Satan - a different perspective

[blazeofglory]

Almost all religions subscribe to the existence of the Devil.
God is described as living in heaven, has many archengels. But why did hee create the Devil. Or is God helpless? If he is helpless are there other forces stronger than God?

Why God create the Devil? Just to punish us?

The world is a garden and evil forces are weeds. Why does not he weed out them?

We all are said to be his children. But no parents choose to see one child enjoying and the other suffering.

Even Mother Teresa suspected the existence of God on this count.

[mayneverhave]

The problem of evil has long been a criticism against theology for quite some time. Many apologists and theologians (I believe Thomas Aquinas, especially) have sought to rectify the problem of evil and Satan's existence.

I believe the typical answer to why Satan exists is that, being a creation of God, Satan was given free-will. With his free will, Satan(Lucifer) exercised his ability to defy God - though various motivations have been given for this, they all result in the same conclusion. This idea of free-will has also been used as an answer to not only the existence of Satan, but also the problem of evil in the world and in human actions.

Though I don't claim to be an expert on Christian theology, I believe free-will figures definitively in rectifying the problem of evil.

[blazeofglory]

The problem of evil has long been a criticism against theology for quite some time. Many apologists and theologians (I believe Thomas Aquinas, especially) have sought to rectify the problem of evil and Satan's existence.

I believe the typical answer to why Satan exists is that, being a creation of God, Satan was given free-will. With his free will, Satan(Lucifer) exercised his ability to defy God - though various motivations have been given for this, they all result in the same conclusion. This idea of free-will has also been used as an answer to not only the existence of Satan, but also the problem of evil in the world and in human actions.

Though I don't claim to be an expert on Christian theolog, I believe free-will figures definitively in rectifying the problem of evil.

I have not read religious texts or comments much and I am really greatly confused about the existence of Free Will. I think totally independent of all maxims or sets of theories. In point of fact Free Will is invented by religious preachers, and is a kind of excuse against all logical and arguments.

[Redzeppelin]

I have not read religious texts or comments much and I am really greatly confused about the existence of Free Will. I think totally independent of all maxims or sets of theories. In point of fact Free Will is invented by religious preachers, and is a kind of excuse against all logical and arguments.

No. Free will is the only logical explanation for the existence of evil in the universe. No loving God could willingly create that which He knew would be evil; but, since God is love, and He desires to give and receive love, He had to take a risk by giving His created creatures the choice to love or reject Him - because love cannot exist by coercion - it must be freely given. Free will is not an intellectual construct - it is the necessary condition of the universe if love is to exist at all.

[blazeofglory]

No. Free will is the only logical explanation for the existence of evil in the universe. No loving God could willingly create that which He knew would be evil; but, since God is love, and He desires to give and receive love, He had to take a risk by giving His created creatures the choice to love or reject Him - because love cannot exist by coercion - it must be freely given. Free will is not an intellectual construct - it is the necessary condition of the universe if love is to exist at all.

There are no choices, and man does not hate or love out of choice; you love some one because you find him or her deserving or worthy of love and in a similar vein one becomes compelled to hate.

You fall for someone out of need, a biological or emotional atnd start loving the person you set your eye on not out of choice but out of the desire of fulfilment.

[blazeofglory]

Satan, a very name, disgusting indeed. A rebel who waged a thousand battles out of rebellion and insurrection. Someone who was expelled from heaven, and indeed a subject of aversion.

I do not hate Satan, not withstanding the fact that he was against God.

God is Authority, a power that rules over all, and it is a symbol of tyrrany, something that believes that the rest are his subjects. I do not worship a god of despotism. A tyrrant is someone I am set against.

Our scriptures make mentions of such Gods.

God is indifferent to Good or bad and depicts equanimity towards all. At his level there is no difference and has no attitudnal differences whether one is a sinner or saint.

Sacredness and profanity, both are indeed attributes of the mind not of the person. For everyone by nature, even a murderer is pure, and of course it is externals or cirucumstances he responds differently, and under a different stimulus he may act differently. Change of heart is what I believe in.

Satan is a temporary phenomenon, and he can be a saint under a different cirucumstance and everyone is capable and even Satan to attain divinity.
Divinity is not a state to submit to the supremacy of God.

Divinity is something we attain when we pervade through the univerarsal soul.

Let us not hate Satan and worship God alone. Let us be understanding.
All contribute to the making of the world.

Satan and God, both are condensed into the making of ourselves.

Let us unlearn all and deprogram our mind. We have to remove the stuff in our
mind filled by bookish knowledge.

Let us live like man not like deities.

All deities are not faultless and flawless and not equanimous.

Basically there is no difference between Satan and deities.

[wisemidnighthag]

Of course free will exists for most things, like what we eat or do with our lives, but yes, love is a biological phenomenon, and can be altered with chemicals and gene manipulation.

The alternative to the view that free will is the only way to explain evil, since God is all good, is that it's possible that either God isn't perfect and good, or that he's not there at all.

Another absence of free will is belief. You can fake it, but you can't genuinely "choose" it. I'm an atheist, and no matter how hard I try, I can't really believe in God. The most I could do was act like it and delude myself.

