FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


why did "god" create "satan"





Yantaal
wasnt satan one of gods angels or summit? the he got banned. sooooo, god being all knowing, knew this would happen, so why did god create him?
S3nd K3ys
First of all, convince me there's a God. Secondly, I heard rumor that it was God's brother.
ocalhoun
I really don't know; this puzzles me as well.
My only guess is that to truly have free will, we had to have an alternitive to God's guidance.
Another question I have is why are we made in such a way that we intrinsicly want to sin? Sure, there's original sin, but why does that have to carry over to us? We didn't do anything before we were born to deserve that.
The Conspirator
If you look at it from the persecutive it make sense, in Judaism Satan is not a rebel or a rival of God, Satan come from a Hebrew word meaning adversary or accuser. If you look at the book of Job you can understand this more. Satan in Judaism is the accuser or adversary of humans not God and his purpose is to basically test people.
In the Chrsitanperspectiv, it dose not make sence.
Indi
The Conspirator wrote:
If you look at it from the persecutive it make sense, in Judaism Satan is not a rebel or a rival of God, Satan come from a Hebrew word meaning adversary or accuser. If you look at the book of Job you can understand this more. Satan in Judaism is the accuser or adversary of humans not God and his purpose is to basically test people.
In the Chrsitanperspectiv, it dose not make sence.

It doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense from that perspective either. God is love and yet he allows this being to... "test" us? By making it hard to avoid temptation and deception away from the "true path" and introducing infinite suffering as the penalty?

No matter what way you slice it, if God is good and infinitely powerful, there should be no reason for Satan and/or evil and/or suffering to exist.
ocalhoun
^Except perhaps free will.
However, I don't want to get into an argument based on that; as I said before, I don't really understand it.

However, I do believe that one day (probably long after I die), after the second coming of christ, I'll find out what happened to Lucifer, and I'll say, "Oh, so that's why..."
Airodonack
There should be balance in the world.
sodredge
S3nd K3ys wrote:
First of all, convince me there's a God. Secondly, I heard rumor that it was God's brother.


What did it for me was "white water river rafting". I was on this level 4 river, insane for a big begineer like me. I just took in the moments floating down this canyon. There were dear drinking on the bank and mountains on all sides of us as we floated along, the sky was crystal blue.

Some things just do not walk into exsistence. I guess at that moment is when I learned "faith". My faith is my belief in something that I can not prove. Oddly enough that makes it all the better.

A good break down though is the make up of the human geonome, something on a celluar level that has thousands of intricate moving parts to it. Something like that does not evolve from dust on the sea floor ? Our science still can not explain it, so who's to say it is not divine in nature.

Oh and from books that I have read I think Satan was God's second in command amongst the angels and found the power of the throne overwhelming and tried to seize the power for himself, when cast down to the pitt the books say he took a 3rd of all the angels with him. Now that would have been a battle to see.

The God of the old testament laying down the thunder.

Sorry I get ranty Very Happy
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
^Except perhaps free will.
However, I don't want to get into an argument based on that; as I said before, I don't really understand it.

However, I do believe that one day (probably long after I die), after the second coming of christ, I'll find out what happened to Lucifer, and I'll say, "Oh, so that's why..."

If God was loving, and he allowed free will, then there would be no suffering by default, but i would be allowed to choose it. As it is, no one can choose not to suffer. Even the most faithful suffer (case in point: Job).

If God is all powerful, then suffering can only exist if he wants it to exist, regardless of whether Satan exists or why. And if God wants suffering to exist, and certainly if he wants Satan to exist to tempt us into eternal suffering, then he cannot be good.

Therefore, if you accept that God is good and all-powerful, Satan as "enemy of humanity, not enemy of God" still makes no sense.

Free will is not a theological panacea.
the_mariska
ocalhoun wrote:
I really don't know; this puzzles me as well.
My only guess is that to truly have free will, we had to have an alternitive to God's guidance.

The problem 'why did God create Satan' is exactly the same problem as 'why did God create us sinful'. It seems a bit weird, as He could create as well perfect human beings that would love everyone and everything, would never make anyone suffer or lead wars, and would live exactly the way a human being should live. Wonerful idea, isn't it? But in such a case, we would be only puppets, nothing more.

In my opinion He treats us seriously, that's why He wanted to give us the opportunity to make our own decisions. Even though He knew, we wouldn't agree with Him in everything. Even though He knew, that not following his tips we would do harm to ourselves and the others. Even though He knew, that we will continuously ignore Him, offend Him, intentionally turn away from Him and do exactly the opposite of His will. He left us perfect advices what to do to be truly happy in our lifes, but didn't want to force us to do so. He would love us to choose Him in our lifes, but He leaves it as our choice. This is what I would call the perfect love.

[EDIT]: Whoaaa, I almost forgot. What does it all has to do with Satan? Satan is a spiritual being, similar to us, but not having a material body. And he [or maybe there are plenty of them] is the one that chose to turn away from God once and for all. And God accepted his decision as He accepts our decisions. That's all.
ocalhoun
God gives us (and Satan too, I suppose) free will, because only with free will can love be genuine.

Suppose you have a little pull-string toy that says 'I love you' when you pull it's string. That's not really love. Why? Because the toy cannot choose not to love you. (Also because it's just a toy, and is incapable of love, but I hope you get the point). Now suppose you have a child that says they love you. That is really love.

My theory on this is that we have to have another option, and that God knows that without any alternative to Him, we would still be no better to Him than that little pull-string toy. (This may also explain why He allows Himself to not be believed in and why He provides scientific explanations to nearly everything.)
the_mariska
Heh, you wrote exactly the same as me, but in different words Smile
ocalhoun
Well, yes, but I wanted to point out why He takes us seriously and gives us free will.
The Conspirator
Indi wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If you look at it from the persecutive it make sense, in Judaism Satan is not a rebel or a rival of God, Satan come from a Hebrew word meaning adversary or accuser. If you look at the book of Job you can understand this more. Satan in Judaism is the accuser or adversary of humans not God and his purpose is to basically test people.
In the Chrsitanperspectiv, it dose not make sence.

It doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense from that perspective either. God is love and yet he allows this being to... "test" us? By making it hard to avoid temptation and deception away from the "true path" and introducing infinite suffering as the penalty?

No matter what way you slice it, if God is good and infinitely powerful, there should be no reason for Satan and/or evil and/or suffering to exist.

Thats if God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, when you read the bible he is clearly nether.
ocalhoun
The Conspirator wrote:

Thats if God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, when you read the bible he is clearly nether.

eh? Examples please.
(Fakenesis 9:24 and ______ confessed his sins unto the Lord, and the Lord replied, "Whoa! That's a shock. I didn't know about that one! I hate you now.")
bongoman
I am inclined to think he exists just as part of some balance out there. Look at some of the philosophies out there like the Yin and Yang or as mentioned in an earlier post the Adversary role in Judaism. Maybe its just to keep us all in line or something, most religions believe in a sort of hell or at least some sort of reduced standing in the after-life. So in a sense that the devil seems to be a symbol and spokesperson for the ultimate evil its held up as a model of what not to do unless of course you are a satanist, although I believe even mainstream satanists (despite the inherent contradiction of general mainstream views) aren't purely evil persons but that they just advocate a philosophy of ruthless self-gratification at all costs or at least thats how I understand it.
Bondings
ocalhoun wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

Thats if God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, when you read the bible he is clearly nether.

eh? Examples please.
(Fakenesis 9:24 and ______ confessed his sins unto the Lord, and the Lord replied, "Whoa! That's a shock. I didn't know about that one! I hate you now.")

Exodus 6:2-3 wrote:
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.

Gen 15:7 wrote:
And he said unto him, I [am] the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

I guess someone has amnesia or is a liar. Wink
The Conspirator
ocalhoun wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

Thats if God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, when you read the bible he is clearly nether.

eh? Examples please.
(Fakenesis 9:24 and ______ confessed his sins unto the Lord, and the Lord replied, "Whoa! That's a shock. I didn't know about that one! I hate you now.")


Omnibenevolence: See old testament. There allot of examples of people killing in the name of God and God ordering people to kill in the old testament. The plegs of Egypt which cause immense suffering and death to the people of Egypt something the Pharaoh didn't care about especially after God hardened his hart, the Israelites conquest of there "promised land", Sadam and Gemora and many more.
Omniscient: Adam and Eve, they ate the fruit and he didn't won't them to, Gods testing of Abraham.
ocalhoun
Omniscient; that just means that He knows everything, not that He controls everything. Adam and Eve had free will.

As for omnibenevolent, at that time, the Jewish people were His chosen people, and He was doing what was good for them. I'm not sure about the why's of that.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
God gives us (and Satan too, I suppose) free will, because only with free will can love be genuine.

Suppose you have a little pull-string toy that says 'I love you' when you pull it's string. That's not really love. Why? Because the toy cannot choose not to love you. (Also because it's just a toy, and is incapable of love, but I hope you get the point). Now suppose you have a child that says they love you. That is really love.

My theory on this is that we have to have another option, and that God knows that without any alternative to Him, we would still be no better to Him than that little pull-string toy. (This may also explain why He allows Himself to not be believed in and why He provides scientific explanations to nearly everything.)

Suppose you made an intelligent doll and put it in a room where it couldn't see you. You have designed the room to be self-consistent, so that, when it is examined by the doll it appears to be completely self-contained and logical, so that everything in the room and the room itself seems to exist without you, and there is no physical evidence that you exist at all.

The only evidence of your existence that you leave for this doll is a vague and self-contradictory document written in several languages - languages which you then allow to be altered almost beyond recognition and/or die off completely. To further complicate matters, you include in that document several absurd and farcical stories that defy anything the doll has ever observed, such as conjuring snakes, and about events that history should have recorded but doesn't, such as infanticide across entire civilizations (two cases!).

Now your doll has to make a choice:
1.) Trust in the alternately vague, absurd and outright false document, trying to explain away the difficult parts of it, and have faith in you and everything you've said, even though it has no real evidence that you even exist.
2.) Trust in its own senses (which you have given it!) to analyze its own surroundings and see that, other than that silly document, there is no evidence of your existence (as you planned!), and that the universe seems to work fine without you (the way you made it!).
3.) Believe that there is something else out there... but not you, because your document is vague, contradictory and absurd. Rather, it should assume that there is something else out there, but it can't be whatever is described in that document. Therefore, whatever wrote that document is either unaware of the true nature of what is out there... or deliberately trying to confuse you... perhaps implying that the real good guy is Satan, and the "god" that wrote the book is attempting to paint him in a negative portrait in order to draw you away from him.

Now, as you have planned it, there is only one right choice, and more than one wrong one. And if your doll makes the wrong choice, it gets punished for an eternity.

Are you a good creator?

As for the free will argument - apologists love to throw out "free will" as the reason bad things happen, but it really doesn't work, you know.

Posit a universe with a truly benevolent and omnipotent god, that honestly wants its creations to love it by their own free will.

First question: would such a god, if it were rational at all, hide their existence from its creations? If so, to what end? If the goal is to be worshipped by its creations... what rational reason could it have to hide?

Second question: would such a god create and allow pain and suffering? If so, to what end? If the goal is to show your creations that you're worthy of their love and worship... why torment them (or allow them to be tormented, which is the same thing when you're omnipotent)?

Third question: if said creations chose not to love the god... would such a god punish them infinitely? Or simply, at the least, just end their existence completely?

Fourth question: if an interloper entered said universe and ****** it up for everyone else - introducing pain and suffering, and tricking them into turning away from the creator in order to increase the chance of them having to be eternally punished... wouldn't a good god destroy the interloper? (And if the argument is that the god is too good to simply destroy the interloper, why can't an infinitely powerful god do something to render the interloper harmless without destroying him?)

Common apologist logic is that the existence of free will absolves God of responsibility for what happens in his creation. Bull. He is infinitely powerful, and all-knowing. Nothing happens that he is not aware of, before during and afterwards - and nothing happens that he does not want to happen. Everything that happens happens either because he directly caused it to happen, or because he indirectly caused it to happen by not stopping it (or simply by creating a universe where it would happen). Infinite power means infinite responsibility. Everything evil that happens is God's fault. That includes everything Satan does.
z054301
Well it kinda becomes hard to follow on from what Indi wrote down. The logic there is certainly well explained.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote
If you look at it from the persecutive it make sense, in Judaism Satan is not a rebel or a rival of God, Satan come from a Hebrew word meaning adversary or accuser. If you look at the book of Job you can understand this more. Satan in Judaism is the accuser or adversary of humans not God and his purpose is to basically test people.
In the Chrsitanperspectiv, it dose not make sence.


This is truly an unsual thing. Christianity basically developed from Judaism. Yet the concept of satan as a test more than an adversary was abandoned. Could the reason behind this change in mentality be due to the belief that it was because of the Jews causing the death of Jesus? If they would strike down the son of the lord, then surely there are in league with something that opposes him? Who could possibly be against the lord, perhaps satan is not around to test us, but is actually an advesary?
socialoutcast
Indi wrote:
First question: would such a god, if it were rational at all, hide their existence from its creations? If so, to what end? If the goal is to be worshipped by its creations... what rational reason could it have to hide?

God does not hide. God as the artist of His universe signs His art work. Humans who carry the attitude of, "I have the things I have because of me," are blind to this and therefore miss God in creation and then resort to alternative explinations of their own about the things around them.

Indi wrote:
Second question: would such a god create and allow pain and suffering? If so, to what end? If the goal is to show your creations that you're worthy of their love and worship... why torment them (or allow them to be tormented, which is the same thing when you're omnipotent)?

A consequience of someone's actions whether fault is in the direction an indiviual, some governing authority or someone else's fault who suppresses suffering upon a group of people. God has chosen people, out of all other created beings, do His will on earth, if you choose to do so.

Indi wrote:
Third question: if said creations chose not to love the god... would such a god punish them infinitely? Or simply, at the least, just end their existence completely?

"if said creations chose not to love the god ... " then these said creations have chosen to reject God, and thus chosen to there own path themselves.

Indi wrote:
Fourth question: if an interloper entered said universe and ****** it up for everyone else - introducing pain and suffering, and tricking them into turning away from the creator in order to increase the chance of them having to be eternally punished... wouldn't a good god destroy the interloper? (And if the argument is that the god is too good to simply destroy the interloper, why can't an infinitely powerful god do something to render the interloper harmless without destroying him?)

God has chosen to let the "interloper" exist. Again you under estimate the power of choice. By allow such an "interloper" to exist is to only serve as a test of our faithfulness to what is true.

Hope this helps Wink
____________________
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
Shike
we cannot have one with out the other. THey are co-dependent agents that without one, the other would cease to exist. THink about it. If we did not know evil, would good hold meaning?

It isn't till after we have seen and experienced both good and evil (and all humanity is in between with both in their soul) that we can appreciate either.

THere needs to be a balance of opposites for reality, humanity, and spirituality to exists otherwise there would be no existance to speak of, everyone would be pure and self sacrificing. The garden of eden story is there to tell us that we need the knoweldge of evil to truly appreciate the good. We also need the knowledge of good to understand evil. Again they are co-dependent states of mind where one cannot exist without the other.
xalophus
socialoutcast wrote:
God does not hide. God as the artist of His universe signs His art work. Humans who carry the attitude of, "I have the things I have because of me," are blind to this and therefore miss God in creation and then resort to alternative explinations of their own about the things around them.

OK, so let me get this straight.
With this ideology, man deserves NO credit whatsoever for any good that he does, but he does get full blame for all wrong.

The delicious food that you eat comes straight from God, and the chef shall not expect to be paid unless he "carries the attitude" that it was him who made it.
And yet - God will make him suffer if he were to poison your food.

So in the end, the foolish man, with his "attitude", shall get no rewards or happiness - only punishments and suffering.
The rewards are not for him to claim, the guilt is not for him to disown.

I'm sure such ideology keeps the man very happy and satisfied indeed.



You've got to love people who solemnly claim that it is God who creates babies - and yet they marry, and when the time comes, they rush to a hospital to get a doctor to oversee the delivery.
Those who claim that they have no power to create anything and yet demand payment in exchange of their work.





socialoutcast wrote:
God has chosen to let the "interloper" exist.
socialoutcast wrote:
to only serve as a test of our faithfulness to what is true.

Ah ! What a whimsical fellow. Rolling Eyes
Instead of using his powers to render us incapable of disloyalty, he decided to make a prime-time game show out of it.

I don't know about the millions, but a discreet set of natural phenomenons is a more convincing explanation for the direction of life.
The idea of an indulgent being, who does things "just for the heck of it", ruling life is just plain crafty.
As if designed to suppress human tendency to seek answers and explanations.
Any man seeking answers will eventually have the door of "God's will" slammed shut on his face.

But I can see why millions subscribe to this indulgent being - it's so damn easy and blissful.




socialoutcast wrote:
A consequience of someone's actions whether fault is in the direction an indiviual, some governing authority or someone else's fault who suppresses suffering upon a group of people. God has chosen people, out of all other created beings, do His will on earth, if you choose to do so.
socialoutcast wrote:
Again you under estimate the power of choice. By allow such an "interloper" to exist is to only serve as a test of our faithfulness to what is true.

Accusing someone of underestimation ?
But you, my friend, contradict the very definition of "choice".

With your own definition of God and devil, choosing between God and Devil (God and his creation) is like choosing to be enslaved by either the King or by his minister.
That's not a choice, but only an illusion of choice. (unless you come up with an alternative definition of "power of choice" as well)

However, choosing to be a slave to either, or to be free - is power of choice.

Maybe you "choose" to deny knowing it. But it does come out unintentionally -
socialoutcast wrote:
"if said creations chose not to love the god ... " then these said creations have chosen to reject God, and thus chosen to there own path themselves.
Dougnut King
I believe that God created Satan to balence the world with good and evil Twisted Evil , even if He prefers good. Not this: Evil or Very Mad EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Indi, you good a unique avatar. Haven't seen it b4 Smile

See yall later

May Satan bless you! (just kidding) Very Happy
Tyler
It is not for us to question God's workings.

However, the old sayings does say, The Lord works in mysterious way

Plus, Satan couldn't be God's brother, God was the only One before the Creation, so he couldn't have a brother.

Also,
I will not convince anyone that there is a God. I've tried before and 98% of atheists are to stubborn to listen.

I will say, if anyone believes in evolution, who put those DNA strands into beings?
xalophus
Tyler wrote:
I will not convince anyone that there is a God. I've tried before and 98% of atheists are to stubborn to listen.

I can see why your arguments don't convince an atheist, who's used to seeking answers -

Talking of atheism -
Tyler wrote:
I will say, if anyone believes in evolution, who put those DNA strands into beings?

