyhuman , as there are alot of them outside humans .
The satan has no place perfectly to stay in but he ordered his assistants to spoil every human's life because he envys them and he bears a grudge against them .

[NikolaiI]

let me tell you that there are alot of devils dwell inside everyhuman , as there are alot of them outside humans .
The satan has no place perfectly to stay in but he ordered his assistants to spoil every human's life because he envys them and he bears a grudge against them .

why do you believe this? who told you this? have you seen it? would you believe something just because someone told it to you? then why not believe those who tell you it is not so?

[Pendragon]

I don't think I ever suggested Satan is inexorable. And, yes, we are most certainly disposed to evil ourselves. In the sense that "inexorable" can mean "relentless", yes, Satan is that. That is shown clearly in the book of Job. When one tactic doesn't work, he seeks permission for another, vowing to make Job curse God to His (God's) face. But man, as AP put it on the now defunt Evolution vs Creation thread, natural has an animal nature. We cannot keep it at bay forever. Think about simple road-rage. Some cuts you off in traffic and you blow your stack. Blame that on Satan or yourself, for a lack of self-control?

[Redzeppelin]

Think about simple road-rage. Some cuts you off in traffic and you blow your stack. Blame that on Satan or yourself, for a lack of self-control?

A mixture of all three - the ratios depend upon the makeup of the individual.

[subterranean]

Would anyone care of quoting the Bible or any other religious texts in this discussion?
:)
This is a Religious Texts thread, by the way and hence supposed to be a source where we can learn more about religions in the world through the discussion of their sacred texts.

[Pendragon]

OK. Sub, although I did bring up Job.

Galations 5: [13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
[25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Notice how the flesh is given over to do things that are wrong. Paul states "Flesh." He doesn't strickly say this is the fault of Satan. Of course, Satan is going to take what he can get and work with it. But the nature of the flesh is born into a man or woman.

The spirit gives one a different outlook, even to self-control (temperance), and a Christian is supposed to act diffrently. But how easily our animal nature takes over! Romans Chapter 7.

God Bless

Pen

[PrinceMyshkin]

Matthew 6:34 "Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Personally I wish this were equally applicable to yesterday... as far back as that reaches, for it is only by attending closely and clear-sightedly to the evils of this day - the psychological, sociological and economic reasons for it - that we may hope to deal with and defeat it.

Satan is a metaphor, a convenient short-hand for the deformities of our hearts caused by human insensitivity, cruelty and injustice.

[stephofthenight]

not sure that this is on topic, but where did satan come from, i mean i know he was gods higest angel...but when did god create him, and did adam and eve or noah come first???
steph

[Pendragon]

You know, Prince, I believe this would be on topic. Joe Walsh of the Eagles wrote a song called "One Day At a Time" that The Eagles have being preforming at their "Farewell" Tour.

Part of the song goes:

"I finally figured out that I was the problem.
And quit laying the blame on everybody's soulders but mine
It was something I was too blind to see
I got help from something greater than me
And now I'm living my life one day at a time."

Words to live by. If everyone quit blaming everyone but themselves for what's wrong with the world and did their part to fix it, we might get somewhere!

God Bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Warm-Blooded]

why do you believe this? who told you this? have you seen it? would you believe something just because someone told it to you? then why not believe those who tell you it is not so?

oh I am sorry I didn't notice your reply while posting .

I believe this because my religion said to me to believe that there're alot of devils want to spoil my life and deport me out of the Heaven where he was exiled too .

didn't you notify that there's someone inside you leading you into bad deeds you did ?

the human has a independent identity and he can lead himself where he want .
let me stop here and tell you that there's another foe for the human it's a instinct of violence , pleasure , evil as well as influence of Satan inside the human .....
Then the human have to triumph over all of evils lurking in him :crash: :crash:

I am sorry for my bad english :yawnb:

[weepingforloman]

In the sense that "inexorable" can mean "relentless", yes, Satan is that. That is shown clearly in the book of Job. When one tactic doesn't work, he seeks permission for another, vowing to make Job curse God to His (God's) face. But man, as AP put it on the now defunt Evolution vs Creation thread, natural has an animal nature. We cannot keep it at bay forever. Think about simple road-rage. Some cuts you off in traffic and you blow your stack. Blame that on Satan or yourself, for a lack of self-control?

I mean, by inexorable, sovereign. Satan does not have all power over us. He too is under the total authority of God.

I certainly do not deny the evil of man in and of himself. I thoroughly believe in total depravity (though this doctrine does not mean what some would have it mean).


Matthew 6:34 "Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Personally I wish this were equally applicable to yesterday... as far back as that reaches, for it is only by attending closely and clear-sightedly to the evils of this day - the psychological, sociological and economic reasons for it - that we may hope to deal with and defeat it.

Satan is a metaphor, a convenient short-hand for the deformities of our hearts caused by human insensitivity, cruelty and injustice.