What I've never understood about Christian theology is that if the devil is really a fallen angel, who disobeyed God, why wouldn't he reward sinners and anyone who rejects God, as a way of undermining him. If the devil really does punish sinners, that would be playing right into God's hands, wouldn't it?

[hellsapoppin]

"Why God create the Devil?"


Evil is as evil does.

[JCamilo]

Yes, and the different perspective lies where?

[blazeofglory]

"Why God create the Devil?"


Evil is as evil does.

Here the point is the wolrld was created by God according to scriptures and the question is why did God create the devil?

If everything was created by God, by the same token the devil too was created by God only.

God, it seems, purposely created devil, and if so there was no point criticizing devil.

I think everything is related and devil is an integral part of us, for that matter devil is not a thing to be eliminated.

God and devil both coexist, and one affirms the existence of the other.

[hellsapoppin]

"God, it seems, purposely created devil, and if so there was no point criticizing devil. "


This is a point I have tried to make on other threads. The so called devil is only this god's tool and was created for the purpose of being one.

[NikolaiI]

"Dwelling on the unpleasant causes grief." - The Buddha.

[hellsapoppin]

"The truth shall set you free" ;)

[lakeside_girl]

from what i understand ( from the little i've read of theology and history of jews and christians) it really wasn't believed that there was a definite particular satan, like i am actually a particular alicia. he was rather a collective demon, and capable of afflicting or possessing man to sin, have disease, be poor, be a prostitute, whatever...i don't believe the jews have a concept of hell..at least not like christians...i think it was a bit later in the world when dogma/rules and churches began to take authority of the people that we had the notion of free will and a "Satan" that divied up men with god. now, i could be way off; i may be talking nonsense actually...(i follow the great god bacchus)

[Kent Edwins]

I think this section from John Milton (who wrote his life's work on Satan) is especially fitting to contribute to this discussion. Paradise Lost, Book III:


I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
Such I created all the ethereal Powers
And Spirits, both them who stood, and them who fail'd;
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have given sincere
Of true allegiance, constant faith or love,
Where only what they needs must do appear'd,
Not what they would? what praise could they receive?
What pleasure I from such obedience paid,
When will and reason (reason also is choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoil'd,
Made passive both, had serv'd necessity,
Not me? they therefore, as to right belong$ 'd,
So were created, nor can justly accuse
Their Maker, or their making, or their fate,
As if predestination over-rul'd
Their will dispos'd by absolute decree
Or high foreknowledge they themselves decreed
Their own revolt, not I; if I foreknew,
Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,
Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.
So without least impulse or shadow of fate,
Or aught by me immutably foreseen,
They trespass, authors to themselves in all
Both what they judge, and what they choose; for so
I form'd them free: and free they must remain,
Till they enthrall themselves; I else must change
Their nature, and revoke the high decree
Unchangeable, eternal, which ordain'd
$THeir freedom: they themselves ordain'd their fall.
The first sort by their own suggestion fell,
Self-tempted, self-deprav'd: Man falls, deceiv'd
By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace,
The other none

Though men do not have free-will- or at least have a lesser degree of it than "ethereal powers"- they are unlike Satan in the sense that they were seduced by evil, whereas the angels were given free choice. Freedom of choice seems to be the very thing that makes the Ethereal powers so dignified in Milton's mind, as "free" actions count for more in heaven than forced ones.

[hellsapoppin]

This may be deemed off topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0BHxhUnokU&feature=related


"Hellzapoppin"!

Believe it or not, racists usd to call this Satan inspired stuff.

As for me, this is what I call entertainment!:D

[Redzeppelin]

"God, it seems, purposely created devil, and if so there was no point criticizing devil. "


This is a point I have tried to make on other threads. The so called devil is only this god's tool and was created for the purpose of being one.

A correct reading of the Bible would reveal that God created an angel called Lucifer - the most glorious of His angelic creations; sadly, this being succumbed to the sin of pride (a possibility since God endowed angels - like humans - with free will). Once he rebelled against his creator, Lucifer became Satan ("accuser"). If my son grows up to be a murderer, I did not create a murderer; I created a child who eventually grew up to murder. Is it my fault that he chose as he did?

Please don't brush this off with the "God is omniscient and knew what He was doing" comments - they are fully illogical with the picture of God provided by the Bible; it makes zero sense to willingly and knowingly bring evil into this world; it does (however) make sense if we assume that one of the risks of free will is that a creature might rebel. Apparently, God thought the freedom of His creatures was worth the risk. I've yet to hear a compelling answer to the fact that believing that God knowingly created evil requires us to believe in a God who wills evil upon His creations but inexplicably lets them live to curse Him. Earthly tyrants have no sense of justice - how can an evil God have one?

[hellsapoppin]

I'll put it this way: if you had clairvoyance and knew you would have a son who was to be a murderer, then I would say that YOU are the real murderer for bringing him into this world. Luckily, you cannot see into the future like your god can. That is why he deserves blame for all evil and you don't.