Talking of theism -
Tyler wrote:
It is not for us to question God's workings.


You fully expect atheism to be answerable, yet your own premises close down on logic when you talk of theism.


The only thing that validates theism is the negation of the need of a proof.
Theists hold their beliefs true unquestioningly, never feeling the need for answers.
Any attempt at seeking an answer is swiftly closed down with isms like "It is not for us to question".
That much can be understood.

What I don't understand is their attempts to refute theories that were borne out of logical hypotheses, by citing lack of evidence!


Tyler wrote:
I will say, if anyone believes in evolution, who put those DNA strands into beings?

The idea that some person or being is responsible for creation is theism, not evolution.
the_mariska
Tyler wrote:

Also,
I will not convince anyone that there is a God. I've tried before and 98% of atheists are to stubborn to listen.

I will say, if anyone believes in evolution, who put those DNA strands into beings?

And do you really should convince anyone? I think you'd better let anyone believe in what he wants and respect this choice. I never try to convince anyone, and I hope no one will try to do something like this to me. All I do is to tell everybody about my opinions, and that's all. I discovered that beyond hypocrisy and fanatism of many Christians, there is the amazingly wonderful true message of Christianity, and that live the way the Christ says is really beautiful and worth living. That's all. Think about it;)
ocalhoun
xalophus wrote:

Ah ! What a whimsical fellow. Rolling Eyes
Instead of using his powers to render us incapable of disloyalty, he decided to make a prime-time game show out of it.

Thats the point right there! Do you want to be incapable of disloyalty? And if we were incapable of disloyalty, what would our loyalty mean? Nothing!

By the way, I just love the "quotes" in the topic's title.
The Conspirator
ocalhoun wrote:
Omniscient; that just means that He knows everything, not that He controls everything. Adam and Eve had free will.

He would not only have known that they would eat the fruit before hand he would know the exact time and how it would have happen thus we could have taken steps to prevent it like placing a guard, getting rid of the snake or (the smart thing) move the tree to somewhere they can get to it. And after they did it he punished them and all human kind for it.
blendbet
What a puzzle this seems to be, and yet how simply it is solved!

To answer the many questions here... 1st of all, God did not create evil. When Satan was first brought forth from God's creative hands he was good. Satan has not existed eternally, he was created.

Revelation 12:7 - 9(NASB):

7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. And the dragon and his angels waged war,

8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

This I believe is the clearest account of Satan's activities before being cast down that I know of in the Scripture. We know it was Satan, in the form of a serpent, that tempted Eve in the garden of Eden. 1 Chron. 21:2 says that Satan was responsible for causing David to commit sin. Job 1:6-12 and 2:1-7 we see the activity of Satan in tempting Job.

He is called Satan,

The Devil (Mt. 13:39);

the Dragon (Rev. 12:3);

Beelzebub (Matt. 10:25);

Belial (2 Cor. 6:15);

and Lucifer in the KJV in Isa. 14:12.

He is referred to as the Evil One (Matt. 13:19);

the Tempter (Matt. 4:3);

The god of this world (age) (2 Cor. 4:4);

the Ruler of the kingdom of the air (Eph. 2:2);

the prince of this world (Jn. 12:31).

Two passages that are often used to teach about Satan are Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:12-14. Both of these passages should be used with extreme caution.

One should always be aware of the context of a Biblical passage before trying to teach anything from it. In its context Ezek. 28:11-19 is a description of the King of Tyre. To go beyond this in explaining this passage is to go without biblical support. NEVER in Scripture is the context in Ezek. 28 used to speak of Satan.

Similarly, Isa. 14:12-14 speaks of the king of Babylon. The KJV adds "Lucifer" to verse 12 for unknown reasons. Isa. 14 is speaking in figurative language of the downfall of the nation of Babylon.

It could be said in both these passages that the King of Tyre and the King of Babylon were the very personification of Satan. In this case we can assume that certain characteristics of these evil kings are characteristics of Satan.

What we do know about Satan is this. He was a created being, an angel, who was judged because of his rebellion, which the New Testament hints was sparked by his pride (1Tim.3:6). He is the one responsible for introducing evil to this world. Now he desires to devour God's creation by tempting man to reject his Creator.

This is then the lesson we must learn. Satan--an angel created by God--was given the free will to choose whether or not he would obey God. He disobeyed, and that disobedience was evil.

Satan made himself evil by choosing to do evil.

In the same way, humans may choose to do right or wrong, and through their choices, evil flourishes.

So... it was choice that caused Satan to be evil, not an act of Creation.
ocalhoun
Yes, I agree totally with everything you said, and I'm not trying to argue; I would really just like a real answer to this:
Given what you said, and the fact that God is omniscient, God had to have known that Lucifer would rebel before He created him. Why then, did God create him anyway?
I should ask my pastor.
The Conspirator
I thought the Christan doctrine said God created everything.
ocalhoun
The Conspirator wrote:
I thought the Christan doctrine said God created everything.

He did; what are you getting at there?
Indi
socialoutcast wrote:
God does not hide.

Either you're lying about that, or your bible is.

(Hint: start with Matthew. No i won't give you the verse or chapter. If you're a responsible theist, you should be know the most important text in the entire world inside and out. Am i the only one that finds it depressing that the average North American Christian can quote entire Simpsons episodes verbatum, but are almost completely clueless about what the bible actually says?)

socialoutcast wrote:
God as the artist of His universe signs His art work.

Orly? Then, please, point out his signature. Show me where there is a sign that proves God's existence without a shadow of a doubt - where there is a blazing "GOD IS HERE" written down that cannot be explained by any other possible means other than that it must have been done by God.

No, don't bother really. Because i already know there is no such signature. And God said there would not be in the bible (which means, again, if you say that it is possible to prove God's existence, either you're lying or he is).

How about we play a little divinely inspired game? i have placed my "signature" in this image. Find it. You have one hour, at the end of which you will be horribly killed.

The inspiration for that game comes from a divine source! i've just scaled it down a little. In God's version, his signature is hidden somewhere in the entire known universe, a sphere of around 156 billion light years in diameter - which gives you around 6.23 × 10⁸³ m³, roughly, and of course, that's assuming that you only have to search the physical universe, and not things like art and philosophy, and even time for that matter. He gives you around 70 years max (give or take) to find it, and if you fail, you suffer for an eternity.

The clock is ticking.

socialoutcast wrote:
Humans who carry the attitude of, "I have the things I have because of me," are blind to this and therefore miss God in creation and then resort to alternative explinations of their own about the things around them.

Hm, i'm a human, more or less. And i don't "carry the attitude" that i "have" the sun "because of me". i also don't "carry the attitude" that i have air to breathe and food to eat "because of me". i "carry the attitude" that i have these things because of phyical mechanisms that exist without awareness or intelligence. i carry that attitude because i can observe, measure, predict and reproduce those processes, so, clearly they exist. Am i blind for seeing what clearly exists, but nothing else? If you look at a picture of a square and a circle, and you see a square and a circle, are you blind? If you looked at the same picture and saw a square, a circle and a triangle... isn't it your perception that is suspect, not mine?

If God really intended for us to be able to find him - which one would assume he would if he really intends to be worshipped, and he is not just playing a sadistic game with us - why did he create these "alternative explinations"? To hear you describe it, we're pulling these "alternative" explanations out of our collective asses, but clearly we're not. With these "alternative" explanations, we can not only explain a great deal of what goes on around us (and the amount we can explain increases every day!), but we can make predictions and apply our "alternative" explanations for practical uses. The computer you used to reply to me? Yeah. That's a byproduct of "alternative" explanations made by people who are "blind". Works pretty well for a flight of fancy doesn't it?

If God really wanted us to know that he exists... then why does the universe seem to work just fine without him? Why can't we see some indisputable sign that he exists? And before you say something evasive like "even if you saw such a sign, you would dispute it", let me point out that, so far, the dispute arguments WORK. If Bernoulli was "blind" why do planes fly... unless God is deliberately hiding his handiwork, to make it look like Bernoulli was right and God is not involved at all. And if so, why?

socialoutcast wrote:
Indi wrote:
Second question: would such a god create and allow pain and suffering? If so, to what end? If the goal is to show your creations that you're worthy of their love and worship... why torment them (or allow them to be tormented, which is the same thing when you're omnipotent)?

A consequience of someone's actions whether fault is in the direction an indiviual, some governing authority or someone else's fault who suppresses suffering upon a group of people. God has chosen people, out of all other created beings, do His will on earth, if you choose to do so.

Most of your response makes no sense, grammatically or otherwise, so i don't really know how to respond.

socialoutcast wrote:
Indi wrote:
Third question: if said creations chose not to love the god... would such a god punish them infinitely? Or simply, at the least, just end their existence completely?

"if said creations chose not to love the god ... " then these said creations have chosen to reject God, and thus chosen to there own path themselves.

And you think that's an answer?

Don't you agree that a punishment should fit a crime? If someone committed a crime, and you punished them in a manner that is equivalent to the crime, you're a fair person, right? If someone committed a crime and you punished them in a manner that is less severe than the crime itself, you're a merciful person, right? And if someone committed a crime and you punished them far more severely than the crime warranted, you would be... what? A cruel person, wouldn't you? If someone cut in front of you in line and you set them on fire, you'd be a horribly cruel person, wouldn't you?

So, consider this. We are not infinitely powerful. We do not live for an infinitely long amount of time. So it is impossible for us to do an infinite amount of evil. And yet, God promises us infinite torment if we don't do things his way. Finite evil earns infinite punishment. Is that right? Of course not. But your only answer is "well, if you choose to do wrong you deserve whatever you get".

Seriously, try a little harder.

socialoutcast wrote:
God has chosen to let the "interloper" exist. Again you under estimate the power of choice. By allow such an "interloper" to exist is to only serve as a test of our faithfulness to what is true.

And you underestimate omnipotence.

Let me put it this way. If i chose to put a gun to my head and pull the trigger, what will happen? Most likely, i'll die, yes - especially if i bite the barrel? Am i guaranteed to die? No. i might live. Who decides whether i live or die? God does, right?

Ok, so i can choose whatever i want, but God determines what happens in the end. Agree?

So now, consider Satan. He has chosen to defy God. Fine and good. It was his choice and he made it. But who decides whether his defiance will be effective? Who decides whether he actually survives the walk from the house where he decided to defy God to the place where he tempts his first person away from God? God does.

At any time, God could stop Satan, AND IT WOULD NOT DEFY FREE WILL TO DO SO. Satan and evil do not exist because of free will. They exist because God wants them to. Which means God wants us to suffer, and God wants evil. And God wants someone to fool us into not worshipping him. And, furthermore, he wants this person to succeed more often than not, because he has given us no solid evidence that he exists, but has made the universe look like it doesn't need him, and made his own holy document vague and questionable.

Which kinda makes the entire theology unravel at the seams, really.
Soulfire
Why does it matter?

Perhaps it's something that God does not want us mortals to know. Perhaps it is something beyond our recognition, beyond our ability to put it under a microscope and poke at it.

My theory is this:
God needed evil to contrast His good, otherwise it wouldn't matter if people believed in God or not. There needed to be a place to go, motivation, if you will, to believe in God. God knew that we had to prove our love like He loves us, then we go to Heaven.

So when Lucifer (ironically, God's favorite and most trusted angel) rebelled against God, God took the opportunity for this creation of Hell - a contrast to His good and righteousness.

That's only my 2 cents.
Indi
Soulfire wrote:
Why does it matter?

There are dozens and dozens of reasons. I'm frankly shocked that you can even seriously ask that question. Here are just a few.

First, the practical. There is a resurgence of power in North America of borderline fanatic christian groups, both in the US and Canada. These groups are gaining more political power now than they have had in decades. Even more moderate christian groups are flexing political muscle and using legal means to force their will on non-believers. The news is full of examples, ranging from changing textbooks to teach creation rather than evolution, to putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses - and of course, efforts to legislate against things like abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. If a christian movement is afoot to assert control of the law, then it is the responsibility of everone who doesn't want to acquiesce to christian rule to put a stop to that movement forthwith. One of the most direct tactics for preventing certain laws for being made is to show that those laws are illogical/unethical/absurd. We're doing that, certainly, but there is another, more effective method - showing that the ideology behind the entire body of such laws is flawed. It's the difference between trying to stop a fire by putting out the flames as they flare up, or stopping it by removing the fire's fuel source. By showing that the foundations of christian morality are absurd and illogical, maybe we can stop absurd and illogical laws from being made (and maybe, just maybe, get the existing absurd and illogical laws off the books). Thus we question the tenets of the ideology. And whenever we question them to the point that believers throw up their hands and say something like:
Tyler wrote:
It is not for us to question God's workings.
or even just:
Soulfire wrote:
Perhaps it's something that God does not want us mortals to know.
we win a little reprieve, because it decreases the likelihood of yet another stupid law being made when believers not only can't find a logical justification for the law, they openly admit that they don't think there is one.

Next, the intellectual: obviously i don't believe that God exists, but i can't deny that the bulk of our modern world is built on a foundation that includes that belief. So, being the person that i am, the person that wants to understand how the world - physical and human - actually works, i want to understand the underpinnings of this ideology that has had such a profound impact on my world. Don't you? Don't you want to understand God? Oh, sure, you probably never will, but don't you want to try? Thus, we ask questions and seek answers.

And finally, the personal: Are you really comfortable with blind faith? Don't you want to know that your faith is well-founded? i question my (lack of) faith every day. i challenge my assumptions with relish, and i happily consider christianity and other religions as alternatives and measure them up against my own beliefs (or lack thereof). i consider these questions seriously because if christianity is "correct", then good grief, i want to know. Do you really think you're strengthening the case for your religion by saying "just stop asking questions - what's the point anyway"? If not, then why do you say such things?

There are essentially three star characters in christianity. God, Jesus and, yes, Satan. You can take away Abraham, Moses, the thirteen disciples, Mary and all the rest of the supporting cast. It's really about those three. This question is powerful and fundamental, because it puts two of those characters under scrutiny, and at a very fundamental level.

That's why it matters.

If you don't want your beliefs questioned, that's fine. But i, and i assume many of the others here, do want to ask those questions. You have no right to tell us that we are wrong to. So if you're only goal here is to tell us to "shut up and believe", i question the propriety of your participation.

i also question the legitimacy of it. If you seriously think that we're wrong to ask these questions - to seek answers - then isn't it hypocritical of you to reap the benefits of people who have dared to question in the past? All of the conveniences of modern life, including the computer you're using now, exist because someone said "well if it isn't God that makes (lightning/static/whatever) work... then what is it", and then sought out the answer, and applied what they learned to make new devices. Someone said "how do the birds fly", then someone else said "what does it matter? you know god put them there, so just accept that they fly because that's what he wants them to do" and the first person was not satisfied with that answer. Thus came progress. If you really believe that asking such questions has no real benefit... isn't it hypocritical of you to be basking in the benefits given by people that asked such questions before?

Soulfire wrote:
Perhaps it's something that God does not want us mortals to know. Perhaps it is something beyond our recognition, beyond our ability to put it under a microscope and poke at it.

Why did he give us the ability to ask questions, and the desire to want the answers, if we just aren't supposed to have them? Just to watch us squirm?

Soulfire wrote:
My theory is this:
God needed evil to contrast His good, otherwise it wouldn't matter if people believed in God or not. There needed to be a place to go, motivation, if you will, to believe in God. God knew that we had to prove our love like He loves us, then we go to Heaven.

To say: "God needed evil to contrast..." is a form of "God needed X to do Y", which is a form of "God could not do Y without X", which is immediately invalid.

If God is omnipotent, then any statement of the form: "God could not anything" is not valid. Omnipotence implies there is nothing God cannot do.

Thus your theory fails, given the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Soulfire wrote:
So when Lucifer (ironically, God's favorite and most trusted angel) rebelled against God, God took the opportunity for this creation of Hell - a contrast to His good and righteousness.

From which comes the conclusion that God created hell. Following the logic, and remembering that God is omniscient and omnipotent, that means that God was aware that Lucifer would rebel and let it happen. Which leads to the next conclusion, that God wanted Lucifer to rebel, and thus he wanted evil and hell to exist.

So, essentially, God created all evil and suffering.

The thing is, as much as apologists want to deny this conclusion, you can arrive at it by a dozen different methods, which is a pretty sure sign that it's correct. And now, back to your original question: why does it matter? It matters because if you're actually serious about wanting to understand God and your ideology, then given that the above conclusion falls out of so many different theological tracks, you should be considering the next logical question. Doing that would lead to the next phase of your understanding of christianity and of God, and maybe help you get closer to him, and to the truth.

Isn't that what you want?
xalophus
ocalhoun wrote:
xalophus wrote:

Ah ! What a whimsical fellow. Rolling Eyes
Instead of using his powers to render us incapable of disloyalty, he decided to make a prime-time game show out of it.

Thats the point right there! Do you want to be incapable of disloyalty?

Do you really want to pretend that you have free choice when you actually don't ?

My point was, why did God create pitfalls for his beloved creations when he could have very well ensured their eternal happiness.

ocalhoun wrote:
And if we were incapable of disloyalty, what would our loyalty mean? Nothing!

Will it not be true peace on earth if we all loved each other?
Will it not be good if not a single evil thought ever occured to any of us?
No?
Is that not, as every religion claims, what God wants?


Indi wrote:
i also question the legitimacy of it. If you seriously think that we're wrong to ask these questions - to seek answers - then isn't it hypocritical of you to reap the benefits of people who have dared to question in the past? All of the conveniences of modern life, including the computer you're using now, exist because someone said "well if it isn't God that makes (lightning/static/whatever) work... then what is it", and then sought out the answer, and applied what they learned to make new devices. Someone said "how do the birds fly", then someone else said "what does it matter? you know god put them there, so just accept that they fly because that's what he wants them to do" and the first person was not satisfied with that answer. Thus came progress. If you really believe that asking such questions has no real benefit... isn't it hypocritical of you to be basking in the benefits given by people that asked such questions before?

Have you read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand ?


Soulfire wrote:
Perhaps it's something that God does not want us mortals to know. Perhaps it is something beyond our recognition, beyond our ability to put it under a microscope and poke at it.

I love the "perhaps" even in your denial of reasoning.

Refusing even to try to find out doesn't make the question go away.

You think you know what you believe when the ultimate source of your "knowledge" is the unknown - the unknown which you vehemently refuse to try to probe and find out.
The only reason you hold your belief - is your belief that it's beyond reason.