Certainly we have our own share of evil. But that does not make Satan a nonentity. I believe in the corruption both of our own hearts and of a mighty spirit we call Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub/the devil.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Certainly we have our own share of evil. But that does not make Satan a nonentity. I believe in the corruption both of our own hearts and of a mighty spirit we call Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub/the devil.

Do you never feel that this is akin to and somewhat on the same level as what was spoken of as the Bogey-man?

What are the chances that you might assist in preventing the rise of some local Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mugabe or Pol Pot if you are looking out for some red-faced horned and tailed mythological figure or if you prefer the spiritual phantasmagorical equivalent thereof?

It is in this and similar respects that I think religion is not merely wrong but deleterious to our political, material growth and well-being.

[weepingforloman]

No, I do not find it detrimental to our socio-political health to be aware of Satan. I don't see how that relates, actually, because if we are alert and watching for evil from a being who is non-physical and is believed to influence the hearts of men, wouldn't we be on the lookout for evil from the sort of men you mentioned?

[Redzeppelin]

Do you never feel that this is akin to and somewhat on the same level as what was spoken of as the Bogey-man?

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.


What are the chances that you might assist in preventing the rise of some local Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mugabe or Pol Pot if you are looking out for some red-faced horned and tailed mythological figure or if you prefer the spiritual phantasmagorical equivalent thereof?

Here we go again: 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.


It is in this and similar respects that I think religion is not merely wrong but deleterious to our political, material growth and well-being.

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?

[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

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[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

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[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]

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.



[QUOTE]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. :smash:

[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.

[kiobe]

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?

Well, I'm not saying any of that really. I like the idea that it took millions of years for a goldfinch to be as it is today, along with everything else. As far as my understanding of God, I can only concider Him as I was taught to in catholic school, as I was informed of Him by my girlfriend of 4 years who is a Jehovah Witness(83-86), in my own search of Him through Buddhism and many long conversations with my Jewish friends, and conversations with my mom's Morman family. That, along with studying the origins of religion, has led me to my current understanding.

That being said, my view on whether Satan exists, to stay on topic, is a few posts up from here sent to redzep.

[weepingforloman]

"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.

First off, you cannot prove that God is fancy. Secondly, even the idea is far more beautiful than a bird, and I would love it even if I no longer believed in the Being. Not that I will stop believing.

[kiobe]

First off, you cannot prove that God is fancy. Secondly, even the idea is far more beautiful than a bird, and I would love it even if I no longer believed in the Being. Not that I will stop believing.

If I may barge in here. It's not the bird that is beautiful to me, although goldfinches are rather beautiful, it's the idea that it has evolved to become such a thing. That is what is beautiful to me.

[Whifflingpin]

Weepingforloman: "First off, you cannot prove that God is fancy. Secondly, even the idea is far more beautiful than a bird, and I would love it even if I no longer believed in the Being. Not that I will stop believing."
Kiobe: "If I may barge in here. It's not the bird that is beautiful to me, although goldfinches are rather beautiful, it's the idea that it has evolved to become such a thing. That is what is beautiful to be."

Apologies to you both. To W for my flippancy & K for the misrepresentation.

But, Weepingforloman, proof is entirely beside the point. I, for instance, believe in God, but I consider that reckoning any human to be divine is a mistake. So there would be no point in using arguments based on the Incarnation or the Crucifixion if you wanted to convince me of God's goodness and love. To me, if not to you, such arguments would be founded in moonshine. Given that I do believe in God the Creator, you might use the goldfinch as evidence that God is a person of goodness and love. Then, perhaps, you might use the image of a goldfinch impaled on a thorn to convince me, if I needed convincing, that there is also a malevolent force at work in the universe. And then you might lead me to consider the origins and workings of that force and so on to God's response and plan for overcoming it, and, eventually you might bring me to accept your belief in God's self-sacrifice and man's redemption, and the necessity of the Incarnation in that process.

But you will definately not convince me of anything by starting at the conclusion, and wielding your belief like a cudgel. Apart from the fact that that is a bad way to try and convince someone (coerce, yes; convince, no) it is, as a method, exactly the opposite to the truth that you are trying to teach.

[kiobe]

Weepingforloman: "First off, you cannot prove that God is fancy. Secondly, even the idea is far more beautiful than a bird, and I would love it even if I no longer believed in the Being. Not that I will stop believing."
Kiobe: "If I may barge in here. It's not the bird that is beautiful to me, although goldfinches are rather beautiful, it's the idea that it has evolved to become such a thing. That is what is beautiful to be."

Apologies to you both. To W for my flippancy & K for the misrepresentation.