;)

[DapperDrake]

Well if you take the analogy a bit further.. Ok so given God gave us free will and this gave us the capacity for evil but why then just leave us to it? A parent will actively guide a child to ensure as much as possible that they turn out well but God has no interaction with us at all. Surely a powerful and good parent like God would step into serious situations and dish out some discipline and teaching, rather than just standing back and letting any thing happen no matter how extremely evil.

[Redzeppelin]

I'll put it this way: if you had clairvoyance and knew you would have a son who was to be a murderer, then I would say that YOU are the real murderer for bringing him into this world. Luckily, you cannot see into the future like your god can. That is why he deserves blame for all evil and you don't.

;)


As I have said (and grow tired repeating to you) - you simplify things without even bothering to explain the basis of your oversimplification. (Note: "clairvoyance" (the ability to perceive things not in sight) is not even the correct word for the argument you are attempting to make.)

The issue is the nature of God's knowledge - and you have NEVER given me a logical reason as to why a God who claims to be loving, merciful, just, benevolent - and who essentially sacrifices Himself so that all of humanity in its sin may partake of the free gift of eternal life - would knowingly, intentionally bring evil into this world. That is an illogical contradiction based on what the Bible tells us about God's character - a contradiction that you have yet to address in any convincing way whatsoever. The monotonous repetition that God "knows" the future is fine if that's what you're going to keep saying - but I'd really like you to deal with the irrational logic of such a move as you suggest. You cannot use the Bible one minute to support your argument and then draw a conclusion that is fully at odds with much of what it says the next minute.

If God is merely this capricious and evil tyrant, then we can't even use the Bible as a reference point because everything it says (including things that supposedly support your position) are all lies. At this point, now we know nothing of God and cannot even assume that His creation of Adam, Eve and/or Lucifer are even real things at all - which essentially makes your argument blink out of existence.

Now what?

[hellsapoppin]

~~ Now what? ~~

As I already told you about a dozen times and which you keep repeatedly ignoring is the fact that your god is evil. Again, yes, once again, the root for the word "god" is the same for the root for the word "two" or "dual" in many cultures. Why? Because humanity has long recognized the dual nature of your god.

Ask me the same question again and I will post the same reply.

[sharlot]

The only evil on Earth lies within the heart of Man.

[Redzeppelin]

~~ Now what? ~~

As I already told you about a dozen times and which you keep repeatedly ignoring is the fact that your god is evil. Again, yes, once again, the root for the word "god" is the same for the root for the word "two" or "dual" in many cultures. Why? Because humanity has long recognized the dual nature of your god.

Ask me the same question again and I will post the same reply.

You are begging the question; I ask you the basis for your assumption that God is evil and how it works logically within the context of the Bible (which you often use to bolster your arguments). Your response above takes for granted the very thing I'm challenging you to substantiate logically. It's OK if you don't have a response - but understand that circular reasoning doesn't prove anything - it just repeats itself in the hopes that eventually, it will be taken as fact without the benefit of ever having been effectively or convincingly argued.

I'll assume that you'll offer me nothing more substantial and I'll be on my way...

Cheers

[teleios]

I'll put it this way: if you had clairvoyance and knew you would have a son who was to be a murderer, then I would say that YOU are the real murderer for bringing him into this world. Luckily, you cannot see into the future like your god can. That is why he deserves blame for all evil and you don't.

;)

Assuming we are talking about the God of the Christian Bible, then it is not 'seeing into the future'. The mere act of 'seeing into the future' assumes the viewer is looking from a point before the future (i.e. the past or present). This is a common error for humans to make, as we cannot even began to conceptualize (sp?) of a Being that can exist outside of time.


Well if you take the analogy a bit further.. Ok so given God gave us free will and this gave us the capacity for evil but why then just leave us to it? A parent will actively guide a child to ensure as much as possible that they turn out well but God has no interaction with us at all. Surely a powerful and good parent like God would step into serious situations and dish out some discipline and teaching, rather than just standing back and letting any thing happen no matter how extremely evil.

God had no interaction with us at all? Again, I'm assuming we are talking about YHWH (the God of the Christian Bible). Throughout the old testament, we are shown the Christian God, interacting with a people, continually trying to get them to freely turn from sin. He does everything He can while letting them maintain their freewill. He performs miracles through servants in front of them, appears numerous times in various forms to them, delivers them into a land 'flowing with milk and honey' from slavery, and blesses them incessantly. They continuously disown them - God disciplines them, and gives them into the hand of their enemies. They cry out to Him to save them, he relents and has compassion, sending a judge to guide them. After this pattern continues for 20-30 times, He finally decides they need to get some harsher punishment, and disbands them. After a few hundred years, he stops sending prophets out to try to put them back on the right path. He sends His Son.

They crucify Him.

I'd say God has been extremely patient, and doled out plenty of discipline and teaching throughout human history - but we like the darkness, and continually grope our way back to it, given enough time.