No wonder then that whenever one questions such belief, the first casualty is his right to question and to know.
c'tair
Uhm, Im not a very religious person, but Ive studied some of this stuff on my own and it really depends because according to the Christian religion Satan is a fallen angel, Gods sort of enemy (but God doesnt destroy/remove him because Satan is usefull to God or atleast thats how I understand it). Even though Im a satanist, the "Church of Satan" satanist, so I dont really believe in Satan himself but in the "rules" of satanism which I deemed to be better than for me than others.
As for Satan, I think it could also be that people really, really needed a balance in things, so if theres the loving God, there has to be hating Satan, you know what I mean, the balance between good and evil, because most people like to see things as black and white, good or evil, instead of trying to see them the way they really are.
(My 2 cents and sorry for any sp mistakes).
Soulfire
Quote:
First, the practical. There is a resurgence of power in North America of borderline fanatic christian groups, both in the US and Canada. These groups are gaining more political power now than they have had in decades. Even more moderate christian groups are flexing political muscle and using legal means to force their will on non-believers
You people are becoming more fanatic about it than the so called "Christian extremists." And they, just as much as atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, whatever can get political power. That's not an issue. I especially like your choice of words "force their will on non-believers." Where in the hell did you get an idea like that? You tell me how we're forcing, as a Church in general (there are some nutcases out there, but not only in Christianity, everywhere).

So, this part of the post has nothing to do with anything now. Onto the next.

Quote:
The news is full of examples, ranging from changing textbooks to teach creation rather than evolution, to putting the ten commandments in front of courthouses - and of course, efforts to legislate against things like abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. If a christian movement is afoot to assert control of the law, then it is the responsibility of everone who doesn't want to acquiesce to christian rule to put a stop to that movement forthwith.

We shouldn't be taught evolution unless we're exposed to both sides of the argument. Evolution cannot be proven, much like creationism, so why is it that we are only taught one side of an argument? Aren't we supposed to be "well rounded"? Creationism is not just a Christian thing, and that's now how it should be taught. Creationism is believed (in some way or another) by at least half of the world.

The 10 Commandments are some of the fundamental laws of society, their place is in a courthouse. Putting them in a courthouse doesn't mean that everyone follows them, nor does it force people to follow them. Why don't you protest about the statues of Muhammed and Jesus in the Supreme Court. Can you say obsessive much?


So, what can we say? Our legislators have good morals. (Don't even being to argue with me about the word good, this isn't the time nor place). Gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion is not only a Christian doctrine, so therefore you cannot simply say it is this "Christian" movement.

And yet, still nothing about Satan. *Waits*

Quote:
Don't you? Don't you want to understand God? Oh, sure, you probably never will, but don't you want to try? Thus, we ask questions and seek answers.
Sure, I want to try - and I know I probably won't. God works in mysterious ways. I'm just saying the answer you seek may not exist.

Quote:
And finally, the personal: Are you really comfortable with blind faith? Don't you want to know that your faith is well-founded?

Not understanding why God created Satan is hardly blind faith. I know my faith is well rounded. I'm not twisting peoples' arms saying "Believe."

Okay, I could go through and defend my theory - but you've failed to prove it wrong in my opinion. God created all evil, yes.

Do you know why He created the evil?

Take a look at yourself - you represent a part of the population that is clearly disobedient to God.

There needed to be punishment for disobedience. Therefore, we live in this fallen limbo half ass hell/heaven world.

Simply put, it's our human nature and disobedience to God that put God in the mood to create evil.

It wasn't intended to be like this, but it is.
matrixuk321
I dont believe in god or satan! but if they were realy i think satan would be evil brother
Indi
xalophus wrote:
Have you read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand ?

No, i can't be arsed. Too fricken long. But i have lived the frustration. Do you know what it's like to deliver a shipment of food to a hospital camp in a war zone, then hear people saying it was thanks to "god" that they food came? "God" didn't pay for the food. "God" didn't figure out how to package it for safe travel across thousands of kilometers. "God" didn't load the food onto the planes. "God" didn't fly it over. "God" didn't repackage it onto trucks. "God" didn't drive the trucks through an active war zone, risking the chance either side or even just random bandits might break the cease fire and attack the convoy, or that we might just hit a mine or something. And "God" didn't manage the handouts and keep the crowds orderly. People did. People that worked their asses off, and occasionally risked their damn lives.

*shrug* It's just frustrating to hear people saying that people are really just sad and pathetic "sinners", capable of nothing without divine providence, and that it's really thanks to "god" that the world works. Because it's not. And while it's an amusing fantasy to believe that one day those of us who actually do make the world work might just pitch up and walk away, leaving it to go to hell in a handbasket, the fact is that i never could. i care too much about the world to ruin it just to spite the ignorant.

Soulfire wrote:
Quote:
First, the practical. There is a resurgence of power in North America of borderline fanatic christian groups, both in the US and Canada. These groups are gaining more political power now than they have had in decades. Even more moderate christian groups are flexing political muscle and using legal means to force their will on non-believers
You people are becoming more fanatic about it than the so called "Christian extremists." And they, just as much as atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, whatever can get political power. That's not an issue. I especially like your choice of words "force their will on non-believers." Where in the hell did you get an idea like that? You tell me how we're forcing, as a Church in general (there are some nutcases out there, but not only in Christianity, everywhere).

Persecution of homosexuals. i could have just pointed out that i gave no less than three examples in the very next sentence that you did not quote - for reasons i can't imagine. But this one example serves well.

There is no non-religious reason to deny homosexuals marriage. None. Nada. Zip. The major psychological and psychiatric professional associations across North America have stated that there is no reason why gay marriages would be bad for the couple, or for the children, if any (http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html, for example). There are also no valid social, economic, political, legal, practical or moral reasons why such marriages should not be allowed, once you remove bigotry from the equation. And of course, the primary source of said bigotry... is religious. What segment of the demographic is it that is denying gays marriage? It's virtually entirely - almost completely - religious groups that oppose it, isn't it?

That's where the hell i got the idea that religion is being forced on non-believers, taking away their freedoms.

Soulfire wrote:
So, this part of the post has nothing to do with anything now. Onto the next.

On the contrary. That part of the post was part of the paragraph pointing out that religious nuts can and do try to force non-believers to bend to their will. You can't seriously deny that that doesn't happen, especially in the last few years in America. Maybe you don't, but there are religious activists that do, and they are actively trying to get laws in place to enforce their religious standards on non-believers. In order to challenge those people, we challenge their beliefs - and everytime we corner them on some facet of their beliefs, we hold them back just a little while longer. Thus we discuss questions like the one in this thread.

But all that is just repeating myself. You would have found the answers to pretty much every challenge you posed in your reply if you read more than two or three sentences at a time.

Soulfire wrote:
We shouldn't be taught evolution unless we're exposed to both sides of the argument. Evolution cannot be proven, much like creationism, so why is it that we are only taught one side of an argument? Aren't we supposed to be "well rounded"? Creationism is not just a Christian thing, and that's now how it should be taught. Creationism is believed (in some way or another) by at least half of the world.

There are no two sides to the argument. There is no argument. The theory of evolution is science. Creationism is not. Science is taught in schools. Religion is taught in churches. Unless the class is analyzing a religion academically, it shouldn't be taught in a school.

If the sheer number of people that "believe" something were a valid measure for what should be taught, then there should be classes on astrology. Most people believe that the toilet water swirls different ways in different hemispheres... in other words, just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it valid.

Soulfire wrote:
The 10 Commandments are some of the fundamental laws of society, their place is in a courthouse. Putting them in a courthouse doesn't mean that everyone follows them, nor does it force people to follow them. Why don't you protest about the statues of Muhammed and Jesus in the Supreme Court. Can you say obsessive much?

Their place is in a church. The 10 commandments are more certainly not some of the "fundamental laws of society". Only like two or three are even laws today.

i'm obsessive? i'm not the one trying to put up monuments of my religion everywhere around me. i would never dream of demanding that they put up a statue of James Randi at a YMCA.

Soulfire wrote:
So, what can we say? Our legislators have good morals. (Don't even being to argue with me about the word good, this isn't the time nor place). Gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion is not only a Christian doctrine, so therefore you cannot simply say it is this "Christian" movement.

The gay marriage issue is entirely religious. The others have some secular ethical issues, but the vast majority of the opposition is religious. The religous objections have no place in lawmaking, because religion has no place in the government. (Which, funny enough, was how America was devised in the first place: "we need more lighthouses than churches", remember?) Therefore, the religious objections should be removed first, then the secular issues addressed. Considering questions like this thread's is how we begin that process.

But again, all this was already explained, if you'd bothered to read it.

Soulfire wrote:
And yet, still nothing about Satan. *Waits*

No, you asked why the question matters, so i explained why the question matters. There is no point in answering the question if you don't even think it matters. So i explained why the question matters.

Soulfire wrote:
Quote:
Don't you? Don't you want to understand God? Oh, sure, you probably never will, but don't you want to try? Thus, we ask questions and seek answers.
Sure, I want to try - and I know I probably won't. God works in mysterious ways. I'm just saying the answer you seek may not exist.

Maybe we can find an answer, maybe not. But if you don't want to stop debate, you should probably come up with a more constructive introductory statement than "why does it matter?".

Soulfire wrote:
Quote:
And finally, the personal: Are you really comfortable with blind faith? Don't you want to know that your faith is well-founded?

Not understanding why God created Satan is hardly blind faith. I know my faith is well rounded. I'm not twisting peoples' arms saying "Believe."

No, but suggesting that even asking the question is a waste of time is blind faith that it is. Because no one really knows whether or not the question is a waste of time, which is why we ask it.

Soulfire wrote:
Okay, I could go through and defend my theory - but you've failed to prove it wrong in my opinion. God created all evil, yes.

Do you know why He created the evil?

Take a look at yourself - you represent a part of the population that is clearly disobedient to God.

There needed to be punishment for disobedience. Therefore, we live in this fallen limbo half ****** hell/heaven world.

Simply put, it's our human nature and disobedience to God that put God in the mood to create evil.

It wasn't intended to be like this, but it is.

If God is all powerful, then there is no way the world can be a way that he didn't intend. If God is omniscient, then he knew exactly what he was creating from the start, so there is no way we could have changed his mind.

He didn't make me powerful enough to defeat him did he? He didn't make me able to walk away and exist without having to worship him or suffer eternally. So he didn't give me much "free choice" at all. Blaming Satan for everything is a neat sleight of hand, but in the end, everything, including my disobedience, is God's fault.
Soulfire
Quote:
He didn't make me powerful enough to defeat him did he? He didn't make me able to walk away and exist without having to worship him or suffer eternally. So he didn't give me much "free choice" at all. Blaming Satan for everything is a neat sleight of hand, but in the end, everything, including my disobedience, is God's fault.
That't true - God created everything, evil and good - that's unarguable, but the argument here (as I was attempting to get at) was speculation as to why God created the evil.

And that's true - God must elect people to go to Heaven, fully knowing some people He creates are going to Hell. Unfortunate when you think about it.
palavra
http://pearls.org/index.php/content/view/931/56/

http://en.fgulen.com/content/view/665/4/


There is an infinitely long line of spiritual evolution between the ranks of the greatest Prophets and saints down to those of people like Pharaoh and Nimrod. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the creation of Satan is evil. Although Satan is evil and serves various important purposes, God's creation involves the whole universe and should be understood in relation to the results, not only with respect to the acts themselves.

Whatever God does or creates is good and beautiful in itself or in its effects. For example, rain and fire are very useful but can cause great harm when abused. Therefore, one cannot claim that the creation of water and fire is not totally good.

It is the same with the creation of Satan. His main purpose is to cause us to develop our potential, strengthen our willpower by resisting his temptations, and then rise to higher spiritual ranks.
Tyler
the_mariska,

I specifically said that I would not attempt to convince anyone. Also, I never said that I should. So please, don't point fingers at me.

Also, I do not find theism the absence of rationality or proof, I find it the beliefs meant to guide us through our lives and to explain our existence.

To me, theism is the presence of proof.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. - Genesis 1:1-2

That's all the proof I'll ever need.
redace
It is not fun to create an angel being that has no chance to make own decision:)God doesn't know everything...nobody can:)
Tyler
Of course God knows everything, God is everything. Everything that has ever been thought up was given to its specific thinker by God.

One who creates everything knows everything.

Scripture:

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. - Genesis 2:1

Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in front of the whole assembly of Israel, spread out his hands toward heaven and said: O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth below - you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way. - 1 Kings 8:22-23

The great Solomon, King of Israel, Son of David, who was one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He was given his fame, knowledge, and power to lead by God. He recognized it in the scripture above and later used his great knowledge to write both the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
dgcleveland
Remember that God didn't create Satan. The first words of the bible show god making earth and heaven. After that he makes man in "our own image." assumably that is speaking of his and the angels' image ("our"). But never does it say that he created the angels. They were just kind of there. Now satan is an angel. He was originaly Lucifer the angel but then fell from grace. So the answer is that God did not create Satan.
Tyler
Not quite,

I've looked in the Book of Genesis and it states that before Creation there was nothing but the Spirit of God hovering over the empty void.

He would have had to create the angels, thus God did create Satan.

Also, as an ardent Jew, I must remain firm that I don't believe in a "blind faith." A blind faith is sitting in a laboratory hour upon hour watching a rat and waiting for it to evolve into some strange creature. Evolution is in itself outlandish. For stars to explode and bring about simple little bacteria-like creatures that evolve over millions of years is absurd.

A very good organization, Answers in Genesis, and its founder, Ken Ham, made a series of DVD's on the matter of evolution. This is a fantastic reference using the Bible and even interviews with evolutionists.

When an ardent evolutionist with a Ph. D. in chromatic biology was presented with the question "where did the DNA strands come from?", they had nothing to say. The DNA strands would have had to been placed by an intelligent being (such as the all-knowing Lord God Almighty)

I won't rave on this because speaking of evolution makes me feel unclean.

May Adonai Bless you!
Indi
Tyler wrote:
A blind faith is sitting in a laboratory hour upon hour watching a rat and waiting for it to evolve into some strange creature. Evolution is in itself outlandish. For stars to explode and bring about simple little bacteria-like creatures that evolve over millions of years is absurd.

^_^; Honestly dude, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. None of what you mentioned has anything to do with the theory of evolution, excepting perhaps the words "simple little bacteria-like creatures that evolve over millions of years". And even that's a stretch because the way you've worded it is not really in agreement with the theory evolution, exactly (although if you strain, you can kind of take advantage of its vagueness to say it is).

If that nonsense is what you think the theory of evolution is about, then you have no idea about what you're railing against at all.

Tyler wrote:
A very good organization, Answers in Genesis, and its founder, Ken Ham, made a series of DVD's on the matter of evolution. This is a fantastic reference using the Bible and even interviews with evolutionists.

Which would be a really neat trick, because there is no such thing as an evolutionist. ^_^; There hasn't been since, oh, the mid-late 19th century. In order to be interviewing evolutionists, he would have to be talking to dead people. Does this Ken Ham perhaps know John Edward?

Real biologists and anthropologists who do work related to the theory of evolution do not call themselves "evolutionists", or the work they do "evolutionism". That term is only used by opponents. Therefore, if the "evolutionists" on that show referred to themselves as "evolutionsists", chances are very good that they are plants, and the interviews fraudulent or misrepresented. And it happens often that people who have an agenda to discredit evolutionary biology and anthropology misrepresent themselves as dispassionate researchers who are "at a loss" to explain the "shortcomings" of the theory of evolution.

Frankly discrediting evolutionary theory is rather disingenious, even from a religious fanatic's perspective. If there were no evolution, then Noah's ark would have had to hold mating couples for every single species on Earth. That's around 20 million species, give or take (could be as low as 3 million and as high as 115 million, and ignoring which puts the middle at around 50 million, then allowing for more than half of those to be ocean dwellers). So 40 million creatures. Including food for them for a month and a half. Pretty tall order for a wooden boat. On the other hand, if you allow for evolution, even in a limited sense, you can shrink that number by a couple orders of magnitude, and even get to the point where the ark becomes only wildly improbable, rather than insanely impossible. Which is, i suppose, some kind of improvement.

Tyler wrote:
When an ardent evolutionist with a Ph. D. in chromatic biology was presented with the question "where did the DNA strands come from?", they had nothing to say. The DNA strands would have had to been placed by an intelligent being (such as the all-knowing Lord God Almighty)

Aaaaah! i see. Well that's an interesting way to determine what is true and what isn't. Corner an expert in the field with a poorly-phrased and loaded question, and if he can't answer then his entire field of study is discredited as absolutely untrue. (Bonus points: pick an expert in a field that has nothing to do with the question at hand. i don't even know what a "chromatic biologist" is, although i've heard of the term "chromatic biology" used to describe studies referring to how the colour patterns in certain camouflage-capable animals are created and controlled via neurochemical transmissions or cell signalling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatophore). There's also chromatography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatography), but that has even less to do with evolution (as in, nothing at all ^_^).)

So tell me, why does God allow evil to exist? Why does an all-knowing god need a devil to test his creations - doesn't he know already how the test is going to turn out, and isn't the test going to turn out exactly the way he intended it to when he created the creation and the devil?

Remember, you must answer without evasion! Or your whole theology is wrong!

Tyler wrote:
I won't rave on this because speaking of evolution makes me feel unclean.

Wow. ^_^;
Tyler
Firstly,
By evolutionist I meant someone who believes in evolution as the "way of the life" so to speak.

Secondly,
It saddens me deeply that atheists have to attack the beliefs of theists, merely because they try to make meaning out of the life they scrape off of rock and believe as to be meaningless.

The Lord God Almighty wished it that all should know the way he created everything from nothing.

If you would, at least, try a religion such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. and then after ytou actually know what it's about you can attempt to argue with those whose beliefs are carved into stone.
Indi
Tyler wrote:
Firstly,
By evolutionist I meant someone who believes in evolution as the "way of the life" so to speak.

If you're talking about some religion of "evolutionism", you should probably say so, because it sounds like you're talking about scientists and the theory of evolution. Real scientists working with the real scientific theory of evolution do not "believe" in it as a "way of the life", so to speak. By and large they believe that it's most likely true, and either base their research on that assumption or do research to challenge that assumption. But it's not a way of life for them, it's a scientific theory.

i don't worship Darwin. i don't quote from The origin of species to justifiy my beliefs or my actions - never even read it (of course, most Christians haven't really read the bible, so that's hardly a relevant point). Yet i believe that evolution due to natural selection is probably the primary cause for the existence of the varied species on this planet, and i base that belief on the fact that the evidence that we have supports that theory above all others (by far, actually - for every datum against the theory there are thousands upon thousands for). No other theory matches the facts that i have observed or that i have researched nearly as well. If you have an alternate theory to present, i would be happy to hear it, but considering the HUGE amount of evidence amassed in favour of evolution, you're going to have a hell of a time finding enough evidence to prove it wrong. Still, unlikely though it may be, it is possible that the theory of evolution is wrong, and i'd be happy to hear if it were. Am i an evolutionist?