But, Weepingforloman, proof is entirely beside the point. I, for instance, believe in God, but I consider that reckoning any human to be divine is a mistake. So there would be no point in using arguments based on the Incarnation or the Crucifixion if you wanted to convince me of God's goodness and love. To me, if not to you, such arguments would be founded in moonshine. Given that I do believe in God the Creator, you might use the goldfinch as evidence that God is a person of goodness and love. Then, perhaps, you might use the image of a goldfinch impaled on a thorn to convince me, if I needed convincing, that there is also a malevolent force at work in the universe. And then you might lead me to consider the origins and workings of that force and so on to God's response and plan for overcoming it, and, eventually you might bring me to accept your belief in God's self-sacrifice and man's redemption, and the necessity of the Incarnation in that process.

But you will definately not convince me of anything by starting at the conclusion, and wielding your belief like a cudgel. Apart from the fact that that is a bad way to try and convince someone (coerce, yes; convince, no) it is, as a method, exactly the opposite to the truth that you are trying to teach.

No need to apologise wif, you're comments are always taken as decent.

[Son of Belial]

PrinceMyshkin said:
Do you never feel that this is akin to and somewhat on the same level as what was spoken of as the Bogey-man?

RedZepplin responded:
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.

To which PrinceMyshkin replied:
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.

This then led to:

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).

I too was flabbergasted by that bit of twisted logic. If I may try to explain:

Actually I believe the phrase for such a disprovable assertion is "It's not even wrong". Red has assigned the cause of Prince's skepticism to some effect asserted, without a shred of evidence, by C.S. Lewis and then declares Lewis' assertion proven. Huh?!?

You draw on a system of belief that, by it's very nature, cannot subject itself to logical debate, then quote an apologist of that unprovable belief system as proof that any logical criticism of the system is...erhm...evidence of the validity of the system. (my brain is hurting so bad right now). It's just bad reasoning and is a perfect example of why religious systems cannot be debated rationally.

You're right Red, we do understand little about you, but we can begin to know you by your words, and quit frankly the logic fails miserably in your argument here.

[kiobe]

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



How is it that you are sure of such facts when the existance hasn't been proven. Satan cannot create, only imitate. Satan is not all powerfull. I am confused as to the ability to 'know' about something that doesn't physically exist.

[Redzeppelin]

I too was flabbergasted by that bit of twisted logic. If I may try to explain:

Actually I believe the phrase for such a disprovable assertion is "It's not even wrong". Red has assigned the cause of Prince's skepticism to some effect asserted, without a shred of evidence, by C.S. Lewis and then declares Lewis' assertion proven. Huh?!?

You draw on a system of belief that, by it's very nature, cannot subject itself to logical debate, then quote an apologist of that unprovable belief system as proof that any logical criticism of the system is...erhm...evidence of the validity of the system. (my brain is hurting so bad right now). It's just bad reasoning and is a perfect example of why religious systems cannot be debated rationally.

You're right Red, we do understand little about you, but we can begin to know you by your words, and quit frankly the logic fails miserably in your argument here.

And so I guess I ought to hide my tail between my legs and go off to the corner because you have handily destroyed my platform by invoking the mighty "logic"? You'll forgive me if I persist.

I don't assert that I've proven anything to anybody. My comment was that Prince's dismissal of Satan as a "bogey-man" speaks perfectly to what Lewis said - the attitude that Satan is a mere child's closet fear is - IMO - evidence that Lewis is right. But I didn't say that my citation PROVED anything. It just acted as what I believe to be an illustration of a point Lewis made.

The idea that the validity of something is tied to how it squares with rational examination is the attempt of the Naturalist to play the game on his playing field: that won't work, because the Naturalist playing field denies the existence of God and places authority on empirical observation (rational examination); as such, much of what makes sense to a Christian will appear irrational to a non-believer; this isn't a problem until someone decides that the playing field for reality is Naturalism - but it's not - not as far as I'm concerned. You may think you've dealt some sort of death-blow because you invoked the irrational nature of religious belief, but to do so is to deal a death-blow to much of what we see as being human; not everything about being human is rational (regardless of whether you include religion or not). Love and politics come to mind.

God is not a topic you "logically debate" - He is the Divine Being who called reality into existence with His WORDS. That very fact defies our logic and rationality - but only if you assume reality to be bounded by humanity and its abilities. If you allow for a Being like God, then rationality - at least in terms of evaluating God - will fail because it is a splinter being used to ward off an angry bull - insufficient for the job at hand.

Sorry about your head.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I don't assert that I've proven anything to anybody. My comment was that Prince's dismissal of Satan as a "bogey-man" speaks perfectly to what Lewis said - the attitude that Satan is a mere child's closet fear is - IMO - evidence that Lewis is right. But I didn't say that my citation PROVED anything. It just acted as what I believe to be an illustration of a point Lewis made.

I also said that Satan could never have done better to distract us from dealing with earthly problems than by inventing a "God" who was looking after us. You have presented some ingenious arguments that God is not in fact looking after us but you must be aware that many Christians - as sincere in their faith as you are - believe exactly that.