Please don't brush this off with the "God is omniscient and knew what He was doing" comments - they are fully illogical with the picture of God provided by the Bible; it makes zero sense to willingly and knowingly bring evil into this world; it does (however) make sense if we assume that one of the risks of free will is that a creature might rebel. Apparently, God thought the freedom of His creatures was worth the risk. I've yet to hear a compelling answer to the fact that believing that God knowingly created evil requires us to believe in a God who wills evil upon His creations but inexplicably lets them live to curse Him. Earthly tyrants have no sense of justice - how can an evil God have one?

Indeed. This entire issue leads many people astray. The question is not "Why did God create evil?". God did not create evil. God created free will. Therefore, the question should be "Why did God give us free will, so that we may choose evil if we wish". The answer is simple, and I believe you touched it RedZ in some of your other posts - love cannot exist without free will.


The only evil on Earth lies within the heart of Man.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"
-Baudelaire (I think...)

[Redzeppelin]

Indeed. This entire issue leads many people astray. The question is not "Why did God create evil?". God did not create evil. God created free will. Therefore, the question should be "Why did God give us free will, so that we may choose evil if we wish". The answer is simple, and I believe you touched it RedZ in some of your other posts - love cannot exist without free will.


Thank you - It is a wonder to me how people who believe in love miss the fact that free will is the essential component of love. Omitting any risk of evil is the equivalent of trying to be in a loving committed relationship while totally attempting to protect your heart from pain. Im-possible - because the relationship you have now resembles nothing like love. Love involves the risk of pain, of heartache, of disappointment. Likewise, God's desire that we experience love required the risk of rebellion.

[hellsapoppin]

``God created free will``

If the wages of sin is death and people have free will, then they have the free will to be free of death.

How many people do you know who have lived for 6000 years?? Where's the free will of those in cemeteries? Why don't they exercise their free will and walk out of their graves?


``free will is the essential component of love``

Then this god doesn't love Jesus and the angels who supposedly inhabit what is called heaven since they will never die - is that what you mean?

[hellsapoppin]

The only evil on Earth lies within the heart of Man.


And who created that heart?

[Redzeppelin]

``God created free will``

If the wages of sin is death and people have free will, then they have the free will to be free of death.

How many people do you know who have lived for 6000 years?? Where's the free will of those in cemeteries? Why don't they exercise their free will and walk out of their graves?

Whaaaat?

Free Will doesn't mean "I get to make choices that contradict the physical laws of the universe within which I dwell." The only way to be "free of death" is to accept the gift of eternal life offered by God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Free will doesn't mean "I get to choose to avoid natural consequences."



``free will is the essential component of love``

Then this god doesn't love Jesus and the angels who supposedly inhabit what is called heaven since they will never die - is that what you mean?

Yikes.

What are you talking about here?

[teleios]

``God created free will``

If the wages of sin is death and people have free will, then they have the free will to be free of death.

How many people do you know who have lived for 6000 years?? Where's the free will of those in cemeteries? Why don't they exercise their free will and walk out of their graves?
Using that line of reasoning...
If we have free will, I have the free will to be free of gravity. Therefore, I should be able to fly. Since I am not able to fly, free will must not exist.

Do you see any issues here?



``free will is the essential component of love``

Then this god doesn't love Jesus and the angels who supposedly inhabit what is called heaven since they will never die - is that what you mean?

Are you implying that love can only exist if the person exhibiting love must wish that the person/object they are loving must die? Bit confused as to your line of reasoning good sir.

[hellsapoppin]

Quite the contrary, to say "free will is the essential component of love" is so far flung as to be utterly lacking in reason.

As I wrote before, no loving father would sacrifice his children for his selfish reason. A truly loving father sacrifices himself. To say that this alleged god (assuming he exists in the form stated in the Bible) knowingly allowed Adam to undergo his "fall", then punishes him with death and every form of torment, and then this same god sacrifices what is purported to be his only begotten son for the good of Adam and his brood, is without reason.

Why bother going all that trouble? (again assuming it is true)

There simply is no logic to it at all.


If you still want to believe that an abortion victim can easily avoid being carved to death, or that a Jew could easily walk away from Hitler's death camps, or that citizens in Tokyo or Dresden could free will themselves out of allied bombings by merely willing it so, then believe as you wish. Again, I will gladly believe this myth of free will (one that does not actually appear in biblical teaching) if you can prove it. Just show me how these victims can avoid their fates. Then I will believe you when you say there is free will.

[hellsapoppin]

"Throughout the old testament, we are shown the Christian God, interacting with a people, continually trying to get them to freely turn from sin."


We see this in the New Testament as well. Miracles are promised for those who ask for them. All one need do is to ask. Therefore, I ask again: let us see some of those miracles precisely as they are stated in that book.

[DapperDrake]

God had no interaction with us at all? Again, I'm assuming we are talking about YHWH (the God of the Christian Bible). Throughout the old testament, we are shown the Christian God, interacting with a people, continually trying to get them to freely turn from sin. He does everything He can while letting them maintain their freewill. He performs miracles through servants in front of them, appears numerous times in various forms to them, delivers them into a land 'flowing with milk and honey' from slavery, and blesses them incessantly. They continuously disown them - God disciplines them, and gives them into the hand of their enemies. They cry out to Him to save them, he relents and has compassion, sending a judge to guide them. After this pattern continues for 20-30 times, He finally decides they need to get some harsher punishment, and disbands them. After a few hundred years, he stops sending prophets out to try to put them back on the right path. He sends His Son.

