The True Satan?

[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

[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.