The idea that the validity of something is tied to how it squares with rational examination is the attempt of the Naturalist to play the game on his playing field

The only other playing field available is the one on which hundreds or thousands of different religions, each with its own 'true' God are playing on. Some of them have arguments as densely cross-hatched as yours.


You may think you've dealt some sort of death-blow because you invoked the irrational nature of religious belief, but to do so is to deal a death-blow to much of what we see as being human; not everything about being human is rational (regardless of whether you include religion or not). Love and politics come to mind.

But if you admit to human irrationality, how can you exclude religion from the list?


God is not a topic you "logically debate" - He is the Divine Being who called reality into existence with His WORDS. That very fact defies our logic and rationality - but only if you assume reality to be bounded by humanity and its abilities. If you allow for a Being like God, then rationality - at least in terms of evaluating God - will fail because it is a splinter being used to ward off an angry bull - insufficient for the job at hand.

If 'God' is the Divine Being who called reality into existence, then he also called logic and reason into existence, but then according to you put limits on them. He created something of limited use and flawed perfection.

[Redzeppelin]

I also said that Satan could never have done better to distract us from dealing with earthly problems than by inventing a "God" who was looking after us. You have presented some ingenious arguments that God is not in fact looking after us but you must be aware that many Christians - as sincere in their faith as you are - believe exactly that.

Satan cannot create - he can only imitate. God does look after us - believer and non-believer alike. But that "looking after us" does not always involve intervention that we would always prefer. Sometimes "looking after us" actually involves "growth experiences" which are not always pleasant. Here on earth we call such experiences "character building."


The only other playing field available is the one on which hundreds or thousands of different religions, each with its own 'true' God are playing on. Some of them have arguments as densely cross-hatched as yours.

In a way, you're correct: believers and non-believers both stand on either side of a two way mirror looking at the Alice-in-Wonderland beliefs on the other side of the glass. I'm aware that you can't come to my side and I can't come to yours. But God is at work to bring you to a point to coming to my side of the glass - because He loves you immensely.



But if you admit to human irrationality, how can you exclude religion from the list?

From what list? Religion does seem irrational - to those who don't believe. "Rationality" cuts both ways: rationality largely takes meaning from inside the frame from within which you're defining it - in Christianity, rationality is grounded in God; in secularism, rationality is grounded in human empiricism.


If 'God' is the Divine Being who called reality into existence, then he also called logic and reason into existence, but then according to you put limits on them. He created something of limited use and flawed perfection.

God gave us logic and reason to navigate the pitfalls of living on this earth - but He Himself transcends the logic He gave us - just like He transcends our 4 dimensions.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Satan cannot create - he can only imitate. God does look after us - believer and non-believer alike. But that "looking after us" does not always involve intervention that we would always prefer. Sometimes "looking after us" actually involves "growth experiences" which are not always pleasant. Here on earth we call such experiences "character building."

In which case, what was there for Satan to imitate ab ovo but God, and of what was he created but the substance of God?

As for God's "growth experiences," I refer you back to our discussion of Job, who was given such extraordinary occasions for growth, albeit at the loss of his family.


In a way, you're correct: believers

My point in fact was that there were hundreds if not thousands of different groups of believers, each with their own 'true' Gods and their panoplies of witches, demons, medicine men, shamans and saints - or their cultural equivalents thereof.


I'm aware that you can't come to my side and I can't come to yours. But God is at work to bring you to a point to coming to my side of the glass - because He loves you immensely.

In view of remarks I've made earlier re the Holocaust, this last remark is repugnant to me.


From what list? Religion does seem irrational - to those who don't believe. "Rationality" cuts both ways: rationality largely takes meaning from inside the frame from within which you're defining it - in Christianity, rationality is grounded in God; in secularism, rationality is grounded in human empiricism.

Rationality cannot surely be founded on faith.


God gave us logic and reason to navigate the pitfalls of living on this earth - but He Himself transcends the logic He gave us - just like He transcends our 4 dimensions.

And yet you exercise a species of logic to argue the existence of God, who is beyond logic? Even spun sugar floss begins with a few grains of actual sugar.

[Redzeppelin]

In which case, what was there for Satan to imitate ab ovo but God, and of what was he created but the substance of God?

At the end of history, this will be Satan's final ruse: to attempt to impersonate God. He will try, and he will fail - Reveleation says so.


As for God's "growth experiences," I refer you back to our discussion of Job, who was given such extraordinary occasions for growth, albeit at the loss of his family.

Job's experience wasn't a "growth" moment - he was asked to stand up and vindicate His Lord. He did so admirably, and will someday (if not already) be reunited with the loved ones he lost.


My point in fact was that there were hundreds if not thousands of different groups of believers, each with their own 'true' Gods and their panoplies of witches, demons, medicine men, shamans and saints - or their cultural equivalents thereof.