They crucify Him.

I'd say God has been extremely patient, and doled out plenty of discipline and teaching throughout human history - but we like the darkness, and continually grope our way back to it, given enough time.



I didn't say "had" I said "has"; going back to the analogy: a parent has a child who is in corrigible; The parent has patience, applies discipline, and teaches but still the child turns out bad - is it then fair that when the parent has another child he is abandoned by the parent?
The only difference is the crucial one I suppose and thats that Jesus got involved - but even so, why should God be hands off?
I really don't think there is any excuse, the colossal suffering that God just "leaving us to it" has caused and is causing right now is simply monstrous.

Isn't it a crime to allow death, injury, suffering etc. by inaction when its in your power to avert it?

[teleios]

I didn't say "had" I said "has"; going back to the analogy: a parent has a child who is in corrigible; The parent has patience, applies discipline, and teaches but still the child turns out bad - is it then fair that when the parent has another child he is abandoned by the parent?
The only difference is the crucial one I suppose and thats that Jesus got involved - but even so, why should God be hands off?
I really don't think there is any excuse, the colossal suffering that God just "leaving us to it" has caused and is causing right now is simply monstrous.

Ah, my apologies. I understand a bit better now.

The thing is, God hasn't left us to it. To bring it back to the past (I'll bring it up to the future in a minute) He interacted with humankind for many centuries. Then, approximately 400BC, He stopped sending prophets. There was a "lull" from a human standpoint of His interacting with us. For 400 years, people were in the same pickle we find ourselves in now. Then Jesus came, and God started actively interacting with us again. Jesus left, and at his exit He gave us the Holy Spirit, who works quietly in the background (not like Jesus or the prophets of old).

And now, for about 2000 years, we've been in another sort of a "lull". It's not the same as the intertestamental period, as we now have the Holy Spirit with us, but it's similar.

The thing is, God has promised He's coming back. He is going to eradicate suffering completely.

To bring it into your analogy... it's not God ditching us. God, being the ever patient, all-knowing parent, has a plan. In His upbringing of us, He has gone through several different periods of discipline, teachings, and lending a helping hand. He (just like a normal parent) has given us a few different periods of time where we are left to make our own choices, and grow (or fall) as a result of them. When raising a child, you have to occasionally let him/her make choices of his/her own, even when they will hurt.

If God had not promised to come back, I would say your analogy is correct. But He left us that promise, for times just as these.




Isn't it a crime to allow death, injury, suffering etc. by inaction when its in your power to avert it?
Perhaps. As a parent, is it wrong to let your kid date, knowing that his/her heart will be broken?

Blessings,
Teleios

[hellsapoppin]

"Isn't it a crime to allow death, injury, suffering etc. by inaction when its in your power to avert it?"


It certainly is to me.

We have had several irrationalists say on this forum that the promise of limitless access to miracles happen every day in order to alleviate or correct those maladies. I have repeatedly challenged them to prove it by fulfilling those miracles. But so far, nobody has done so even though the Bible states unequivocally that such access is unconditionally guaranteed.

[teleios]

even though the Bible states unequivocally that such access is unconditionally guaranteed.

Verse/Chapter? I've never heard this before, and I considered myself well-read in this area.

[Redzeppelin]

Quite the contrary, to say "free will is the essential component of love" is so far flung as to be utterly lacking in reason.

"Freedom" requires the presence of genuine alternatives; a free choice renders something definite that was - prior to the choice - indefinite; as well, freedom also requires that choice be free of coercion.

Love cannot be coerced; people can be forced to do almost anything - but they cannot be forced to love. Love can only exist inside the context of the genuine alternative to not love. It's as simple as that.


As I wrote before, no loving father would sacrifice his children for his selfish reason. A truly loving father sacrifices himself. To say that this alleged god (assuming he exists in the form stated in the Bible) knowingly allowed Adam to undergo his "fall", then punishes him with death and every form of torment, and then this same god sacrifices what is purported to be his only begotten son for the good of Adam and his brood, is without reason.

Numerous problems with this paragraph:
1. God did not "sacrifice" His children; He warned them of the consequences of choosing sin and they ignored that warning. If I tell you that driving off a cliff will kill you and you choose to ignore that warning, that's your fault. Period.

2. God did "sacrifice himself" - that's what Christians call the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - God sacrifices Himself to rescue humanity from the death sentence that it choose for itself through Adam's sin.