Tyler wrote:
Secondly,
It saddens me deeply that atheists have to attack the beliefs of theists, merely because they try to make meaning out of the life they scrape off of rock and believe as to be meaningless.

But it's a-ok for you and Ken Ham to attack these evolutionist's beliefs? Despite the fact that you merely try to make meaning out of life using information you cobble together from an ecclectic collection of vague and contradictory ancient writings in dead languages?

Tyler wrote:
If you would, at least, try a religion such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. and then after ytou actually know what it's about you can attempt to argue with those whose beliefs are carved into stone.

Stone crumbles quite easily you know. ^_^ That's why we use rebar.

And you obviously haven't had any run-ins with me before, if you can make a suggestion like that with a straight face. ^_^; Of course, i can turn that right back around to you, because you can hardly have seriously considered the opposing argument when:
1.) you don't even have the most general concept of the theory of evolution down correctly
2.) even mentioning it made you feel unclean.
If i'm clueless about religion because i've never been a follower of any religion, aren't you just as clueless about evolution given that you've obviously never done any semi-serious study of it?

i do note with amusement that you never answered the questions i posed you - which are pretty much the questions of this thread. By your own standards, that means that it is now acceptible to dismiss your entire belief system. The cruelest standard by which to judge someone is their own.
Tyler
Indi wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Firstly,
By evolutionist I meant someone who believes in evolution as the "way of the life" so to speak.

If you're talking about some religion of "evolutionism", you should probably say so, because it sounds like you're talking about scientists and the theory of evolution. Real scientists working with the real scientific theory of evolution do not "believe" in it as a "way of the life", so to speak. By and large they believe that it's most likely true, and either base their research on that assumption or do research to challenge that assumption. But it's not a way of life for them, it's a scientific theory.

i don't worship Darwin. i don't quote from The origin of species to justifiy my beliefs or my actions - never even read it (of course, most Christians haven't really read the bible, so that's hardly a relevant point). Yet i believe that evolution due to natural selection is probably the primary cause for the existence of the varied species on this planet, and i base that belief on the fact that the evidence that we have supports that theory above all others (by far, actually - for every datum against the theory there are thousands upon thousands for). No other theory matches the facts that i have observed or that i have researched nearly as well. If you have an alternate theory to present, i would be happy to hear it, but considering the HUGE amount of evidence amassed in favour of evolution, you're going to have a hell of a time finding enough evidence to prove it wrong. Still, unlikely though it may be, it is possible that the theory of evolution is wrong, and i'd be happy to hear if it were. Am i an evolutionist?

Tyler wrote:
Secondly,
It saddens me deeply that atheists have to attack the beliefs of theists, merely because they try to make meaning out of the life they scrape off of rock and believe as to be meaningless.

But it's a-ok for you and Ken Ham to attack these evolutionist's beliefs? Despite the fact that you merely try to make meaning out of life using information you cobble together from an ecclectic collection of vague and contradictory ancient writings in dead languages?

Tyler wrote:
If you would, at least, try a religion such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. and then after ytou actually know what it's about you can attempt to argue with those whose beliefs are carved into stone.

Stone crumbles quite easily you know. ^_^ That's why we use rebar.

And you obviously haven't had any run-ins with me before, if you can make a suggestion like that with a straight face. ^_^; Of course, i can turn that right back around to you, because you can hardly have seriously considered the opposing argument when:
1.) you don't even have the most general concept of the theory of evolution down correctly
2.) even mentioning it made you feel unclean.
If i'm clueless about religion because i've never been a follower of any religion, aren't you just as clueless about evolution given that you've obviously never done any semi-serious study of it?

i do note with amusement that you never answered the questions i posed you - which are pretty much the questions of this thread. By your own standards, that means that it is now acceptible to dismiss your entire belief system. The cruelest standard by which to judge someone is their own.


Um... the last time I checked, the languages the Bible are written in (Greek and Hebrew) are still active languages.

As a Jew, I speak Hebrew, so do the rest of the Jewish people.

Greek has been spoken for over 3500 years.

I don't know much about evolution, because I don't believe in it. If there's ever something that I can't decipher, I turn to God.

God is omniscient and is the Creator of All.

I'm kinda tired of arguing with you to tell the truth. If you're not religious, fine. But don't come into a topic for those who are theists just to start a fuss over controversial theorems and hypotheses.

We who are religious wish to share our thoughts about our religions. If you want to tell your ideas and philosophies, why not start an atheists' topic?

Better than doing it in a religious topic.

Oh wait, missed those questions. God did not create evil. Adam and Eve sinned and passed it to the rest of mankind. He gave them personality, so they were a bit mutinous, so to speak. Satan was created as the Tempter to see if the wills of humans could overpower that of his extremely provoking ways.

God definitely knew everything that was to pass. However, he threw the Devil from heaven after he disobeyed the will of God. He threw him to the place we know as Hell as an exile and one who would pick out those who were not worthy of heaven. God could have done this himself, but he put these events into action to lead to something else. Now I'm leaving Jewish belief and going to Christian belief. He had these events put into action to lead to the Antichrist's coming and the eventual apocalypse and second coming of the Messiah. Of course, this isn't Jewish belief, we do not believe the Messiah has come yet.

However, on this, I highly recommend examining the Book of Revelations.

Thanks,
Tyler
Indi
Tyler wrote:
Um... the last time I checked, the languages the Bible are written in (Greek and Hebrew) are still active languages.

Um... check again.

The bible as it has come down to us exists primarily in 3 languages. Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Aramaic.

None of them are currently in use.

Tyler wrote:
I'm kinda tired of arguing with you to tell the truth. If you're not religious, fine. But don't come into a topic for those who are theists just to start a fuss over controversial theorems and hypotheses.

i am here because i think this is an interesting and important question, and relevant for anyone interested in studying theology. Not just theists. Furthermore, i think i can and have contributed something of worth to the discussion. i have answered questions and raised new challenges that have furthered the discussion. In fact, it might do you benefit to read some of what i have already written, because you are making points that have already been shown to be incorrect (which i'll show in a bit).

i have not started any fuss over any topic other than the one the thread is actually about - but then, that's rather the point of the thread isn't it? By contrast, you brought up "evolutionism" without any real reason to, and began disparaging it. Do you really think that helped the discussion?

Tyler wrote:
We who are religious wish to share our thoughts about our religions. If you want to tell your ideas and philosophies, why not start an atheists' topic?

So basically, get the hell out of anywhere religion is discussed? i'm sure god would be proud of your brotherly display of neighbourliness towards your fellow man.

Tyler wrote:
Oh wait, missed those questions. God did not create evil. Adam and Eve sinned and passed it to the rest of mankind. He gave them personality, so they were a bit mutinous, so to speak. Satan was created as the Tempter to see if the wills of humans could overpower that of his extremely provoking ways.

You have not bothered to read the thread. Your answer has already been shown to be wrong. Repeatedly.

Tyler wrote:
God definitely knew everything that was to pass. However, he threw the Devil from heaven after he disobeyed the will of God. He threw him to the place we know as Hell as an exile and one who would pick out those who were not worthy of heaven. God could have done this himself, but he put these events into action to lead to something else. Now I'm leaving Jewish belief and going to Christian belief. He had these events put into action to lead to the Antichrist's coming and the eventual apocalypse and second coming of the Messiah. Of course, this isn't Jewish belief, we do not believe the Messiah has come yet.

You see? You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say God did not create evil. On the other you say that he knew it would be created, did nothing to stop it, and in fact set events in motion that made it happen. In other words, he created evil.

Try re-reading the thread. In particular, the last third of this post pretty much covers everything you just said.

Tyler wrote:
However, on this, I highly recommend examining the Book of Revelations.

Been there, done that. Still doesn't make logical sense.

Either God created everything or he did not (omnipotence). Either God knew exactly what he was doing when he created everything or he did not (omniscience). If the answer to both of those is "he did", then God is responsible for all evil and suffering in the universe. There is no escape from this conclusion. It is a philosophical problem that has existed for centuries called the "Problem of Evil".

And no. An atheist did not come up with it.
Tyler
Well,

God did create everything, so it is sensical.

However,

Everything in the Bible is logical, so I really don't see where you get the non-logical part.

I have many different opinions, and I have no trouble agreeing with other religions. However, atheism is not my bag, and I really don't want to go there.

You sound as if you're contradicting yourself, like the only thing you have to live for is to tell theists they're wrong.
Coclus
I dont believe in god as he is described in the bible and this is another proof for me that he doesnt exist.
DeanOlicious
I like the analogy that was offered by Indi about the doll in the isolated room left with a set of literature about the creators existence. I would like to offer an alternate version. Imagine you had all the materials to make that little android doll, only you didn't make it. You just left the raw, unassembled material in that isolated room, say, for about a billion years. When you come back, it should have somehow been turned into a sentient existence capable of reason and reproduction. In fact, over time this android can change itself because it recognizes it won't survive without doing so. For this to happen it would be a statistical anomaly. I cannot see how anything as complicated as a living cell could randomly exist, let alone survive and devolope into an entire planetary biome of various life forms.
So if that means that an architect does exist, and if it is good and omnipotent, why would He create Satan? The most recent discussion of a theory stated by St. Augustine was in CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity." The opening chapters focus on the topics of morality, and he sums up the argument that in the absence of light there is dark, in the absence of heat there is cold, etc. This is in reference to the fact that there is no thing called "cold," it is only a condition to describe the absence of something. Can evil then be described as the absence of good? That evil is the condition that exists when good is not practiced; morals are not observed and laws broken? Satan fell from grace when he envied God, and being removed from his presence fell further into a loveless life, a good nature. I would tend to think he didn't hate God to begin with, but we all know how anger can grow. It is the same condition that exists when a person who has enough food allows another person to starve. The "good" thing to do is offer some of your extra to the hungry. If you simply ignore him, then that is an "evil" act. We've all heard the saying "When good men do nothing, that is evil enough."
This all comes back to the argument of why God allows free will. If in having the privelege to choose allows for a negative consequece, why allow it? Well, I don't have an answer for you. I'm willing to take a few things on Faith. I personally think that having a choice makes my existence much more meaningful.
Indi
DeanOlicious wrote:
I like the analogy that was offered by Indi about the doll in the isolated room left with a set of literature about the creators existence. I would like to offer an alternate version. Imagine you had all the materials to make that little android doll, only you didn't make it. You just left the raw, unassembled material in that isolated room, say, for about a billion years. When you come back, it should have somehow been turned into a sentient existence capable of reason and reproduction. In fact, over time this android can change itself because it recognizes it won't survive without doing so. For this to happen it would be a statistical anomaly. I cannot see how anything as complicated as a living cell could randomly exist, let alone survive and devolope into an entire planetary biome of various life forms.

As an analogy for the development of life as we know it, that doesn't really work, because it doesn't actually match what we can observe of life.

Instead of a doll, what if it were a machine that did nothing but take material from the environment and use it to make copies of itself? That is a closer match to life a we know it; we eat and reproduce. Now suppose that that each time that machine made a copy of itself, there is a 10% chance of the copy having a slight difference - a "defect", if you prefer. Nine times out of ten, the machine produces identical copies, but one time in ten it makes a copy that is slightly changed in some random way. That also matches what we observe about life and the way it reproduces (although the actual percentage of "defects" may differ).

So now, what happens when those defects make the machine defective - as in it can't make copies at all? Nothing; that machine sits idle until it rusts (dies). What happens when those defects do not prevent the machine from doing its job, but they do limit the effectiveness, say for example, by slowing down the rate at which it can absorb materials? The machine produces some copies, but the other machines that can absorb material faster will get first dibs and pretty much starve the others out - or at the very least, further decrease the amount of copies they can produce. But what happens in that one in a million chance that the defect makes the machine run better, say for example, by making the intake valve larger so it can absorb materials quicker? Then when that machine produces copies, those copies will overpower the original design. That is evolution.

But where did the first machine come from? Again where your analogy fails, it didn't emerge out of the slime intact, it began as a very, very simple machine. Just a handful of atoms whose chemical reactions match the process i just described: they absorb and interact with some other chemicals to produce copies of themselves. As you say, create a closed room full of atoms randomly scattered, and shake rattle and roll for a million years, adding heat and pressure occasionally, and eventually, randomly, those few needed chemicals will fall into place. And so the cycle i describe above begins. That is abiogenesis.

At first, those chemicals are just chemicals, and they only "reproduce" when the chemical conditions are correct. Eventually, as they evolve by the process i descibed above, some may develop the capability to seek out the correct chemical conditions (chemically seek out - not using conscious thought). Or they may develop their chemical mechanism such that the conditions become more and more common, and easier to meet. Or both (albeit usually not within a single mutation). Either way, they increase the rate at which they reproduce over their unevolved cousins. The latter leads to more advanced "bodies" for the organism, likely including the ability to use many different chemicals as fuel (this would be why cells evolve membranes to protect the nucleus). The former path will eventually lead to intelligence as the evolved mechanism for detecting favourable conditions for survival and reproduction get more and more advanced, and to more sophisticated bodies as the means for detecting favourable conditions (senses) and achieving them (limbs) evolve.

This, in a very simplistic and not particularly technically accurate nutshell, is how beings can be created without the need for a higher intelligence. Things just don't "pop" into existence (especially entire organisms). You don't have a being without an eye give birth to a being with two fully functional eyes, an optical cortex, etc. etc. You have a being with no visual sense at all develop some cells that detect light, then more, then a network to analyze the distribution of light across the cells (crude vision), then cells that specialize for certain wavelengths, and so on and so forth. You don't have a pile of parts one day and a fully functional doll the next.

DeanOlicious wrote:
So if that means that an architect does exist, and if it is good and omnipotent, why would He create Satan? The most recent discussion of a theory stated by St. Augustine was in CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity." The opening chapters focus on the topics of morality, and he sums up the argument that in the absence of light there is dark, in the absence of heat there is cold, etc. This is in reference to the fact that there is no thing called "cold," it is only a condition to describe the absence of something. Can evil then be described as the absence of good? That evil is the condition that exists when good is not practiced; morals are not observed and laws broken? Satan fell from grace when he envied God, and being removed from his presence fell further into a loveless life, a good nature. I would tend to think he didn't hate God to begin with, but we all know how anger can grow. It is the same condition that exists when a person who has enough food allows another person to starve. The "good" thing to do is offer some of your extra to the hungry. If you simply ignore him, then that is an "evil" act. We've all heard the saying "When good men do nothing, that is evil enough."
This all comes back to the argument of why God allows free will. If in having the privelege to choose allows for a negative consequece, why allow it? Well, I don't have an answer for you. I'm willing to take a few things on Faith. I personally think that having a choice makes my existence much more meaningful.

i've read Lewis, specifically "The problem of suffering", ages ago, and the answers he gives really don't hold up to much scrutiny. If it really is true that "hell" is nothing more than outside of God's grace, and if God is really infinitely powerful, why would does anyone have to live outside of his grace. He should be capable of allowing everyone to live within his grace. Thus the only reason to make anyone suffer by living outside of his grace is cruelty, unless they choose to suffer, of course.

But Christian (and Jewish etc.) theology is quite specific on this point. GOD decides who suffers and who doesn't, based on the actions of their life. Why can't i be a cruel and miserable SOB, insult God for 70 or 80 years, then not suffer eternally? There's no reason except that God wants it that way, which, given that the suffering is infinite, makes him infinitely cruel.

And then there's the Satan problem. Ok, let's say that God somehow felt compelled to let Satan get envious and lead the rebellion - or that God somehow didn't see it coming, either way. Why does God let Satan tempt us and deceive us and lie to us? He already says he's going to stop him... eventually... but in the meantime he lets him lead countless people into infinite torment. Why? Free will is not an answer. If there were no Satan we'd still have free will, would we not?
Tyler
You fiend,

comparing living beings to mere machines is blasphemy towards God and His creations. You stand and point fingers whilst yoy have nothing better to do than to compare yourself to a machine.

However, those who believe live with the knowledge that eternal life awaits those who earn it. That's much better than comparing yourself to a machine.

Science is useful for answering questions, but it can't answer all questions.

Also,

About Satan, he tempts us to see if we have the moral ability to overcome him and in turn praise God for overcoming temptation. Atheistic people make religion out to be delusional and in some cases, complex, but for those who actually look at it as it is being described and stated in the Holy Word, it is simple to comprehend what God left for us to know and learn.
The Conspirator
A machine is good analogy. That essentially what we are, thought not a signal machine. We are made of cells and each of those are chemical machines doing preprogrammed things.
We are essentially a bunch of machines working together. You could say that makes us more than a machine.

Quote:
About Satan, he tempts us to see if we have the moral ability to overcome him and in turn praise God for overcoming temptation.

That would only work is God was not omniscient as an omniscient God would already know.
alja
"God" did not create "Satan". We humans did.
tekage
I guess Satan was first angel created to God, with Free Will (like us, like the rest of angels), en that is the reason because, with all his Ego was maked a revolution, with anothers angels, to dethroun God. Luzbel, afterward Satan, was falled, so he and the anothers angels(demons) come down to the Earth.
But God stand the day of repentance of Satan
cardo71
There is a trifold question posed which, logically, finds a contradictory answer to all three questions. The three questions are:

Is God omnipotent?(all powerful)
Is God omniscience?(all knowing)
Is God all good?

Now, any two of these will contradict the third, logically. If God is all powerful and He is all knowing, then He is not all good, because evil exists.

If He is all knowing and all good, then He is not all powerful, because evil exists.

If He is all powerful and all good, then He is not all knowing, because evil exists.

This seems perfectly reasonable, until we mention free will. Allow me to start with this, most of us want other people to love us for who we are. We do not want to force other people to love us. If we gave them no other choice, we would be forcing them. It is called mistrust.

God loved us so much that he wanted to give us the free will to choose. But He is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Now, since He is everything that is good and right and healthy and rightous, and truthful, etc. for us, what else can we choose from outside of God that will give us free will? Obviously, something that is not good for us.