Yep. Not all of them are correct, however. Only the version of God which properly accounts for reality is the correct one.


In view of remarks I've made earlier re the Holocaust, this last remark is repugnant to me.

I didn't say it because I thought you'd like it - I said it because it's true. You are free to reject that offered love, but just be clear that your rejection is based upon incomplete knowledge; only God knows all the facts and as such, only God truly understands why He does/does not act in a way we desire or approve of.



Rationality cannot surely be founded on faith.

Fine.



And yet you exercise a species of logic to argue the existence of God, who is beyond logic? Even spun sugar floss begins with a few grains of actual sugar.

"Logic" is method of determining the validity of something; from where I stand, it is perfectly logical that God exists and created the universe - because, as a Christian, there is no basis of reality that makes sense without God as the foundation. Making any thing else the foundation of reality - science, "rationality," "reason," "logic" is futile unless those things are founded upon the reality that God is real. Once you position those terms on top of a foundation that does not include God, their validity becomes suspect. Sorry. That's the way I see it. Feel free to reject it and tell me how "blind" I am. I'm OK with that.

[Pendragon]

Well, they take the classic demonic form, red with horns, cloven foot, and tail, from old paintings and woodcuts authorized by The Church. They were done not to show the true face of Satan, i.e., the appearance, but the nature. Given that Satan was a fallen Archangel, there is some argument as to whether or not this is Lucifer or Shemuel, a different more beautiful shape emerges. I go with Lucifer, myself. Still the point remains would man have evil inside of him without the help of Satan? IMO, this scripture from Galatians 5: 15 "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.", seems to indicate that we do Satan's job quite well ourselves. Satan could simply sit back, buff his nails, and say "No reason for me to get involved, they seem to be doing a good job of making a mess on their own."

Where he would have to work is on an idividual basis where the person refuses to get mixed up in the muddle and mess.

God Bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[PrinceMyshkin]

At the end of history, this will be Satan's final ruse: to attempt to impersonate God. He will try, and he will fail - Reveleation says so.

But, to borrow from you, you did not answer my original question. If, before creation, there was nothing but God, a) of what was Satan created if not God and b) what was there for Satan to imitate except God?


Job's experience wasn't a "growth" moment - he was asked to stand up and vindicate His Lord. He did so admirably, and will someday (if not already) be reunited with the loved ones he lost.

He was "asked" nothing nor consulted in anyway. He was offered out of God's vainglory to Satan to be tested. And you presume the unshakeability of his faith to imagine that he did not suffer horribly at the death of his family. Could you blithely watch your own family go and console yourself that Oh well, we'll be re-united in the after-life?


Yep. Not all of them are correct, however. Only the version of God which properly accounts for reality is the correct one.

But ALL Of them, one might assume, believe with coinviction equal to your own that their God "properly accounts for reality."


I didn't say it because I thought you'd like it - I said it because it's true. You are free to reject that offered love, but just be clear that your rejection is based upon incomplete knowledge; only God knows all the facts and as such, only God truly understands why He does/does not act in a way we desire or approve of.

It is to be assumed that none of us being human has complete knowledge. A vital difference tro me is that some of us broadcast our incomplete knowledge as if it were sufficient for the rest of us. Apparently it is enough for you.


Fine.

Next.



"Logic" is method of determining the validity of something; from where I stand, it is perfectly logical that God exists and created the universe - because, as a Christian, there is no basis of reality that makes sense without God as the foundation. Making any thing else the foundation of reality - science, "rationality," "reason," "logic" is futile unless those things are founded upon the reality that God is real. Once you position those terms on top of a foundation that does not include God, their validity becomes suspect. Sorry. That's the way I see it. Feel free to reject it and tell me how "blind" I am. I'm OK with that.

Fine. There is a difference however between those who are blind by virtue of some physical or mental defect, and those who choose to be blind.

Next.

[Redzeppelin]

But, to borrow from you, you did not answer my original question. If, before creation, there was nothing but God, a) of what was Satan created if not God and b) what was there for Satan to imitate except God?

God's creations are not "made" of Him. We are not part of God, neither is Satan.



He was "asked" nothing nor consulted in anyway. He was offered out of God's vainglory to Satan to be tested. And you presume the unshakeability of his faith to imagine that he did not suffer horribly at the death of his family. Could you blithely watch your own family go and console yourself that Oh well, we'll be re-united in the after-life?

All believers understand that obedience to God means that we may be called to stand for Him - without the courtesy of a warning from God. I assume the death of his family was devastating - as it would to any human being. Unshakeable faith does not mean that tragedy doesn't hurt - it simply means that tragedy is insufficient to shake that faith.


But ALL Of them, one might assume, believe with coinviction equal to your own that their God "properly accounts for reality."