3. God did not "punish" Adam with death - death is the natural consequence of choosing sin (that which is opposed to God). God did not "invent" sin and death - they are the results of rejecting the source of Life in the Universe -Himself. Your misguided ideas are based on the erroneous idea that the consequences of sin are God's making - as opposed to the way reality works. Try (please, for once, humor me and just try) to see the logic of what I'm suggesting: If you rejected food and water and became surprised or angry that you were dying, who'd take you seriously? Most people would say "Well, hellza, what did you expect? Those are the fuels for human life - reject them at your peril." The same is true of God: He is the "fuel" that Life runs on - period. If you choose sin, you have essentially rejected the source of Life in the universe. God will not force you to choose Him (cf. comments above about Love); as such - though it grieves Him - His love of human freedom means that He will let you choose death. God cannot make that which is opposed to Him "non-leathal" - He is the center of all that is; sin is contrary to His character, and indulging in it brings death. Christ's sacrifice allows us to escape this death "sentence."



There simply is no logic to it at all.

Part of the illogical nature that you struggle with is a consequence of your incomplete/distorted understanding of the Bible and God. You beg the question constantly by assuming to be true things that you've yet to establish as true. You assume your conclusions are true, but they are the very things that we're arguing about.



If you still want to believe that an abortion victim can easily avoid being carved to death, or that a Jew could easily walk away from Hitler's death camps, or that citizens in Tokyo or Dresden could free will themselves out of allied bombings by merely willing it so, then believe as you wish. Again, I will gladly believe this myth of free will (one that does not actually appear in biblical teaching) if you can prove it. Just show me how these victims can avoid their fates. Then I will believe you when you say there is free will.

Do you even read the counter-arguments posted? More than I have made it clear to you that free-will doesn't mean that we are free to violate the laws of nature. That should be obvious.

If freewill doesn't exist, then please explain what natural/biological/psychological/neuro-electric/bio-chemical process created your posts? Without freewill you don't get to claim "these are my thoughts and opinons and I created them." Without freewill, your thoughts become meaningless and truth ceases to exist, because truth cannot be a result of a random process.


"Isn't it a crime to allow death, injury, suffering etc. by inaction when its in your power to avert it?"


It certainly is to me.

Here we go again. It is no virtue to keep posing the same "conclusions" without ever having refuted the arguments placed in opposition to you regarding these "conclusions." At the risk of being insulting - your ideas of God and free will and His "foreknowledge" are really, really simplified, even child-like in a way. Sorry - but your example breaks down in that God's "knowledge" is not the same as ours and cannot be understood to be equivalent to ours because we are largely ignorant of the contents of His knowledge and exactly what He does know.


We have had several irrationalists say on this forum that the promise of limitless access to miracles happen every day in order to alleviate or correct those maladies. I have repeatedly challenged them to prove it by fulfilling those miracles. But so far, nobody has done so even though the Bible states unequivocally that such access is unconditionally guaranteed.

The only "irrationalist" around here is the poster who refuses to deal with the points made against his position that he continues to ignore and refuse to even attempt to address.

Your silly challenge about miracles was thoroughly discredited by a number of individuals.

[mbenzidan]

Although the three revealed religions agree on many things, there are often significant divergences between them, especially when we consider them as primarily texts. Studying, for instance, the genesis in both the bible and the Koran yield important differences between the religions in question. The way the devil is described in the Koran highlights characteistics that are specific not of a superhuman creature but of one which can be effective only with carelessness and reluctance to think. Adam disobeys in a moment of carelessness which he immediatelty acknowledges. Consequently, he asks for God's forgiveness promissing that he will never be taken in by such guiles. This makes Satan an allegorical figure that epitomizes man's desire to follow instead of leading, to believe instead of thinking. Nevertheless, this view of Satan is not acknowledged by the institution as this one is bound to reduce things to a minimum that is understandabe by the simple mind, thus destroying the comlpex philosophical dimension of existence.

[DapperDrake]

Teleios, thanks for your input - I must confess i'm not ignorant of anything you've said there, up until Feb last year I was a Church going, bible class going, Home group going Christian.
But you can probably tell why I left :)

[hellsapoppin]

""Freedom" requires the presence of genuine alternatives; a free choice renders something definite that was - prior to the choice - indefinite; as well, freedom also requires that choice be free of coercion.""

And what freedom of choice does an abortion victim have?

The rest of your post is too incohesive to consider.

As for miracles, that has already been discussed. See op cit.

[Redzeppelin]

""Freedom" requires the presence of genuine alternatives; a free choice renders something definite that was - prior to the choice - indefinite; as well, freedom also requires that choice be free of coercion.""

That's what I said, yes.


And what freedom of choice does an abortion victim have?

Do you just cut and paste your prior replies or do you actually go through the keyboard-work to simply repeat the same statement you made in a prior post/thread? Your statement is meaningless because an unborn child is not capable of sentient choice AT ALL. Free will exists - the constraints of being a fetus prohibit it from having any say about its fate - not only prior to being born, but for a number of years afterward. Come on, give me a response worthy of the time I put into my posting - you take the easy way out by parroting the same answer you gave last time without rising to the challenge with any sort of argument worthy of the name.


The rest of your post is too incohesive to consider.