When He created Lucifer, He created the first angel among angels. The angel of song and praise. Lucifer was next outside of the Trinity, that is where Jesus was the right hand of God, Lucufer was the left. ( On a side note, I've often wondered about the saying in proverbs "The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.", in light of this.) He knew that, in spite of all that was good, satan would grow to want to rule Heaven for himself. However, because He is all knowing, He knew He would create a being satan could not control because of freewill, Mankind. Satan only presents to us choices of evil and God of good, we must choose. So all of the pain, corruption, and hate in the world is on ourselves. "The sin of the father is passed to child unto the third and fourth generation" -The Bible. Now I am born under the sins of my forefathers, where I go from there is up to me.

God is establishing a kingdom of truth and righteousness. He knew the path would be difficult. It breaks His heart to see some of the corruption, evil and sin some of us choose. But the end justifies the means. He loves us because those of us that do choose love over hate, discipline over desire, right over wrong, and enter into the kingdom will establish with Him a beautiful place beyond description, without sin, and once again in communion with the very will of God.
DeanOlicious
I see the point you're making Indi, but the point I was making is still a problem. You cannot expect the first machine to simply assemble. If you leave the necessary components together they will not randomly assemble and by chance make any sort of machine. This is why we have been unable to reproduce spontaneous life, the closest we can come is making amino acids. If we can't recreate the most basic form of life, how could it have possibly self generated, even through molecular attraction? Why whould it be self preserving if it did? We don't see new life cropping up here now, we only see genetic diversity and evolution. (ghasp! that came out of the mouth of a creationist?)
As for Lewis not holding up to scrutiny, you can say that about any philosophy or philosopher. It's simply opinion. Take your choice of any theologian, scholar, philosopher etc, and someone will nay say them. That's just the nature of philosophy, you can't prove or disprove it through any particular means other than debate. If the absence of evidence is proof enough for you, then so be it.
Thats things from my perspective. It is hard to discern the why and how of things we can't explain or prove. But as I said, I can take a few things on faith.
Tyler
If you take the Bible, just think what if God hadn't had people such as Ezra to record his word for us? Then there would be little "proof" to an atheist. They will debate what they think is right, merely grabbing things from the air to throw at someone to strike a debate. However, we do have the Bible and atheists say it's controversial and unlogical. However, it makes perfect sense if you view it through your "Biblical glasses" to quote Ken Ham. Look at the Bible from a believers point of view. It helps you see what you don't get when reading it normally.

"No other text such as the Holy Word speaks through such a ringing voice of truth." - Hashed Malehe'id, Rabbi, Church of Solomon, Jerusalem
Rad Ultima 2
Yantaal wrote:
wasnt satan one of gods angels or summit? the he got banned. sooooo, god being all knowing, knew this would happen, so why did god create him?


I am actually starting to believe that God himself has chosen to be limited in his power. For instance, he said he would never again do the flood thing when Noah made the ark; that makes me think as if he is also learning from mistakes.

I think maybe Satan was just a mistake or something. However, he may have made Satan in order to give us something to fight for: making the choice of good and evil. If Satan wasn't there, then there would not be much of a struggle for us.

This would have also meant that he would have none from the start that Adam and Eve would have been deceived by the serpent and stuff before they took a bite out of the tree of knowledge.

This is just how I am thinking of it anyway. Feel free to argue. Smile
Alankurd
to "scare" people you know like "if you dont do what god tells you to do you will go to satan and he is very evil" or else people would think like so what if i doesnt follow the rules what will happen ill come to paradise anyway...

thats what i think
Indi
DeanOlicious wrote:
I see the point you're making Indi, but the point I was making is still a problem. You cannot expect the first machine to simply assemble. If you leave the necessary components together they will not randomly assemble and by chance make any sort of machine. This is why we have been unable to reproduce spontaneous life, the closest we can come is making amino acids. If we can't recreate the most basic form of life, how could it have possibly self generated, even through molecular attraction? Why whould it be self preserving if it did? We don't see new life cropping up here now, we only see genetic diversity and evolution. (ghasp! that came out of the mouth of a creationist?)

As i already explained, the first machine doesn't simply assemble. Simpler machines do. And then simpler and simpler. The precursors of life weren't even organic molecules, they were non-organic chemical compounds that had the properties of organic molecules - that is they absorbed other chemicals (food) as part of a chemical reaction that resulted in replications of the original molecule (reproduction).

We have already figured out how to go from random non-organic chemicals to amino acids. All we need to do now is figure out how those amino acids could polymerize into longer organic chains, and we've pretty much cracked it - and of course, there are lots of theories, although to my knowledge, none of them yet dominant. Polymerization isn't even that hard to do - the only major problem (if i recall), was that in the primordial soup that Miller created the amino acids in, there were a lot of chemicals that would prevent polymerization. That doesn't rule out polymerization - not by a longshot. It only makes it more difficult in the current model - but over millions of years, it could still have happened tons of times.

It is a truly sad cop-out to say that just because we don't yet know precisely how something happened, that must mean it's not true (or that God did it). You would think that by now, with all of the centuries of scientific progress behind us, that that argument wouldn't be seriously put forward any more.

DeanOlicious wrote:
As for Lewis not holding up to scrutiny, you can say that about any philosophy or philosopher. It's simply opinion. Take your choice of any theologian, scholar, philosopher etc, and someone will nay say them. That's just the nature of philosophy, you can't prove or disprove it through any particular means other than debate. If the absence of evidence is proof enough for you, then so be it.

It is not true that the determination of whether a philosopher or thinker is full of fluff is simply a matter of subjective opinion. All you have to do is show that their arguments are internally inconsistent, or demonstrate how they don't stand up to reality. Judge Lewis by his own standards, and he doesn't stand up. But he openly admits that, and characterizes his writings as "personal" - meaning that while it may be "true for him", it may not be true for anyone else. In fact, the best thing he ever wrote was:
C.S. Lewis wrote:
I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it.

Now if you think that Lewis's reasoning is not flawed, i'm told that John Beversluis is a good read. Give it a shot. i get theists practically every day telling me that i'm closed minded and ignorant because i haven't read the bible (when i have, in two modern languages, and i even know a good chunk of the languages it is actually written in), or that i haven't read up on Christian thought (ex. apologist writings) (when i have, of course). You can probably find evidence in this thread of people telling me that if i only read Christian writings, i would understand Christian thinking.

Well i have and i don't, but that's not the point right now. The point is that i'm turning it around. Have you ever read any serious criticisms of Lewis's philosophies? Try it. Check out that John Beversluis book - never read it myself, but i've heard good things about it.

And if it's true that "atheist beliefs" (that is, beliefs that do not agree with one or more religions) like abiogenesis are lacking support, what about problematic theological beliefs? Like the problem of evil (which is related to the question of why God created Satan)? Discussions of abiogenesis are only a century or so old, after all - the problem of evil is millenia old.

Consider your own question: "This all comes back to the argument of why God allows free will. If in having the privelege to choose allows for a negative consequece, why allow it?"

As far as i'm concerned, you're asking the wrong question. It's not about why God allows us to choose to be hurt. It's about why hurt even exists. Why do "negative consequences" exist? If God is omnipotent, they don't need to exist. So why do they?

Free will is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the discussion of Satan and evil.
The Conspirator
Indi wrote:
As i already explained, the first machine doesn't simply assemble. Simpler machines do. And then simpler and simpler. The precursors of life weren't even organic molecules, they were non-organic chemical compounds that had the properties of organic molecules - that is they absorbed other chemicals (food) as part of a chemical reaction that resulted in replications of the original molecule (reproduction).

We have already figured out how to go from random non-organic chemicals to amino acids. All we need to do now is figure out how those amino acids could polymerize into longer organic chains, and we've pretty much cracked it - and of course, there are lots of theories, although to my knowledge, none of them yet dominant. Polymerization isn't even that hard to do - the only major problem (if i recall), was that in the primordial soup that Miller created the amino acids in, there were a lot of chemicals that would prevent polymerization. That doesn't rule out polymerization - not by a longshot. It only makes it more difficult in the current model - but over millions of years, it could still have happened tons of times.

Basically (and over simplified) chemical reactions, breed chemical reactions, breed chemical reactions breed life we just don't know the exact mechanisms.

Quote:
It is a truly sad cop-out to say that just because we don't yet know precisely how something happened, that must mean it's not true (or that God did it). You would think that by now, with all of the centuries of scientific progress behind us, that that argument wouldn't be seriously put forward any more.

You'd think but I've had to point out that if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it didn't happen or God did it many, many times. Theists always try to disprove something they don't like by pointing out holes in it while ignoring the holes in there beliefs.
Indi
The Conspirator wrote:
Indi wrote:
As i already explained, the first machine doesn't simply assemble. Simpler machines do. And then simpler and simpler. The precursors of life weren't even organic molecules, they were non-organic chemical compounds that had the properties of organic molecules - that is they absorbed other chemicals (food) as part of a chemical reaction that resulted in replications of the original molecule (reproduction).

We have already figured out how to go from random non-organic chemicals to amino acids. All we need to do now is figure out how those amino acids could polymerize into longer organic chains, and we've pretty much cracked it - and of course, there are lots of theories, although to my knowledge, none of them yet dominant. Polymerization isn't even that hard to do - the only major problem (if i recall), was that in the primordial soup that Miller created the amino acids in, there were a lot of chemicals that would prevent polymerization. That doesn't rule out polymerization - not by a longshot. It only makes it more difficult in the current model - but over millions of years, it could still have happened tons of times.

Basically (and over simplified) chemical reactions, breed chemical reactions, breed chemical reactions breed life we just don't know the exact mechanisms.

Quote:
It is a truly sad cop-out to say that just because we don't yet know precisely how something happened, that must mean it's not true (or that God did it). You would think that by now, with all of the centuries of scientific progress behind us, that that argument wouldn't be seriously put forward any more.

You'd think but I've had to point out that if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it didn't happen or God did it many, many times. Theists always try to disprove something they don't like by pointing out holes in it while ignoring the holes in there beliefs.

Indeed, but this is a truly sad case. Not only do we know that it could happen, we know of literally dozens of ways that it could happen. And that's just for the one theory - if you consider alternate theories, like the iron-sulphur model, or Dawkin's auto-something-or-other (autocatylist?) clay model, or the beach foam model, you end up with hundreds or even thousands of possibilities for how it happened. Scientists say "we don't know how it happened", and laypeople think that means "we have no clue", when it really means "we have a shitload of possibilities, but we just don't know which specific one of the bunch is right".

i once described the problem using Levenshtein distance, where you have two words and you want to figure out how to get from a given starting word to a given ending word using only insertions, deletions and substitutions. Like to go from starting word "frihost" to ending word "forum", you insert the 'o' after 'f' (forihost), then delete the last three letters (forih) and substitute 'u' for 'i' and 'm' for 'h' (forum) - for a total of 6 steps (1 insertion, 2 deletions, 2 substitutions). It is relatively easy to figure out the steps you have to take to get the smallest amount of steps going from one word to another.

But the problem that abiogenesis researchers are trying to solve is like trying to find out the steps it takes to get to a given end word... when you're not given the starting word. Not only do they have to figure out the steps, they have to figure out where they're starting from. The fact that there are a huge amount of possibilites is no surprise - not only are there many possibilites for how it could have happened for each starting condition, there are also many possible starting conditions.

But far from making abiogenesis unlikely, the fact that there are so many possibilities makes it far more likely. Doesn't it?
creezalird
I'm convince that God exists as if there is no God..then who will be the one that create all this wonders in this universe that function and working in great orders..
Besides the creation of Satan is to test us on how deep our believe in God and how loyal we are to God
Its just like Ying-Yang..
Every single thing have their opposite..
Night and day
Moon and sun
Dead and Alive
Man and Woman....
bond4154
Just so you know, I have not read anything except the first post of this topic.

It occurs to me that God probably DOESN'T give a person free will. Let's take a look at the Gospel for an example.

Right before he was betrayed, Jesus predicted his own betrayal through the prophecies made by other prophets before his descent to the living. It's already prophecy that Jesus would be betrayed, crucified, killed, and then resurrected. So where does the final piece fit in?

Judas. The Gospel made a whole big deal about how Judas betrayed Jesus, about how the Devil entered him. Yet, consider the situation this way. If Judas DIDN'T betray Jesus, then it would not have fulfilled the prophecies. Jesus had to be crucified and resurrected. It was supposed to be written in stone. So suppose Judas didn't betray him? All those prophecies go down the drain.

If Judas had free will, there would've been the possibility that he wouldn't have betrayed Jesus. But the fact that God NEEDED someone to betray Jesus meant that God never gave Judas free will; Judas was merely a pawn in God's script to have Jesus betrayed.
Indi
bond4154 wrote:
Just so you know, I have not read anything except the first post of this topic.

It occurs to me that God probably DOESN'T give a person free will. Let's take a look at the Gospel for an example.

Right before he was betrayed, Jesus predicted his own betrayal through the prophecies made by other prophets before his descent to the living. It's already prophecy that Jesus would be betrayed, crucified, killed, and then resurrected. So where does the final piece fit in?

Judas. The Gospel made a whole big deal about how Judas betrayed Jesus, about how the Devil entered him. Yet, consider the situation this way. If Judas DIDN'T betray Jesus, then it would not have fulfilled the prophecies. Jesus had to be crucified and resurrected. It was supposed to be written in stone. So suppose Judas didn't betray him? All those prophecies go down the drain.

If Judas had free will, there would've been the possibility that he wouldn't have betrayed Jesus. But the fact that God NEEDED someone to betray Jesus meant that God never gave Judas free will; Judas was merely a pawn in God's script to have Jesus betrayed.

Precognition does not invalidate free will. Just because God/Jesus knew that people would act a certain way does not preclude the possibility of them acting that way by their own choice.

Destiny does invalidate free will, but precognition does not require destiny. For example, i can't see the future, and i can't control the actions or destinies of people, but i can predict with remarkable accuracy the behaviour of people that i know... and that's with my limited human awareness.

It may be that God/Jesus simply knew enough about Judas and Satan to know exactly what they would do, in which case God did not control them so much as manipulate and entrap them, which, while unethical, is hardly a violation of free will.

Honestly, theology gets so hung up on the idea of free will, when it's really not that big of a theological deal.
NemoySpruce
The question is the same as 'why did god create evil'. But 'evil' is a human concept. Its a side-effect of sentience. Could he have made a universe without evil? Yes, and maybe he has, maybe we are all in a simulated universe designed to teach us pain suffering failure..evil. Maybe our universe is just a very large classroom.

Angel 1: what is this .....lightspeed? nothing can travel faster than that?? hahaha.. a universe with a speed limit, thats silly... time?? thats a good one, only goes one way and no way to stop it...
Angel 2: well he is the boss, those humans are gonna have a heck of a time figuring everything out.


Now if you dont believe in God, I dont see why this question would even be relevant to you Wink
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
Now if you dont believe in God, I dont see why this question would even be relevant to you Wink

Cause we live in a world filled with theists, many that have a irrational and illogical beliefs, belief that can effect the government and laws thus effect us.
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:
NemoySpruce wrote:
Now if you dont believe in God, I dont see why this question would even be relevant to you Wink

Cause we live in a world filled with theists, many that have a irrational and illogical beliefs, belief that can effect the government and laws thus effect us.


So lets destroy their illogical beliefs and pummel it to the ground. Lets band together and show them how stupid they are!! We are right, they are wrong, we are smarter, we know whats better for everyone. We should be in control not them! death to the infidels!!
bond4154
Indi wrote:
Precognition does not invalidate free will. Just because God/Jesus knew that people would act a certain way does not preclude the possibility of them acting that way by their own choice.

Destiny does invalidate free will, but precognition does not require destiny. For example, i can't see the future, and i can't control the actions or destinies of people, but i can predict with remarkable accuracy the behaviour of people that i know... and that's with my limited human awareness.

It may be that God/Jesus simply knew enough about Judas and Satan to know exactly what they would do, in which case God did not control them so much as manipulate and entrap them, which, while unethical, is hardly a violation of free will.

Honestly, theology gets so hung up on the idea of free will, when it's really not that big of a theological deal.


Actually, these prophecies of the betrayal were made long before Judas or Jesus came about. Meaning, yes, it was destiny. Someone HAD to betray Jesus, free will or not. So, if someone HAD to betray Jesus, that isn't really much of free will right there.

It would've been different had some random guy joined up with Jesus, and God took a look, and figured that this guy would betray Jesus. But this isn't prediction; this is precognition in the sense that it was already written down. It HAD to happen. Someone HAD to betray Jesus. God chose Judas for the job.

But, yeah, theology is really weird when it comes to free will. XD
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
NemoySpruce wrote:
Now if you dont believe in God, I dont see why this question would even be relevant to you Wink

Cause we live in a world filled with theists, many that have a irrational and illogical beliefs, belief that can effect the government and laws thus effect us.


So lets destroy their illogical beliefs and pummel it to the ground. Lets band together and show them how stupid they are!! We are right, they are wrong, we are smarter, we know whats better for everyone. We should be in control not them! death to the infidels!!

Don't put words in my mouth!
Indi
bond4154 wrote:
Actually, these prophecies of the betrayal were made long before Judas or Jesus came about. Meaning, yes, it was destiny.

i don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. The prophecies may have come from long before Jesus or Judas, but not before God. The same argument still applies. God knew that if he lined up the players a certain way, they would behave a certain way. That doesn't require destiny, just a really good understanding of human behaviour.

We - us humans - can predict how people will behave in certain controlled situations before they are even born, simply because we know that all humans will behave that way in that situation. The more we can control a situation, the better our predictive power. God has virutally infinite control over the world, which means that he can set up situations perfectly, so that his predictive accuracy is stupidly high - so he doesn't need to know a person's destiny, or control their choices. He can set things up so that the person does what he wants by choice.

All God needed was to know a lot about human nature, and then all he had to do was set up the pieces right and let them go. That means that Judas was manipulated into doing what he did. It doesn't imply that he had no choice in the matter.

Watch:

In old testament times: God writes the prophesies about a man who will betray Jesus. He fortells that he will have red hair, and his name will be Judas. (Yes, i know those aren't real predictions, i'm just illustrating something.)
~10 BCE: God knows Jesus is scheduled to be born in a couple years, so he starts looking for candidates for the betrayer. He can see the DNA of all newborn babies, and he can see who is going to have red hair, and get a rough idea of their personalities. That narrows it down to a couple thousand candidates. He checks out their names, and that narrows it down further to a few dozen. These are the candidates for the betrayer. God now begins manipulating the events of their lives to increase the chance of them behaving the way he wants them to. Note that this does not involve controlling people's actions, just the circumstances.
~20 CE: Now it's time for Jesus to get the betrayer as his disciple. God picks the remaining candidates (those who haven't died or turned out inappropriate in the 30 years since), and selects the three of them who are most likely to do what God wants the betrayer to do. Then he manipulates the events such that the three meet Jesus, and Jesus selects them. Thus, Judas Iscariot, St. Jude (or Judas the Zealot or Thaddeus) and Thomas (or Judas Thomas Didymus) become disciples of Jesus.
~30 CE: God has manipulated events to make Thaddeus the betrayer, but Thaddeus chose not to be. No problem, the first backup, Judas Iscariot, rises to the bait. Thus Judas becomes the betrayer, and prophecy is fulfilled. (And if Judas Iscariot hadn't, then God would have tried to turn Thomas.)