Sure - but I never suggested that conviction made something true. It just makes it real for the convicted person.


It is to be assumed that none of us being human has complete knowledge. A vital difference tro me is that some of us broadcast our incomplete knowledge as if it were sufficient for the rest of us. Apparently it is enough for you.

Not sure I follow the syntax of your second sentence. I'll assume it was meant in a friendly manner.



Fine. There is a difference however between those who are blind by virtue of some physical or mental defect, and those who choose to be blind.

Yes; that is very true.

[PrinceMyshkin]

God's creations are not "made" of Him. We are not part of God, neither is Satan.

If there was nothing before God, then of what could God make us - and Satan - but himself?


All believers understand

All believers who believe as you believe, perhaps, but can you really make this statement of ALL believers? On what authorty?


All believers understand that obedience to God means that we may be called to stand for Him - without the courtesy of a warning from God. I assume the death of his family was devastating - as it would to any human being. Unshakeable faith does not mean that tragedy doesn't hurt - it simply means that tragedy is insufficient to shake that faith.

What/where is the basis for such an 'understanding'?


Sure - but I never suggested that conviction made something true. It just makes it real for the convicted person.

So none of what you put forward is necessarily true, but is just what you personally are convinced of?

And our convictions are equally valid in the court of asbsolutely unbiased public opinion?


(mine) It is to be assumed that none of us being human has complete knowledge. A vital difference tro me is that some of us broadcast our incomplete knowledge as if it were sufficient for the rest of us. Apparently it is enough for you.


Not sure I follow the syntax of your second sentence. I'll assume it was meant in a friendly manner.

I think we would agree that neither of us (or anybody else for that matter) has complete knowledge as to the origins of the universe. The point I meant to make is that you put forward your convictions as if they were all that we need to know.

[Redzeppelin]

If there was nothing before God, then of what could God make us - and Satan - but himself?

God - apparently - can create matter ex nihilo. Evolution doesn't know what to do with matter once God is eliminated from the picture.



All believers who believe as you believe, perhaps, but can you really make this statement of ALL believers? On what authorty?

I will qualify: "All believers familiar with the Bible and the character of God."


What/where is the basis for such an 'understanding'?

Stated above.


So none of what you put forward is necessarily true, but is just what you personally are convinced of?

*sigh* - It's true - but I don't expect anybody to believe so just because I say. All believers believe their beliefs are true; the problem is this: since the belief systems of the world are mutually exclusive, all of them cannot be true ways to God: either one is right or all are wrong. I believe Christianity presents the most comprehensive picture of God.


And our convictions are equally valid in the court of asbsolutely unbiased public opinion?

Yes. However, our beliefs must be subjected to reality to see how they square; before you jump in with an "AHA!" let me remind you that reality - objective as I believe it to be - cannot be objectively seen by us - we are incapable of being completely objective; as such, our "screens" will have a strong influence on what we see "reality" to be. From where I stand, the problem with human behavior in this world makes perfect sense looked at through the lense of my Christian convictions; I don't think secular psychology presents an adequate picture of human behavior and why it is what it is; the reality of sin in a fallen world does IMO.


I think we would agree that neither of us (or anybody else for that matter) has complete knowledge as to the origins of the universe. The point I meant to make is that you put forward your convictions as if they were all that we need to know.

I put forward my convictions as sufficient for me - you are not required to accept any of my views as true; I am well aware that my words do not have the power to convince you that God exists - and that is not my intention anyway. If God wants you to believe, He will get your attention in one way or another.

[Thinkerr]

I agree. As to God creating the world out of nothing, I think it makes more sense than the Big Bang theory. If God is all powerful then he can easily create the entire universe out of nothing. The Big Bang theory states: In the begining there was nothing, then nothing exploded and there was something.
Creationist states: In the begining there was GOD and GOD made everything through his infinite power.

[Rockin462]

God was created by the Human mind as an answer to questions we can not answer.
The wise man in the tribe was constantly bombarded by, Where did we/this come from? How could this be? Etc. Etc.
A more powerful being than us must have created this as we could not, was and is an easy answer.
And to call something good there must be evil. Therefore if there is a God there must be a Satan.
As the tribes grew together a set of laws had to be created in order for people to be able to live together as a society. Thus, the creation of the original religions and laws.
Today we are much more intelligent and wise than 6000,4000,2000 years ago.
Now we need to evolve mentally and create a set of moral laws that come before religous belief. Laws of humanity that can not be trumped by religous rights or freedoms. Laws that truly equalize humans and can not be overturned by the line, one's faith allow them do it.
The hate caused by religion and people's beliefs has been and still is the biggest downfall of the world. People must get beyond tradition and faith to be truly able to respect the HUMAN BEING.