When my students tell me that a great work of literature I've assigned them to read was "boring" or "meaningless" or "stupid" I will often respond thusly:

"That may be true; on the other hand, there is a good chance that you simply lacked the maturity, the observational skills or the patience to recognize the complexity, the beauty and the profundity it had to share with you. Both options are reasonable."

Ditto here - I won't even entertain your assertion for an instant. I was perfectly clear and clear enough to where anybody with moderate abilities in argumentation could respond at least to some of my points. There are plenty of high school age/college age young people on this forum who are capable of responding quite capably to what I posted above. What's your excuse?


As for miracles, that has already been discussed. See op cit.

"Discussed" - no: you repeated a silly, groundless charge (kind of like you did above) and avoided engaging any argument put forth. That's not really a "discussion."

[hellsapoppin]

"That's not really a "discussion."


My exact sentiments about your infantile ravings. Thus, we're even.

[hellsapoppin]

Back on topic:

``God and devil both coexist, and one affirms the existence of the other.``


True. Because of the existence of these beings who manipulate time and nature, mankind cannot possibly have free will. A victim of the plague, a bombing, a shooting, is very it as helpless as the abortion victim. Contrary to what so many pundits believe, people do not choose their fate. It is assigned by those very forces you mention.

These beings have their purposes. And one cannot be certain that it will be for their good, though religions do offer solace in the form of some supernatural "reward" in some afterlife. Virtually all have precisely the same promise of reward.

I find it especially interesting that so many religions have similar parallels: in ancient Egypt, Isis and her son directly correspond to Mary and Jesus; these events leading to the story of a Redeemer; death, rebirth, and resurrection.

In ancient Greece, Prometheus gives knowledge to mankind in the form of a fire and is punished for his action. In the Bible, Satan gives knowledge to mankind and is likewise punished. Noah's Ark and the Flood parallels the flood in the epic of Gilgamesh. And just about every religion on earth teaches that there will be an Armageddon of some kind.

The gods and spirits may have different names. But in essence, they are all the same. This is why I have great disdain for those who practice discrimination or any form of hostility in the name of religion. After all, they are basically the same. This is why religion should be used as a means to unify and help people - not to divide them.

[Redzeppelin]

"That's not really a "discussion."


My exact sentiments about your infantile ravings. Thus, we're even.

Alas, no we're not. You commited an ad hominem attack against me (a sure sign you have nothing of substance to counter me with) which is a tactic I don't recall pointing at you. If you can't refute the arguments, just admit it and I'll let it go; or you could continue to insult me and I'll let it go as well. The difference is if you choose the first option, I walk away with a modicum of respect for you. Choosing the second option means I leave convinced that you are talk talk talk but no walk walk walk.

Your choice, my friend - I can do without the insults, though. I back my arguments up.

[hellsapoppin]

"you simply lacked the maturity ... what's your excuse"

Ad hominen attack.


Do me a favor and do not trouble me with any of your replies again.

Thank you.

[Redzeppelin]

"you simply lacked the maturity ... what's your excuse"

Ad hominen attack.


Do me a favor and do not trouble me with any of your replies again.

Thank you.

Sorry - I don't let sloppy arguing sit. You quoted me out of context - typical. Since you didn't get my point, I'll spell it out: I used an analogy: the message I give my students is analogical to the one I give you: if you don't get something, it could be that that something is intelligible, meaningless or incoherent; it could also mean that that failure to understand is due your own limitations (either conscious or unconscious) rather than to the so-called "limitations" of the thing you're evaluating. I think that I made that pretty clear.

If you don't want to be "troubled" then don't answer me. But you're posting on a public forum saying reckless things with virtually zero substantiation. Such behavior begs for refutation and comment. That surprises you?

Quote me within context please, and be prepared to defend your position - otherwise, we have lots of accusations and assertions, but no foundation from which to seriously consider your position.

[hellsapoppin]

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~alozano/talks/infinity/zero.jpg

[Redzeppelin]

I will accept this as your inability to respond to any of my arguments. If you have some I'd like to hear them - but apparently you do not. Fair enough. Understand that I will respond every time I see you recklessly attack Christianity/God without giving some sort of credible substantiation for your charges. It's the least you should expect in a public forum.

God Bless (and I mean that) :)

[hellsapoppin]

Not my inability, but my unwillingness to respond in the manner you have done.

You proclaim yourself to be a good Christian (or so it appears). Your Bible expressly forbids you from responding in any form of hostile way when you are slighted as you claim to be.

By contrast, I am not bound by biblical law. Yet, to set a better example, I refuse to respond in the same hostile manner as you do.

CASE CLOSED.

[Redzeppelin]

Not my inability, but my unwillingness to respond in the manner you have done.

I rather think we'd have a real discussion going right now if you responded in "the manner have done" because I offer [I]reasons for my opinions (as opposed to simply restating my opinions over and over and over again).


You proclaim yourself to be a good Christian (or so it appears). Your Bible expressly forbids you from responding in any form of hostile way when you are slighted as you claim to be.