Nowhere in any of that did God actually have to see the future. None of the disciples had a "destiny" either. In fact, it even allows for God to be wrong about what a person does, and still have backups to make the prophecy come true. Hell, if all three failed, he could simply recall Jesus, shake up a few plagues, floods, and other stuff to make the world completely forget about Jesus, then start over from scratch a hundred years later or more.

Just by being clever about human nature, and using his power to control events, God manipulates Judas Iscariot such that he becomes the betrayer. No destiny required. Everything Judas did, he chose to do freely. It's just that God had manipulated events so that the choices Judas made could be predicted. God didn't need to control Judas, he just "tricked" Judas into doing what he wanted. It's unethical, sure, but Judas still has his free will at all times. He just let himself be manipulated by God.
bond4154
I don't consider it really "free will" if circumstances can be manipulated. Let me put it this way. God knew several "a long time ago"s that Jesus needed to be betrayed. Someone needed to betray Jesus, right? Okay. So you argue that changing the circumstances does not constitute changing free will. I'm not sure I agree with that, but let's assume that this assumption is true. However, changing the circumstances is a domino effect. Something that was changed that made Judas want to betray Jesus had to have had another effect that was behind it. Person after person, it becomes a domino effect. Yet, to tip off all those dominos, you first have to tip off one. When you talk of prophecy, that itself is destiny, and destiny itself has no free will. It is just one path down the line, and, with the betrayal of Jesus, I don't think the Bible is inviting any room for the "you can change your destiny" line.
Indi
bond4154 wrote:
I don't consider it really "free will" if circumstances can be manipulated. Let me put it this way. God knew several "a long time ago"s that Jesus needed to be betrayed. Someone needed to betray Jesus, right? Okay. So you argue that changing the circumstances does not constitute changing free will. I'm not sure I agree with that, but let's assume that this assumption is true. However, changing the circumstances is a domino effect. Something that was changed that made Judas want to betray Jesus had to have had another effect that was behind it. Person after person, it becomes a domino effect. Yet, to tip off all those dominos, you first have to tip off one. When you talk of prophecy, that itself is destiny, and destiny itself has no free will. It is just one path down the line, and, with the betrayal of Jesus, I don't think the Bible is inviting any room for the "you can change your destiny" line.

The bible says nothing that suggests you can't change your "destiny". As a matter of fact, the basis of Judaistic theology (which forms the basis for Christian and Islamic theology) is that you have control over your own actions - without that you can hardly be held accountable for your sins.

But i don't get why you think manipulating circumstances constitutes a violation of free will. Suppose i had almost god-like powers but could not make you do anything you did not choose to do, and i want you to willingly kill someone. i could create a disaster in your area, like locusts or a tsunami, that motivates everyone to evacuate. i could then set up circumstances that put you and that guy on the same plane - by controlling the way the computer randomly selects passenger lists. Once the plane is airbourne, i could cause a failure which makes it crash in a remote location, where you and that guy are the only survivors. i could then set it up so that there is not enough food to sustain you both until rescue, but only one of you.

You still have the option of choosing not to kill the guy... it just means that you die of starvation. But the fact is that i have not done anything to prevent you from using your free will at any stage.

But that's just for a single person. If i really wanted that guy to be killed by someone, but had some choice about who could do it, then i wouldn't need to arrange it so that you're the one that ends up in that situation. i could select someone who would have no compunction about killing him in order to survive. Thus he would die exactly as i want him to, but i would not have restricted anyone's freedom of choice in order to make it happen.

You keep insisting that prophecy means destiny, and i keep saying it doesn't. All prophecy requires is someone who is very smart - not necessarily prescient, just smart. Can't you make predictions? Can't you predict that, for example, man will walk on Mars within our lifetimes? You don't need to have mystic foresight to predict this, you just have to look at the current state of the space program now and extrapolate. In fact, the more information you have, the more accurate you can make your prediction - you can probably even predict when that will happen if you're close enough to the space program. Now what if you had vast knowledge, including a perfect understanding of human nature? You could probably predict what colour the space ship will be.

But none of that means that the mission to Mars is "destiny". Even if you know everything about the plans, something could happen to cause the mission to be scrapped. However, if you not only knew everything about the plans, but you had the power to make the weather favourable for them (metaphorically and literally), it's almost less like making a prediction and more like making a promise. But it's still not violating free will, and it's still not destiny.
Cole
God is not all loving or else he wouldn't command people to be killed.

Read the old testament. To bad no one does anymore....no one ever follows it even though Jesus did say that you still have to in the new testament. He made it very clear that you have to follow it to the letter.

If anyone goes against what Jesus says they are a false prophet.
That covers anyone saying anything that goes against the old testament. So lets see.... am I dead yet? Nope damn, no christians following there religion yet.

Thank god I don't believe in all that shit and therefor do not have to follow it. It's to bad really.... I really only see the Islams actually following their religion. If you believe in the Bible you have to follow it completely or else you are doomed to go to hell. Well that covers about all the people who are Christians. To bad huh?

The great thing about being Atheist is that when someone asks me a question and I do not know, I can say "I do not know".
How did we evolve like this "To be honest I do not know. But hey, I wanna find out some day!".
Tyler
Cole wrote:
God is not all loving or else he wouldn't command people to be killed.

Read the old testament. To bad no one does anymore....no one ever follows it even though Jesus did say that you still have to in the new testament. He made it very clear that you have to follow it to the letter.

If anyone goes against what Jesus says they are a false prophet.
That covers anyone saying anything that goes against the old testament. So lets see.... am I dead yet? Nope damn, no christians following there religion yet.

Thank god I don't believe in all that shit and therefor do not have to follow it. It's to bad really.... I really only see the Islams actually following their religion. If you believe in the Bible you have to follow it completely or else you are doomed to go to hell. Well that covers about all the people who are Christians. To bad huh?

The great thing about being Atheist is that when someone asks me a question and I do not know, I can say "I do not know".
How did we evolve like this "To be honest I do not know. But hey, I wanna find out some day!".


Just so you know, I'm taking time out of my peaceful holiday to say this. You are a sick cretin. I've studied Christianity, and it doesn't say "If you don't do what the Bible says 24/7 you burn in hell." You apparently know little about theism. I'm just going to tell you, have fun telling you don't know anything about anything.

P.S. Do not expect any further replies from me to you.

Cheers,
Tyler
Cole
Quote:
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

See you in hell Tyler! You are only a test to everyone here.

Quote:
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Anyone here know a girl who isn't married and isn't a virgin?
You are suppose to kill her. How many girls have you killed? Or wait, you only have to follow this rule whenever you want to?

Quote:
I've studied Christianity, and it doesn't say "If you don't do what the Bible says 24/7 you burn in hell." You apparently know little about theism. I'm just going to tell you, have fun telling you don't know anything about anything.

Ok so it's fine to work on some sundays but not others?

"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)"
I think that made it pretty clear, ANYONE to work on the Sabbath day must die.

Quote:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

So when do you have to follow this? I'm sure you know of some town where not everyone believes in your lord.
Hmm, only whenever you want to I guess?





And to follow up on all this FROM THE MAN HIMSELF!!!!
JESUS CHRIST!
Quote:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So when does this apply? When do the teachings of your precious prophet actually apply? How many do you actually follow? How many have you not fulfillied yet? You better be such a good guy for not following these that you surpass the priests or else you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. You will be doomed.

See you in hell.
sarapicoazul
It's the other way around ! Satan created god.
bond4154
Cole

Pardon me, but, just to make myself clear, I'm actually agnostic, although I studied for two years at a Lutheran private school. I'm still agnostic, though. XD

If I remembered correctly, one of the teachers said that the Bible was a reference to the times under which it was written. We had people who did not understand science and had low living standards; it was, at the time, a possible way to govern the people. But with our social standards and, at the same time, social problems on the rise, coupled with excellent communication between humans with technology, and the expanse of science, it has become impossible for God to reign upon humans in such a way if "free will" existed. Thus, it's said that God "dropped his standards"; any man who prays to Jesus and repents for his sin gets a free ticket to heaven.

That's what the Lutheran teachers say, anyways.

I still believe that interpretations of God depend on the humans that dictate their religion, and the times in which it is in. That's just me, though. XD
Cole
I do think it is great that people do not follow the bible word for word. I however think it is horrible at the same time simply because... it's an all or nothing.

I don't know much about the Lutheran religion. However I think it would be better if rather than just updating God with the mainstream society...god rid of God and updated it to be moral values and teaching kids just that. That would help develop everything moreso than it is today. From society to science to everything.
anticitizen1
just because he was bored...
Joking.
I dont blieve in satan. thats a a Myth.
bond4154
Cole

Lutheran is a branch of Christianity derived from the German Martin Luther during the Renaissance. It's a less radical and extremist version of Christianity, you may say.
sancho
to make us see the difference(contrast) between good and evil
Rad Ultima 2
sancho wrote:
to make us see the difference(contrast) between good and evil


That is a really good way of thinking about it! It's amazing that some people type out several paragraphs of trying to explain this, and you have a small sentence that sounds just as good. Wink
Indi
Rad Ultima 2 wrote:
sancho wrote:
to make us see the difference(contrast) between good and evil


That is a really good way of thinking about it! It's amazing that some people type out several paragraphs of trying to explain this, and you have a small sentence that sounds just as good. Wink

What's truly amazing is that after three pages of discussion, someone would think that no one's thought of that before. -_-;
arkebuzer
Yantaal wrote:
wasnt satan one of gods angels or summit? the he got banned. sooooo, god being all knowing, knew this would happen, so why did god create him?


Man created religion Wink
So man made God as well as satan... at least that´s what I think.
Tyler
Man was GIVEN religion by God bayalchayd.

God created us then gave us His Word, so He GAVE it to us.

after Moses was given the Ten Commandments, Ezra and others began compiling the Torah and eventually the gospels were thrown in the mix to create the Tanakh and the Christian Bible. It was GIVEN to us.
urbanbuddha
How would one see "good" if there were not a "bad" to compare it against? Likewise, how can we say something is beautiful if we cannot look at something else and call it ugly. If there were no Satan to be the opposite of all that God stands for, would God still be good in a world without evil? Or would we just not know any better?
selzzikc
Its call a paradox
JonesyDaves
This is dangerous territory - however, God created Satan with the knowledge that he would defect, also containing the knowledge that he would pwn him in the apocalypse. Plus, the world needs a bad guy to make the good guys look... well, good.
Muslim4life
because he did
jobu
I don't believe in Satan.
baronblod2007
The devil was what I heard an angel, witch wanted more power.
God did not let him have his way, and so he started a little club, and started doing things to provote God.

This is only what I have heard, and probably someone that has mentioned this before me. Very Happy
chastise
Theoritically speaking; if there was a God, then Satan would be it's repeatance of existance or vice versa. Satan is thought to be God's brother. He wasn't evil or what not. God's duty was to create, and Satan's duty was to punish.
missdixy
Airodonack wrote:
There should be balance in the world.


I agree with this. Balance is important, I'm sure God knew that.
rayofash
Indi wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If you look at it from the persecutive it make sense, in Judaism Satan is not a rebel or a rival of God, Satan come from a Hebrew word meaning adversary or accuser. If you look at the book of Job you can understand this more. Satan in Judaism is the accuser or adversary of humans not God and his purpose is to basically test people.
In the Chrsitanperspectiv, it dose not make sence.

It doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense from that perspective either. God is love and yet he allows this being to... "test" us? By making it hard to avoid temptation and deception away from the "true path" and introducing infinite suffering as the penalty?

No matter what way you slice it, if God is good and infinitely powerful, there should be no reason for Satan and/or evil and/or suffering to exist.


Satan challanged God's authority and soveriegnty. Simply destroying him wouldn't solve the problem, because there are still the other angels. They might think Satan was right and that God destroyed him because he was afraid.

So God allows it to prove a point to, Satand, humans, and the angels, that they can't rule themselves. Have you ever read Revalation? It talks about how God plans to bring an end to Satan and his demons because suffering wasn't God's original intention. The Bible says God wishes no human to die. When he saw people sinning in the days of Noah it says he felt a pain in his heart. That's why he created Eden and put Adam and Eve in it. He wanted them to live a perfect, happy, peacefull existence. They were immortal and never felt pain. They only died after they chose to sin against God. And the price sin pays is death.

The temptation you are talking about is placed there by Satan, and the reason it's so hard to avoid is because humans are imperfect sinfull creatures. God didn't make it hard. But God forgives all sins, all you have to do is ask, and be truely sorry that you sinned.

As for Satans existance, he is an angel. Not was, is. He was created by God through Jesus like all the others. Having free will, he decided to sin against God and challange his authority. Thus he became Satan, or the Devil, which simply means opposer, or slanderer.

Also, God as the ability to see into the future, but that doesn't mean he does all the time, just as he always isn't watching us. If he were watching us all the time making sure we never did bad, that isn't true free will. The Bible says that God had his head turned or looking away at some points.
iNs@nE
jobu wrote:
I don't believe in Satan.


You believe in god..?

The whole point is - there aint god, there aint any satan.
Its all you.
If I decide to be the bad guy - then I am Satan and vice versa.
But the bloody point is - what is good and what is bad?
What bush is doing - you might consider it bad. So according to you he is another form or disciple of satan.
Ask his wife the same thing. She would say that what her husband is doing is that right thing.
So basically according to her, he is GOD..
Now how could both be in the same person? Coz they dont exist. They are just a feelin..a mere fkin feelin..!!
Blu_Spykz
Or, perhaps, the all knowing being we call God plain just made an error of judgement.

Maybe when he made the angels he demanded they follow his rule. And when Satan didn't, he saw his mistake, created us in place, and gave us free will (and then seems to have took leave of this world.)
rayofash
Blu_Spykz wrote:
Or, perhaps, the all knowing being we call God plain just made an error of judgement.

Maybe when he made the angels he demanded they follow his rule. And when Satan didn't, he saw his mistake, created us in place, and gave us free will (and then seems to have took leave of this world.)


God also created the angels in his form, they have free will, they can deicde not to follow him if they want, it wasn't demanded, Satan decided not to follow him.
Colin496
Does Satan exist? I haven't really found any real evidence that he does. I've read paradise lost and Dante's Inferno and I realize there are many popular references to him (ex. South Park). Satan seems like the kind of entity that humans would invent to create an entertaining conflict between an anthropomorphic God (good) and some anti-God (evil). The bible, while containing a great deal of good material, is far from perfect, and I think that the discussion of Satan may be one of its more dubious parts. Are there any primary source accounts of Jesus speaking about Satan??? I would highly doubt it.

Colin
HereticMonkey
Colin496 wrote:
Are there any primary source accounts of Jesus speaking about Satan??? I would highly doubt it.


Jesus never really talked about Satan. He may have have had a conversation with the guy once or twice (they did spend 40 days in the wilderness together), but he never got Satan's digits....

HM
SyncM
Like many say before without Satan no good. Like if you don't have darkness how do you compare light. But light can always take out darkness but darkness can don't take out light.

But probably was it excuse if god exist how can evil exist we need a excuse the Satan
Indi
SyncM wrote:
Like many say before without Satan no good. Like if you don't have darkness how do you compare light.

That objection has been discredited by generations of philosophers. There are dozens and dozens of ways to prove it wrong.

Here is just one sample:

There is a lot of evil in the world. Some say there's far more evil than good - and not just outright, vicious, immoral evil; there's also suffering and misery and much, much more.

To compare darkness to light, you don't need equal amounts of darkness and light. You only need one dark spot in an entire universe of light. Just one - one tiny little dark spot. Once you have that, you can see the difference between light and darkness.

So all God would need to do is to put one single, solitary speck of evil in the entire cosmos, and let us observe it. Then we would understand the difference between good and evil. Instead, we have a universe permeated by and absolutely throbbing with evil. Most of that evil is unnecessary, and teaches no one anything. It simply doesn't need to exist.

Therefore, God must have wanted us all to suffer horribly, for extended periods of time - because it wasn't necessary. Therefore, God is evil.
HereticMonkey
A better way of looking at it is that Satan is a metaphorical representation of the temptation to do something, allowing the person to argue giving into the temptation or not. At no point in The Bible does he do anything that's truly evil; arrogant, trouble-making, even acting as the agent of choice, but never evil.

This is not to say The Bible doesn't have evil; it's just that it defines evil, generally, as making bad choices. If you look at the Seven Deadly Sins, each is best defined as allowing your basest nature to take over, just as the Seven Graces are going with one's higher nature.

HM
Henk_de_Vries
If God exists (idk), there must be an equal which is the opposite but has thesame powers.
Indi
Henk_de_Vries wrote:
If God exists (idk), there must be an equal which is the opposite but has thesame powers.

"Must"? Why?
Sajttam
What's so wrong with Satan, I feel his philosophy is much more appealing than gods. Why not live as our flesh compels us to as that is the one way to reach real happiness. God can't and won't make you happy.
Genius
I've heard about this God-Satan misinterpretating in the news in Australia. It is discovered that Devil is a follower/brother or some other relationship with God and was given the task to test other followers. I am not sure about other things but it was a recent discovery (ie. afew months ago; last year). However, over the centuries, Satan was being regarded as opposition/enemy of God by the followers.
HereticMonkey
Sajttam wrote:
What's so wrong with Satan, I feel his philosophy is much more appealing than gods. Why not live as our flesh compels us to as that is the one way to reach real happiness. God can't and won't make you happy.


I hate sometimes Crying or Very sad ...It means I occasionally miss stuff like this...

1) I sort of agree that God can't make you happy; there's that free will thingy. If you want to be a morose person, then that's your decision and God's willing to go with you on that. On the other hand, by following His suggestions, you can live a happier life.

2) The main difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Satanism is based off short-term happiness and Christianity is more long-term. It's sort of like comparing masturbation to great sex: Satanism's high you can get pretty much any time and it really doesn't take much effort, while Christianity takes more work, but is more satisfying if you take the time to do it right. (And the analogy isn't that far off considering certain writings...) Satanism tends to be geared to the individual; Christianity tends to be geared to the group.