[Granny5]

I agree. As to God creating the world out of nothing, I think it makes more sense than the Big Bang theory. If God is all powerful then he can easily create the entire universe out of nothing. The Big Bang theory states: In the begining there was nothing, then nothing exploded and there was something.
Creationist states: In the begining there was GOD and GOD made everything through his infinite power.

How do we know that God did not cause the Big Bang? It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both. I see no reason to believe that God didn't cause the Big Bang or the evolution of humans. Everyone against such things assumes that a day for God is the same as what we humans think of as a day. Why would anyone assume that God's time is the same as ours? That makes no sense to me.
As for Satan, I tend to believe that Satan is a creation of the mind of man. Why would God let such a creature/being exist?
There is no value, nothing to be gained by God or mankind by the existence of a satan.

[Rockin462]

As for Satan, I tend to believe that Satan is a creation of the mind of man. Why would God let such a creature/being exist?
There is no value, nothing to be gained by God or mankind by the existence of a satan.

Well the reality is. God and Satan are both a creation of the mind of man.
In order to evaluate something there must be a base. We think in opposites.
Good/Evil, God/Satan, etc.
It's a by product of living on an earth made of opposites.
Opposing poles, Night/Day, hot/cold, life/death.
You can't say something is good if there isn't something evil to base your judgement on.

[MattG]

Reality? How do you know reality isn't a creation of your mind? Do you think your reality is the same as mine? Is your reality the same as anyones? How could it be? We are all individual filters on the universe. What is the probability that we see anything the same way? What you are calling reality is simply an overlap in common experience between one or many.

I believe God and Satan to be the same.

[Rockin462]

As you said reality is a creation of the mind. Everyone's may be different.
To say my reality is SIMPLY AN OVERLAP IN COMMON EXPERIENCE BETWEEN ONE OR MANY, says I am not an individual free thinker but a sheep amongst the brain washed masses. Wrong.

I believe God and Satan do not exist at all except as an extension of the mind. How we choose. There is a balance and opposing sides. Call them what you will.
You live your life. Either you create your heaven or you create your hell as you live it and as you like it or not.
Life is a matter of odds. What you do betters your odds to achieve or have what happens around you happen. You create a goal for yourself. Then you do things to achieve it. Those things you do to try and achieve are bettering your odds for your goal to happen.

[packersfan]

[QUOTE=Rockin462;463105]As you said reality is a creation of the mind. Everyone's may be different.
To say my reality is SIMPLY AN OVERLAP IN COMMON EXPERIENCE BETWEEN ONE OR MANY, says I am not an individual free thinker but a sheep amongst the brain washed masses. Wrong.QUOTE]

I do agree with skull farmer. Our realities our shaped by experience, and depending on our experiences, they overlap. From the difference between my experience on this earth and a someone from Africa's experiences, our realities are different by a much higher degree than mine and my next door neighbour. However I am a pretty religious person (but I am open to new ideas about religion) so I do not agree that god and the devil are the same person. And I do not understand how you can think god and satan are the same.

Please explain what you mean and your point of view. I am interested and totally open hearted.

[MattG]

To say my reality is SIMPLY AN OVERLAP IN COMMON EXPERIENCE BETWEEN ONE OR MANY, says I am not an individual free thinker but a sheep amongst the brain washed masses. Wrong.

I believe you've misinterpreted my meaning as I've perhaps done a poor job of explaining it. Firstly, I wasn't singling you out, but was speaking in more general terms. What I meant was that what you and I agree on as reality is actually a smaller part of who we are. We are all made up of our experiences and what you and I truly understand about one another is the small overlap of common experience that tends to garner for itself the label of 'reality'. I was actually suggesting that reality is much wider versus much narrower than what is commonly suggested by the word. Also, I'm not certain the brainwashed masses exist. I've never met them anyway. I think people usually have a valid reason for doing what they do in the context of their own reality. Sure, we may find it easy to just write people off as stupid but without understanding motivation then it is we who judge who ignore facts.

[Granny5]

Well the reality is. God and Satan are both a creation of the mind of man.
In order to evaluate something there must be a base. We think in opposites.
Good/Evil, God/Satan, etc.
It's a by product of living on an earth made of opposites.
Opposing poles, Night/Day, hot/cold, life/death.
You can't say something is good if there isn't something evil to base your judgement on.

Of course you can say if something is good without something evil to base it on. At least I can. If something makes me happy without hurting anyone else, I consider it good. That doesn't mean I have to hurt someone to know that. Babies know that to be held and loved is good without knowing that to be neglected and hated is bad. I believe that there are truly evil people living in our world and satan was created to explain them. The Devil made them do it is much easier to accept for most people than the fact that there are just plain evil people.

[Thinkerr]

From a Christian friend's point of view (I talked to him after starting this discussion) Satan is the root of all evil. God wants to make human beings perfect. Satan was the original rebel against God's plan, so when the End comes he's off to Hell. Satan knows this so he wants to corrupt as many people as possible and drag them down to the eternal fire with him. Misery loves company. Satan is not only NOT a figment of the imagination, he actively tries to cause people to slip up and go down with him. The evil people in the world did not cause Satan. Satan caused them.