I proclaim no "goodness" - only that I am a Christian. Once again, your statements reveal that you don't know the Bible very well (or you selectively skip over certain parts of it). The Bible does not forbid me to enter into intellectual debate (or some facsimile to it). I've commited no "sins" during our conversation. Perhaps you could quote the text that "forbids" me from asking you to substantiate your claims or refute mine? How about the text that "forbids" me to respond in a "hostile" way? (You're not going to quote the old "turn the other cheek" verse, are you? I've got an answer for that one if you do...)

While you're at it, quote my hostile statements, please. "Infantile ravings" (hellsapoppin) is pretty offensive - I doubt I've topped that one. But on the odd chance you do find proof of your claim, I will (as the Bible instructs) apologize and ask your forgiveness. In fact, why waste time? If I have offended, please accept my apology; if you would see fit to forgive my inappropriate behavior, I would be greatful.

That said, I'd still like you to address my arguments.


By contrast, I am not bound by biblical law. Yet, to set a better example, I refuse to respond in the same hostile manner as you do.

CASE CLOSED.

I'm not "bound by Biblical law" either. It is not "setting a better example" to say reckless things and make groundless charges and then refuse to substantiate them or deal with arguments present to you for consideration. Here:

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).

Christians get to give answers and ask questions - especially of those who attack them and their beliefs (and doubly so if the attack appears to be groundless in its charges).

JUDGMENT STILL PENDING (PUN INTENDED)

[hellsapoppin]

``judgment Still Pending`


Lol!

[DapperDrake]

(You're not going to quote the old "turn the other cheek" verse, are you? I've got an answer for that one if you do...)

I'm curious what you mean? are there two ways of interpreting the verse?

[brakeonthroo]

I know a little Arabic. Watch this footage. The ****an means devil in Arabic. Watch it carefully. I think there is no such a thing as devil. It is all us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5C-VZN-lZQ

[hellsapoppin]

Aha! I didn't know exorcism was practiced in Islam.

[amanda_isabel]

i think the devil / evil exists as a form of balance. if all the world were good then the world would be meaningless because we'd already be in heaven and there'd be no point. it's kind of like appreciating sadness because we wouldn;t know how valuable happiness was without sadness-which may or may not, by the way, be defined as a lack of happiness. either way, one exists for the other to be noticed (and ultimately, appreciated).

that said, is it appropriate to say that without Satan (or the idea of one), there may as well be no God? ( i didn't want to presume.)

[AmandaM]

Aha! I didn't know exorcism was practiced in Islam.

Both Koranic healing by recitation (which is sort of accepted in modern Egypt -- and is what that video clip shows) and rituals like the Zar (which predates Islam and is technically forbidden as a "pagan" ritual) are not altogether uncommon among North African Arabs, especially in Egypt.

For an interesting view of cultic healing practices, especially in regards to women, check out the book "Women and demons : cult healing in Islamic Egypt" by Gerda Sengers. Fascinating stuff!

With the Zar, technically the djinn (demon) is not "exorcised" as they can never be truly banished from human company, but rather it is "appeased" or placated.

Muslims have a different relationship to their djinn than Christians have with demons. Often djinn are simply acknowledged as forces of nature -- but that understanding varies among individual Muslims, just like Christians don't all have the same understanding of demons or the "devil." The Qareen are djinn who are often regarded as personal demons, luring humans to sin, but not all Muslims acknowledge the existence of or interaction with the qareen.

[Nightshade]

Also not all djinn are 'evil' some are muslims themselves.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm curious what you mean? are there two ways of interpreting the verse?

Well, kind of - more like there are many incorrect interpretations of the verse and a number of possible ones. What it does not mean is "take abuse and be a door-mat in the process." It does not mean "stand by helplessly while thugs rob you and assault your family." It does not mean "allow those with flimsy arguments to disrespect you and insult you repeatedly" or "avoid offending someone who has offended you at all costs." What it does mean is to let minor insults go, to not get wound up in responding "tit-for-tat" to every insult put upon you.


i think the devil / evil exists as a form of balance. if all the world were good then the world would be meaningless because we'd already be in heaven and there'd be no point. it's kind of like appreciating sadness because we wouldn;t know how valuable happiness was without sadness-which may or may not, by the way, be defined as a lack of happiness. either way, one exists for the other to be noticed (and ultimately, appreciated).

that said, is it appropriate to say that without Satan (or the idea of one), there may as well be no God? ( i didn't want to presume.)

No - I fully disagree. Do you really believe that you must taste sour milk in order to appreciate the sweetness of ice cream? Granted - tasting the sour milk may make you appreciate ice cream's sweetness all the more, but wouldn't the sweetness of ice cream speak for itself without the contrast of the sour milk?

Likewise - so I need to stub my toe to appreciate sex? Wouldn't sex be pleasurable without first having to have suffered physical pain?

I'm not a big fan of the "balance" argument because it suggests that good and bad are equal in some way; they're not: bad is merely a corruption of good - and it cannot be vice versa.

As such - God does not need the devil to exist (and Satan's short history as antagonist to mankind compared to God's never-ending existence suggests that God got along quite well without Satan's trouble-making).

Bad may - through its contrast - make good seem even more good, but good exists just fine without bad.