3) Genius: Obligatory: HUH? Satan WAS a follower of a God's (leading the Heavenly Host and all that) but tried to take over Heaven and was thus cast out (as per Genesis). He now acts to tempt humanity (as per Job and his camping trip with Jesus).

Er...What was this discovery, and what was it's nature?

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
1) I sort of agree that God can't make you happy; there's that free will thingy. If you want to be a morose person, then that's your decision and God's willing to go with you on that. On the other hand, by following His suggestions, you can live a happier life.

So God can't make you happy. Is there anything else God is unable to do?

HereticMonkey wrote:
2) The main difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Satanism is based off short-term happiness and Christianity is more long-term. It's sort of like comparing masturbation to great sex: Satanism's high you can get pretty much any time and it really doesn't take much effort, while Christianity takes more work, but is more satisfying if you take the time to do it right. (And the analogy isn't that far off considering certain writings...) Satanism tends to be geared to the individual; Christianity tends to be geared to the group.

That has to be the lamest analogy I have ever seen that wasn't meant to be a joke. It wasn't meant to be a joke, was it?

So what am I supposed to infer from that analogy? That if I get a bunch of my friends together and have a raging religious orgy - choosing to "follow" a bunch of religions all at once - I'll have it even better? That if I practice Satanism a lot I can get really, really good at it to the point that Christianity pales by comparison? That if I don't get informed consent from the person I'm evangelizing Christianity to, that's rape? That I can pick up a disease from Christianity but not Satanism?

Man, the purpose of an analogy is to illustrate something that isn't as clear by the words along. If I take all that sex shit out of what you wrote, I get: "The main difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Satanism is based off short-term happiness and Christianity is more long-term. Satanism's high you can get pretty much any time and it really doesn't take much effort, while Christianity takes more work, but is more satisfying if you take the time to do it right. Satanism tends to be geared to the individual; Christianity tends to be geared to the group." Taking out the analogy made it easier to understand. So what was the point of the damn analogy, other than as an excuse to use the word masturbation in a conversation?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Satan WAS a follower of a God's (leading the Heavenly Host and all that) but tried to take over Heaven and was thus cast out (as per Genesis).

As per where in Genesis?
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

So God can't make you happy. Is there anything else God is unable to do?

If it involves going against an individual's free will...but that's about it. He could adjust it through outside actions are intensify your emotions, but otherwise He has no limitations...

Quote:
That has to be the lamest analogy I have ever seen that wasn't meant to be a joke. It wasn't meant to be a joke, was it?

Not really. I've been hit with a lot of sex analogies lately...it was all I could think of...

Quote:
So what am I supposed to infer from that analogy? That if I get a bunch of my friends together and have a raging religious orgy - choosing to "follow" a bunch of religions all at once - I'll have it even better? That if I practice Satanism a lot I can get really, really good at it to the point that Christianity pales by comparison? That if I don't get informed consent from the person I'm evangelizing Christianity to, that's rape? That I can pick up a disease from Christianity but not Satanism?

I'm guessing...rough day?

I mean, if you really had to follow the analogy that far, then:
1) Yes, you could have a religious orgy, and that interesting revelations do seem to come from looking at a number of religions at once.
2) You could never get good enough at Satanism to be better than Christianity. I mean, there's just so far you can go by myself...
3) Evangelizing without permission has been considered rape for centuries now; why should that change now?
4) No, you can't catch a disease from Satansm; it's just a sign that you can't really get laid by any other means and need to go with a...substitute.

Quote:
So what was the point of the damn analogy, other than as an excuse to use the word masturbation in a conversation?

Sorry; I'll try to keep my analogies above the belt from now on....

[/quote]As per where in Genesis?[/quote]
Sorry, wrong books: Ezekiel and Isaiah.

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
If it involves going against an individual's free will...but that's about it. He could adjust it through outside actions are intensify your emotions, but otherwise He has no limitations...

God can influence our emotions, but he can't make us happy. He is unable to "go against" our "free will", but he can presumably intensify our happiness by external means even if we wish to be sad, and vice versa.

Nope. No logical contradictions there. -_-

HereticMonkey wrote:
I'm guessing...rough day?

Oh yes. That must be it. You throw out opionated crap demeaning other people's belief systems and pretend that there is is a rational reason to believe it, or at least that it is "common sense". I respond by point out that it's just crap. And it must be because I'm being a bitch. Ya. That's what it's gotta be.

HereticMonkey wrote:
I mean, if you really had to follow the analogy that far, then:
1) Yes, you could have a religious orgy, and that interesting revelations do seem to come from looking at a number of religions at once.
2) You could never get good enough at Satanism to be better than Christianity. I mean, there's just so far you can go by myself...
3) Evangelizing without permission has been considered rape for centuries now; why should that change now?
4) No, you can't catch a disease from Satansm; it's just a sign that you can't really get laid by any other means and need to go with a...substitute.

Just for kicks:
1) Given the apparent benefits, it is interesting how both the actual shopping around of religions, and the analogous orgy, are totally against the teachings and dogma of Christianity. Christianity demands monogomy (figuratively as well as literally), but you claim that true enlightenment would require "cheating" on Christianity? You would also tell your partner that sex with him is not as good as sex with him and a dozen other people might be? Good luck. Hey, he might even be down with that if they're all girls.
2) Speak for yourself.
3) Is that so? Evangelical Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons... they are all on par with rapists, you claim? You must be a hit at parties.
4) So Satanism is just a poor substitute for Christianity for pathetic souls that can't "get" Christianity? How very tolerant of you. Not to mention that you managed to diss celibates in the same sentence. Nicely done.

Anyway, my point was that it was a stupid analogy. Why analogize Christianity/Satanism to sex/masturbation? What do those two things have in common?

Nothing.

It was just a way to disguise the fact that you were barfing up a load of totally random opinions that have no basis in fact. Look, here are your claims again, with the idiotic analogy taken out: "The main difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Satanism is based off short-term happiness and Christianity is more long-term. Satanism's high you can get pretty much any time and it really doesn't take much effort, while Christianity takes more work, but is more satisfying if you take the time to do it right. Satanism tends to be geared to the individual; Christianity tends to be geared to the group." Now back any of those claims up with actual facts, if you can, instead of just lame analogies.

Here, I'll take the first stabs at it, only goin the opposite way. "The main difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Satanism is based off short-term happiness and Christianity is more long-term." Bullshit. (Modern) Satanism is "based off" the idea that there is no god, and that we should find happiness ourselves (or, more precisely, you make your own gods). If Satanists are right that there is no god, then their philosophy offers happiness here - and the afterlife, if any, will be another problem; meanwhile Christians offer misery here in comparison - and the afterlife is another problem (even if they smarten up and become Satanists in the afterlife, it's already too late - the original Satanists have already had some happiness the Christians never will). Happiness advantage: Satanism. Since Christianity's underlying theme is that you should turn away from happiness here to find happiness later, the only way you can argue that Christianity offers more happiness is if there is a later, and if it is the way the Christian expects it to be. In other words, Christianity is only better if Christianity is right. Circular logic. (Other forms of Satanism are different, but the idea always comes back to the same circular logic.)

How about this turd: "Satanism's high you can get pretty much any time and it really doesn't take much effort, while Christianity takes more work, but is more satisfying if you take the time to do it right." Do you even know what Satanism is? Do you know what the fundamental rules of the Satanist are? The Satanist believes that you should never follow the teachings of anyone, you should always think for yourself and find your own answers. And that's easier? Since when? How is it harder to believe the words of a preacher without any logical analysis then join a Christian support group to help you stay dumb and in line for the rest of your days?

And then this: "Satanism tends to be geared to the individual; Christianity tends to be geared to the group." Ya? Only in that it requires more of the individual. It requires them to be open-minded, critical, and more. But to say Christianity is geared to the group in general is absurd. Come on man. It's not the group that Christianity purports to save or damn, it's the individual. "Accept Jesus as your personal saviour"? Have a personal relationship with God? Those all sound highly individualistic to me. In fact, is there any teaching in Christianity that benefits the group (outside of the assortment of laws about not stealing, not killing and "do unto others", which are Satanist teachings, too, as well as totally secular ones)? Isn't everything about the whole religion about the individual? By contrast, since Satanism demands learning and introspection and forbids forcing your conclusions on others, doesn't that mean that by definition Satanism will, over time, lead to an increase in human knowlege without an increase in human suffering (obviously I mean an increase in human suffering caused by Satanism, but sometimes it suprises me what some people don't see as obvious)?
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

Nope. No logical contradictions there. -_-

Not really. The only times that God has forced the issue (such as hardening Pharoah's heart) the decision had already been made. Even with Jonah, God has said to go or there would be consequences; Jonah didn't go and there were consequences. Nonetheless, the decision had been Jonah's. Free will was in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had a choice to eat or not to eat, and they decided to eat.

Quote:
Oh yes. That must be it. You throw out opionated crap demeaning other people's belief systems and pretend that there is is a rational reason to believe it, or at least that it is "common sense". I respond by point out that it's just crap. And it must be because I'm being a bitch. Ya. That's what it's gotta be.

Making the mental note: It's fine for you to demean my religion, but the second I look like I'm making fun of yours, it's no longer okay. Usually, you're a brilliant debater, and have even been fair about arguing both sides. The sole exception is when it looks like atheism, or some form comes under attack, or when you have a legitimate opportunity to attack Christianity. Another consideration is that by attacking the analogy, you are forcing me to defend it, rather than letting it drop; it's recognized by a number of groups that masturbation is a perfectly fine way to relieve stress and I'm not using it as a means to demean a religion. You're just taking it that way...

In a very basic way, it's not. The analogy may be messed up, but it does apply. Mosts of the posts re: La Vey Satanism point out that it's ultimately a selfish religion; it's best when the individual considers the effect of things from his perspective and virtually ignores any other perspective outside of what it gets him. Satanism is a religion very keyed to the individual.

By the same token, when Christianity is considered in terms of the group (rather than from one's personal glory or greed), it does pretty well. Most of the wars and inquisitions were started by individuals looking for personal glory or greed rather than the effects on the society as a whole). Charities, sanctuaries, art, science, and even society as a whole have made incredible strides when supported by the church, in whatever incarnation was present at the time. Take out the individuals, and Christianity tends to do fine.


Quote:
"The main difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Satanism is based off short-term happiness and Christianity is more long-term." Bullshit.

Ignoring the lack or not of a deity for a second, these are legitimate points. Satanism does seemed to be keyed into an individual's rights and that the individual needs to take charge of his life regardless of what others think. You may recognize the leadership and rights of others, but only in the sense that they are how you wish to be treated rather than some great respect for others. Once you're dead, that's it. That's short-term logic.

Conversely, Christianity stresses that serving others is the greater good, and that selfishness is the greatest sin. Charity is one of the seven graces, after all. Christians tend to look at the big picture, and generally have no problem with even forgoing rights, if the benefit to the group is big enough. On the other hand, it has also been the biggest supporter of civil rights, recognizing that everyone has some basic rights (the biggest debate in civil rights tends not to be whether or not civil rights can be granted to everyone, but can those rights be given without causing chaos in society). That's more representative of long-term logic.

I've never figured out where the logic of "Christianity delaying happiness" comes from; The Bible itself stresses having joy. Heck, what's the point in having a day off when you're not supposed to enjoy it? If joy is to be ignored, then why did Jesus turn water into wine so a wedding party could be extended? And that's ignoring wide swaths of Psalms...

Quote:
"Satanism's high you can get pretty much any time and it really doesn't take much effort, while Christianity takes more work, but is more satisfying if you take the time to do it right." Do you even know what Satanism is? Do you know what the fundamental rules of the Satanist are?

Yes, I do. It would be pretty hard to ignore when they've been posted a lot lately...

Quote:
The Satanist believes that you should never follow the teachings of anyone, you should always think for yourself and find your own answers. And that's easier? Since when? How is it harder to believe the words of a preacher without any logical analysis then join a Christian support group to help you stay dumb and in line for the rest of your days?

Why do you always play the stereotype card? You are aware that those "support groups" are actually "study groups", and regularly question what they've been taught, right? Especially women study groups; although they still agree that the man is nominally in charge, the key word is "nominally" (they've found plenty of ways in which women are the ones in actual command).


Quote:
Isn't everything about the whole religion about the individual? By contrast, since Satanism demands learning and introspection and forbids forcing your conclusions on others, doesn't that mean that by definition Satanism will, over time, lead to an increase in human knowlege without an increase in human suffering (obviously I mean an increase in human suffering caused by Satanism, but sometimes it suprises me what some people don't see as obvious)?

Here's the catch: You can't have advances in science without forcing your beliefs unto others, even if it's paying them to do something for you or finding volunteers. Ironically, modern Satanism would have done better in the Middle Ages when you could know almost everything, rather than today when you need a certain level of unquestioning teamwork to do just about anything. That is, you could work by yourself then, but need to force your will a bit now. Just as an observation...

HM
HoChiMo
the_mariska wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I really don't know; this puzzles me as well.
My only guess is that to truly have free will, we had to have an alternitive to God's guidance.

The problem 'why did God create Satan' is exactly the same problem as 'why did God create us sinful'. It seems a bit weird, as He could create as well perfect human beings that would love everyone and everything, would never make anyone suffer or lead wars, and would live exactly the way a human being should live. Wonerful idea, isn't it? But in such a case, we would be only puppets, nothing more.

In my opinion He treats us seriously, that's why He wanted to give us the opportunity to make our own decisions. Even though He knew, we wouldn't agree with Him in everything. Even though He knew, that not following his tips we would do harm to ourselves and the others. Even though He knew, that we will continuously ignore Him, offend Him, intentionally turn away from Him and do exactly the opposite of His will. He left us perfect advices what to do to be truly happy in our lifes, but didn't want to force us to do so. He would love us to choose Him in our lifes, but He leaves it as our choice. This is what I would call the perfect love.

[EDIT]: Whoaaa, I almost forgot. What does it all has to do with Satan? Satan is a spiritual being, similar to us, but not having a material body. And he [or maybe there are plenty of them] is the one that chose to turn away from God once and for all. And God accepted his decision as He accepts our decisions. That's all.


damn. thats basically all I wanted to write.

thanks anyway. Wink
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
Indi wrote:

Nope. No logical contradictions there. -_-

Not really. The only times that God has forced the issue (such as hardening Pharoah's heart) the decision had already been made. Even with Jonah, God has said to go or there would be consequences; Jonah didn't go and there were consequences. Nonetheless, the decision had been Jonah's. Free will was in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had a choice to eat or not to eat, and they decided to eat.

? None of that deals with the contradiction I was talking about.

"God can't make you happy". "He could adjust it through outside actions are intensify your emotions" (which doesn't make sense grammatically, so I read it as "He could adjust [your free will] through outside actions [and] intensify your emotions"). Those two claims are in contradiction.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Making the mental note: It's fine for you to demean my religion, but the second I look like I'm making fun of yours, it's no longer okay.

And my religion is?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Usually, you're a brilliant debater, and have even been fair about arguing both sides. The sole exception is when it looks like atheism, or some form comes under attack, or when you have a legitimate opportunity to attack Christianity.

The moment you introduce Christianity into a debate as a means to disparage another religion, it's open season. You brought Satansism into the debate. The person you were responding to didn't even mention it, he just talked about Satan's "philosophy", whatever that is. Biblically, Satan's "philosophy" is nothing more than "****** God"; Satan's "philosophy" has absolutely no relation to Satanism's philosophy. Out of nowhere you start talking about the differences between Satanism and Christianity, as if that were somehow relevant, and called Satanism religious masturbating, portraying Christianity as somehow more noble and fulfilling. Open season.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Another consideration is that by attacking the analogy, you are forcing me to defend it, rather than letting it drop;

I'm "forcing you to defend it"? ^_^ Are you serious? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds - especially in light of the fact that you've already admitted that it was just the first thing that popped into your mind?

I'm "forcing you to defend it"? ^_^ Why do you have to defend it? Why can't you just say: "Gee Anna, I just pulled the analogy out of my ass. I guess it is a little shaky, and really kind of pointless. Ok, forget about it."?

HereticMonkey wrote:
it's recognized by a number of groups that masturbation is a perfectly fine way to relieve stress and I'm not using it as a means to demean a religion. You're just taking it that way...

*ahem* "it's just a sign that you can't really get laid by any other means and need to go with a...substitute." Don't project your ignorance and bigotry on me.

HereticMonkey wrote:
In a very basic way, it's not. The analogy may be messed up, but it does apply. Mosts of the posts re: La Vey Satanism point out that it's ultimately a selfish religion; it's best when the individual considers the effect of things from his perspective and virtually ignores any other perspective outside of what it gets him. Satanism is a religion very keyed to the individual.

By the same token, when Christianity is considered in terms of the group (rather than from one's personal glory or greed), it does pretty well. Most of the wars and inquisitions were started by individuals looking for personal glory or greed rather than the effects on the society as a whole). Charities, sanctuaries, art, science, and even society as a whole have made incredible strides when supported by the church, in whatever incarnation was present at the time. Take out the individuals, and Christianity tends to do fine.

Just because "most" of the posts say something doesn't mean that that's true.

But I tell you what. Let's play a little game called Think. It takes practice, but I think you'll pick it up if you try. Now, you say Christianty is less individualistic because it promotes charity (for example). Now: think. Why does it promote charity? As is typical, the bible is kinda contradictory on the matter, and actually gives two answers (funny enough, both are in one book, in adjacent chapters). Let's look at them both! Answer 1: so that other people will see your good deeds and think "hey, Christians are nice people... maybe it's this God person that makes them nice...." Now, how is that not selfish? God wants you to go out and do good deeds (when he is perfectly capable of doing them himself), just so you can be seen, so he can get the glory. That's pretty damned selfish, I'd say. Answer 2: so that God will see you doing the good deeds, and give you bonus points for judgement day. Again, this "selfless charity" turns out to be a very selfish act, done for the sole purpose of increasing one's standing with God. That's not caring for others - the caring for others schtick is a side-effect - that's all about taking care of your own soul. You can play this game for any putative Christian virtue, and it always comes back to the same thing: if there is any external benefit to any Christian action, it is only a side effect - the main goal is always to impress God so that your soul gets a better seat at the table in heaven.

Now, compare Satanism. There is no god. There isn't even any Satan. So, what is the motive for the rule "do not steal" in Satanism? Why should it tell you not to steal? Why not "if you can get away with it, steal"? Wouldn't the latter rule benefit the individual more? If Satanism is ultimately individualistic, there's no real rationality behind that rule - and several others - and those rules shouldn't be there. Therefore, Satanism is not really ultimately individualistic. (By comparison, the rule "do not steal" in Christianity could just be another case of God instructing his flock/herd/whatever to do things that make him look good, and the Christian who follows it is not doing so because it doesn't harm other people but because he's doing what God says in order to keep his soul in the good books.)