[Rockin462]

How do you know the baby doesn't feel neglected the moment it is not being held? Hence they cry when they are put down? Babies are greedy. Do they not only think of themselves?
You may not have had to hurt someone because you have seen hurt done by others or have seen pain in life itself? No one leads a sheltered enough life to not have seen pain, suffering, hatred, misfortune or anything that someone may call evil!

Thinkerr, in a life of free will. The outside influences that can change perspective or sway a decision is what you are calling Satan? It' not a voice in your head is it?
I see things as odds. The company you keep, the decisions you make, the places you are or go, the goals you make, your desire to achieve them. It all changes the odds to what happens in your day and life. Freak instances or happenings,common occurances, what are chances or odds of them happening?

The cop out the devil made me do it, is someone who can't atone for their own doings. Call them psycho or evil or whatever. But that same trait exists in all of us. Some don't have enough self control to stop themselves.
Generally speaking, people have the self control to not do what they know is wrong. Some don't. And then there is the point that we do what we think is right. It may not be right to all.

I do disagree that we are merely a by product of our surroundings. As many things I see the way I do may be different from someone in Africa, or next door. There is many the same. We are considered individuals for a reason. But that doesn't mean 2 people from completely different worlds couldn't agree on most things.

[packersfan]

Rockin, I do agree with you up to a point.

Some women in the Middle East believe its okay to be treated as such and not having the "freedom" that woman in America would consider to be okay. Because these women grew up in the Middle East and were taught this by their religious leaders, they believe that's okay. Most women in America, because they were born with more freedoms, don't think this is okay. Being born in the Middle East totally influenced their thoughts about women's freedoms.

And as we have individual thoughts and personalities and as we are individual thinkers, a lot of our ideas about religion, politics, and freedoms are developed by our communities, societies, and parents. They may differ because my thoughts on religion are definitely different than my parents, but I grew up with ideas about politics and have those same ideas today.

Please explain your thoughts if they differ.

[Rockin462]

I believe, to say we are simply a by product of our surroundings is naive.
Though many people do not have the will to allow themselves true free thought, there are many great thinkers who do.
Our decisions change our lives daily. Some people who do not analyze or make informed decisions but simply do as expected or as taught, I can agree will be a by product of their surroundings and family influences.
Though someone is unable to express their desire in some places on this earth, doesn't mean they don't have them. And there is people with the courage to stand when told to lay down.
With Freewill we have the ability to shape our lives, surroundings, and decisions to create the outcome we desire. It doesn't always go the way we would like. And people change.
I believe life is a set of odds. Everything that happens and all that we do can be calculated. We dont have much control of what's to come, except to say, we can better the odds to achieve what we desire.
I was raised Catholic. I have ventured into brief studies of other religions. I came to the conclusion that religion is a base set of laws for which people to live by. Beyond that, human beings manipulated the WORD for their benefit through out the centuries. The also use the WORD to cause the greatest man made catastrophies. War and worse.
If we could as Human beings go 1 step ahead of religion and regional, family beliefs. And create a set of Laws for Humanity that superceed any and all other belief systems, we could truly break down the walls that separate us and no matter where we dwell or what we believe, we could be treated all as equals.
After all, isn't that what Jesus tried to do?

[Wintermute]

Hi, my name is Doug. I haven't posted in these forums for at least 6 months. When I logged in this morning I got this:

Hello Wintermute it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums?

So, I figured I better hop to it!

The topics being discussed in this formum seem to be indistinguishable from those of six months ago. You have the folks that think there is some sort of creator, and those that don't. Both argue with conviction and passion. Then you have agnostic goobers like me that get more and more uncertain as we read all of these well written posts (I'm just assuming there are a few of us). My off-topic question is: Has anyone changed thier minds or gained a deeper understanding of the opposite's perspective? If so, this would seem to be a worthy forum.

I think I have learned some things from reading the posts here, so I will continue to do so. And, occasionally, I'll post something to keep from being yelled at by the forum.

Moderator: Sorry, didn't know what else to post.

[Kiba]

i'm almost at same page as Rockin, that is what i think too ...
i'm just following one law and that is , my moral code...
My moral is telling me what is good what bad / evil.

[Taste of Defeat]

This reminds me of Weston in "Perelandra..." Satan is evil in and of himself. If his actions work to the greater benefit of God and man, then that is only because God turns all to good in the end. He desires evil-- he is not a driving force to good, he really wants us to be evil. But, because God's will is inexorable, even his evil serves good.

I would be careful with saying "Satan is evil in and of himself" if you are going to quote Lewis. Lewis most definitely believed that evil can not exist in and of itself but can only be a perversion of something good.