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
"The main difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Satanism is based off short-term happiness and Christianity is more long-term." Bullshit.

Ignoring the lack or not of a deity for a second, these are legitimate points. Satanism does seemed to be keyed into an individual's rights and that the individual needs to take charge of his life regardless of what others think. You may recognize the leadership and rights of others, but only in the sense that they are how you wish to be treated rather than some great respect for others. Once you're dead, that's it. That's short-term logic.

If death is the total end of everything, then a philosophy that lasts until death is as long-term as you can get. And if death is not the end, Satanism doesn't give you any instructions on what to do afterwards because it doesn't presuppose anything there. Satanism prescribes happiness for the entirety of the span for which Satanism claims validity. Christianity, on the other hand, promises that the more you suffer here, the better off your afterlife will be. So it does not prescribe happiness for the entirely of the span for which it claims validity. Furthermore, whether there is an afterlife or not, Satanism gives you at least some happiness - the happiness you have here. But if Christianity is wrong, then there is a chance that you will never, ever experience happiness or freedom.

You keep applying Christian values and logic to Satanism. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. What if I used the Koran to show you what's wrong with Christianity? Would you take me seriously?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
The Satanist believes that you should never follow the teachings of anyone, you should always think for yourself and find your own answers. And that's easier? Since when? How is it harder to believe the words of a preacher without any logical analysis then join a Christian support group to help you stay dumb and in line for the rest of your days?

Why do you always play the stereotype card? You are aware that those "support groups" are actually "study groups", and regularly question what they've been taught, right? Especially women study groups; although they still agree that the man is nominally in charge, the key word is "nominally" (they've found plenty of ways in which women are the ones in actual command).

Just a few short paragraphs ago I was a "brilliant debater", and now I "always play the stereotype card"? Alright? O.o

Anyway, I don't even know what stereotype you're talking about. The hell is a study group? The hell was all that randomness about women? I was talking about churches.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Isn't everything about the whole religion about the individual? By contrast, since Satanism demands learning and introspection and forbids forcing your conclusions on others, doesn't that mean that by definition Satanism will, over time, lead to an increase in human knowlege without an increase in human suffering (obviously I mean an increase in human suffering caused by Satanism, but sometimes it suprises me what some people don't see as obvious)?

Here's the catch: You can't have advances in science without forcing your beliefs unto others, even if it's paying them to do something for you or finding volunteers. Ironically, modern Satanism would have done better in the Middle Ages when you could know almost everything, rather than today when you need a certain level of unquestioning teamwork to do just about anything. That is, you could work by yourself then, but need to force your will a bit now. Just as an observation...

Guh? O.o

What in the bloody blazes of hell are you talking about? O.o

"You can't have advances in science without forcing your beliefs unto others, even if it's paying them to do something for you or finding volunteers." What? O.o

I... man, I don't even know how to respond. There's not a rational, coherent thought anywhere in that paragraph.
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

? None of that deals with the contradiction I was talking about.

"God can't make you happy". "He could adjust it through outside actions are intensify your emotions" (which doesn't make sense grammatically, so I read it as "He could adjust [your free will] through outside actions [and] intensify your emotions"). Those two claims are in contradiction.

The jerk in me goes: "How?"


Quote:
And my religion is?

I've been going with a default atheist as you haven't exactly been clear on it. Nonetheless, it's relatively unimportant; any time anyone says something bad about atheists, good about Christians, or is making an attack on Christianity, you leap to the fore.

Quote:
The moment you introduce Christianity into a debate as a means to disparage another religion, it's open season.

Except that I didn't bring Christianity into the conversation in order to disparage another religion. I'm just noting that it's a different path with different goals; if someone chooses a path that's more oriented towards short or long term goals, that's their decision and both paths are equally valid. There's worlds of difference between noting differences and saying that one is superior to the other. Yet again, you're seeing an attack when there isn't one.

Quote:
You brought Satansism into the debate. The person you were responding to didn't even mention it, he just talked about Satan's "philosophy", whatever that is.

Huh? So how did I bring Satanism into the debate if the person above me discussed Satan's philosophy? Especially given that there are several different stripes of Satanism? Isn't it acceptable to discuss them, especially in a thread about Satan?

Quote:
Biblically, Satan's "philosophy" is nothing more than "****** God"; Satan's "philosophy" has absolutely no relation to Satanism's philosophy.

Actually, it's not; Satan's philosophy, as shown and demonstrated throughout The Bible, is to tempt people into acting for their own interest. That's perfectly within the bounds of LeVey Satanism, which has a definite self-interest flavor in it.

Quote:
Out of nowhere you start talking about the differences between Satanism and Christianity, as if that were somehow relevant, and called Satanism religious masturbating, portraying Christianity as somehow more noble and fulfilling. Open season.

Your perspective. Masturbation, just as sex, has its place; neither is particularly better. Most sex therapists and even at least one surgeon general of the US have pointed out that masturbation should be considered just as valid as sex, and perhaps safer. You've attached far more value to the difference than I would have...


Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Another consideration is that by attacking the analogy, you are forcing me to defend it, rather than letting it drop;

I'm "forcing you to defend it"? ^_^ Why do you have to defend it? Why can't you just say: "Gee Anna, I just pulled the analogy out of my ass. I guess it is a little shaky, and really kind of pointless. Ok, forget about it."?

I actually sort of did.

Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
it's recognized by a number of groups that masturbation is a perfectly fine way to relieve stress and I'm not using it as a means to demean a religion. You're just taking it that way...

*ahem* "it's just a sign that you can't really get laid by any other means and need to go with a...substitute." Don't project your ignorance and bigotry on me.

I'm guessing you've heard of neither Dr. Ruth Weisenheimer (sp?) nor ex-US Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders? Dr. Ruth had no problem pointing out that masturbation was a necessary part of a sexually mature person's sex life, and Dr. Elders suggested that it would actually be better than abstinence in terms of avoiding STD's (especially AIDS), and considered the Christian issues with it to be backwards. Neither presumed, and in fact went to lengths in order to remove the stigma associated with it. And that's ignoring the lesbian and gay literature on the subject.

Bottom Line: You're putting more of a negative spin on it than I am...

Quote:
But I tell you what. Let's play a little game called Think. It takes practice, but I think you'll pick it up if you try.

Please note the derogatory tone of this statement.

[statement of how charity is selfishness and how selfishness is good]

Except...you're ignoring that God promotes people doing things for themselves; not only is this explicitly stated several times, but even Jesus refuses at times to do miracles just for the sake of taking an easier route. In general, the only times miracles happen is when something important has to happen, and only as long as needed. Charity is an outgrowth of this, as it allows a group to pool its resources and have a better chance of survival. In essence, if something promotes the group at the cost of the individual, how is that selfish?

On the other hand you mentioned stealing. Is not taking what you deserve an aspect of Satanism? What about only respecting those laws that can be enforced? So, if I can steal something and get away with it, especially if eliminates a potential or current rival, then what aspect of Satanism have I overlooked? After all, I've not done anything essentially wrong if I haven't gotten caught, and I haven't technically caused him harm (after all, if the item in question was so important, why wasn't it guarded better or better taken care of?).

Quote:
You keep applying Christian values and logic to Satanism. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. What if I used the Koran to show you what's wrong with Christianity? Would you take me seriously?


Not really; I'm trying to demonstrate that there are certain fallacies at work here. The "Christianity doesn't promote fun" argument that you keep espousing doesn't apply as much as you think it does, and is probably the worst argument you've presented.

Just because I've purposely limited my options doesn't mean that I'm necessarily naive; it merely means that I've decided that I don't need the full list of options. You don't look down on a vegetarian because they limit themselves to certain foods; rather, you respect that person (unless, of course, they're doing it for non-philosophical reasons, but that's something that I think that we'd agree on).

In short: You can either pick the entire menu (Satanism) or a few specific items to concentrate on (Christianity). However, it doesn't mean that either path is necessarily better than either...just different.

Quote:
Anyway, I don't even know what stereotype you're talking about. The hell is a study group? The hell was all that randomness about women? I was talking about churches.

Specifically, you had mentioned support groups, which church's actually has, and which tend to be ruled by women. In other words: I'm guessing that you attempted to equate churches with support groups, not being aware that that churches already had that in place.

Quote:
"You can't have advances in science without forcing your beliefs unto others, even if it's paying them to do something for you or finding volunteers." What? O.o

I... man, I don't even know how to respond. There's not a rational, coherent thought anywhere in that paragraph.

Again with the derogatory remarks Wink ...

Try this then: Biblical Satanism doesn't care about advancing the society; although advances can be used to tempt people, if the society advances too far then there is nothing to tempt anyone with (after all, it actually becomes easier to get yourself instead of relying on someone else, or the temptation is replaced by something else). A LaVeyan Satanist needs the status quo (it seems to respect Machivellian, which requires a static playing field, something advances tend to disrupt).

[Note that I'm not trying to portray either as old serial villains. Just trying to show that society advancing on any level is bad for Satanism of any stripe.]

On the other hand, by occasionally disrupting the playing field, you can shake people up and get rid of corrupt structures, hopefully replacing it with a better structure...which is something that Christianity has shown it doesn't mind doing once in a while...

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
Indi wrote:

? None of that deals with the contradiction I was talking about.

"God can't make you happy". "He could adjust it through outside actions are intensify your emotions" (which doesn't make sense grammatically, so I read it as "He could adjust [your free will] through outside actions [and] intensify your emotions"). Those two claims are in contradiction.

The jerk in me goes: "How?"

The intelligent person in me answers: "By alternately stating that God is unable to make you happy yet able to control your free will and emotions." Influence means indirect or intangible control, but it's still control.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
And my religion is?

I've been going with a default atheist as you haven't exactly been clear on it. Nonetheless, it's relatively unimportant; any time anyone says something bad about atheists, good about Christians, or is making an attack on Christianity, you leap to the fore.

Don't forget the Muslims! Maybe you only hang around threads that mention Christianity, positively or negatively, but don't assume I do. I've turned to torch to Muslims and anti-Muslims, too. There haven't really been any discussions about Hindus, Bhuddists, Jews, or anything else worth jumping in, or I'd be all those too.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
The moment you introduce Christianity into a debate as a means to disparage another religion, it's open season.

Except that I didn't bring Christianity into the conversation in order to disparage another religion. I'm just noting that it's a different path with different goals; if someone chooses a path that's more oriented towards short or long term goals, that's their decision and both paths are equally valid. There's worlds of difference between noting differences and saying that one is superior to the other. Yet again, you're seeing an attack when there isn't one.

If it were true that you were merely pointing out the differences in philosophy, then explain the "substitute" comment.

You can try and worm and weasel it anyway you like, but you were disparaging Satanism, pure and simple. That is the only interpretion of your words that makes sense. If that wasn't your intention, then you should apologize for misstating your position, not tell me I'm wrong for not guessing correctly at your "real" intentions when you weren't being clear.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
You brought Satansism into the debate. The person you were responding to didn't even mention it, he just talked about Satan's "philosophy", whatever that is.

Huh? So how did I bring Satanism into the debate if the person above me discussed Satan's philosophy? Especially given that there are several different stripes of Satanism? Isn't it acceptable to discuss them, especially in a thread about Satan?

There are several different kinds of Satanism, but none of them have anything in common philosophically with the biblical portrayal of Satan. Furthermore, LaVeyan Satanism doesn't even believe Satan exists (or God for that matter), they just use him as a figurehead for LaVey's philosophy, so how could a question about Satan's philosophy have anything to do about LaVeyan Satanism?

And no, it is not acceptible to discuss any of those things in a thread about why God created Satan. Especially when there are already threads about Satanism.

A thread abut why God created Satan is, in essence, a thread about the problem of evil. It has nothing to do with Satanism, in any form.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Biblically, Satan's "philosophy" is nothing more than "****** God"; Satan's "philosophy" has absolutely no relation to Satanism's philosophy.

Actually, it's not; Satan's philosophy, as shown and demonstrated throughout The Bible, is to tempt people into acting for their own interest. That's perfectly within the bounds of LeVey Satanism, which has a definite self-interest flavor in it.

Actually, you don't have a clue what you're talking about with regards to Satanism (I'll get more into the details of this when I get to the stealing part). And this is after you stated that you were familiar with Satanism because so many people have talked about it. Perhaps you should actually go to the research?

First of all, Satan's philosophy, as shown and demonstrated throughout the bible, is not to tempt people into acting for their own interest. It is to fool people into turning away from God, which is most certainly not in their own interest. On top of that Satan does horrible, horrible things to people - how is that in their interest? Satan's philosophy, biblically speaking, is nothing more and nothing less than "****** God", and any people he talks to he's just using as means to that end, with no interest in their well-being at all.

Secondly, saying that any religion has a self-interested flavour is a tautology. The fundamental message of Christianity, for example, is "accept Jesus as your saviour from your sin and you will get eternal bliss - reject and you will die". That's pretty damned self-interested. Satanism, no matter what form you take, is offering something good for you too. Every religion is. The only question is what does that religion offer for anyone else, in addition to the benefits promised you. LaVeyan Satanism offers the promise to everyone else that the practicing Satanist will not do anything to harm them, ever, unless they harm him first. Other forms of Satanism have different offers. Christianity? Varies from book to book (and sometimes verse to verse), but in general the idea is that everything you do has one final motivation - getting in good with God; any benefits to anyone else are side-effects. There are no guarantees of safety or non-interference to non-Christians (as evidenced by the Christian organizations trying to enact hateful laws about things like homosexuality that will apply to non-Christians) - you will undoubtedly say "what about 'do unto others'", to which I would reply "it is superseded by dozens of verses, such as 'suffer not a witch to live'".

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Out of nowhere you start talking about the differences between Satanism and Christianity, as if that were somehow relevant, and called Satanism religious masturbating, portraying Christianity as somehow more noble and fulfilling. Open season.

Your perspective. Masturbation, just as sex, has its place; neither is particularly better. Most sex therapists and even at least one surgeon general of the US have pointed out that masturbation should be considered just as valid as sex, and perhaps safer. You've attached far more value to the difference than I would have...

Don't you lecture me about the benefits of masturbation. You're the one who said that it's just for people who can't get laid.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Another consideration is that by attacking the analogy, you are forcing me to defend it, rather than letting it drop;

I'm "forcing you to defend it"? ^_^ Why do you have to defend it? Why can't you just say: "Gee Anna, I just pulled the analogy out of my ass. I guess it is a little shaky, and really kind of pointless. Ok, forget about it."?

I actually sort of did.

Right before launching into a defence of it... when you knew it was lame.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
it's recognized by a number of groups that masturbation is a perfectly fine way to relieve stress and I'm not using it as a means to demean a religion. You're just taking it that way...

*ahem* "it's just a sign that you can't really get laid by any other means and need to go with a...substitute." Don't project your ignorance and bigotry on me.

I'm guessing you've heard of neither Dr. Ruth Weisenheimer (sp?) nor ex-US Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders? Dr. Ruth had no problem pointing out that masturbation was a necessary part of a sexually mature person's sex life, and Dr. Elders suggested that it would actually be better than abstinence in terms of avoiding STD's (especially AIDS), and considered the Christian issues with it to be backwards. Neither presumed, and in fact went to lengths in order to remove the stigma associated with it. And that's ignoring the lesbian and gay literature on the subject.

Bottom Line: You're putting more of a negative spin on it than I am...

Again, you have no right to lecture me. You are the one who put a negative spin on it. Any negativity I might have brought to the discussion was when I was repeating your words.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
But I tell you what. Let's play a little game called Think. It takes practice, but I think you'll pick it up if you try.

Please note the derogatory tone of this statement.

I see no need to respect someone that has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for others. You dissed Satanists and celibates in a single post, and ever since have been defending those intolerant statements. No, I'm not gonna pat you on the head for that.

Now, just as an aside, I should point out that our policy when defending any argument is to try to think like whatever we're defending. When defending Christianity, we think like Christians. When defending Islam we think like Muslims. And now, we're Satanists. Technically speaking, by reacting so vehemently, we are acting out the Satanist philosophy.

But of course, you should know that already if you know the Satanist philosophy so well.

HereticMonkey wrote:
[statement of how charity is selfishness and how selfishness is good]

Except...you're ignoring that God promotes people doing things for themselves; not only is this explicitly stated several times, but even Jesus refuses at times to do miracles just for the sake of taking an easier route. In general, the only times miracles happen is when something important has to happen, and only as long as needed. Charity is an outgrowth of this, as it allows a group to pool its resources and have a better chance of survival. In essence, if something promotes the group at the cost of the individual, how is that selfish?

You're still not playing the Think game. First of all, forget what Jesus allegedly did and why, because every single action he made was part of a grand master plan. Anyone he cured wasn't for their benefit, it was in order to solidify his own reputation - and anyone he didn't cure, or any time he didn't use his superpowers, was simply because it didn't suit his agenda to. If he really was God, he could have wiped out disease and suffering, but he didn't because it didn't work for his game. How is that not selfish?

Second, I'm going to assume you're not talking about charity only towards other Christians, because that's so obviously selfish it's not even worth digging into.

Instead let's talk about Christians giving charity to anyone, Christian or no. Why do they do that? Isn't it because God told them to? If the bible said do not give charity, would Christians do it? No, they wouldn't. So why do they do what God told them to do? Isn't it to get the ultimate payoff? And isn't that completely selfish?

You can paint Christian charity anyway you want, but you can't ignore three questions, and the associated answers. Why is charity associated with Christianity? Because the doctrine says Christians should be charitable. Why does God order Christians to be charitable? To make himself and his religion look good. Why do Christians actually be charitable? Because it increases their chance of getting to heaven.

HereticMonkey wrote:
On the other hand you mentioned stealing. Is not taking what you deserve an aspect of Satanism? What about only respecting those laws that can be enforced? So, if I can steal something and get away with it, especially if eliminates a potential or current rival, then what aspect of Satanism have I overlooked? After all, I've not done anything essentially wrong if I haven't gotten caught, and I haven't technically caused him harm (after all, if the item in question was so important, why wasn't it guarded better or better taken care of?).

Absolutely not. You have no idea what Satanism is. No form of Satanism says that stealing is ok, and LaVeyan Satanism explicitly speaks against it.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Eleven.html. Number 6.

Your entire view of the philosophy is skewed and has no bearing whatsoever on the actual philosophy. "[O]nly respecting those laws that can be enforced"? "[Eliminating] potential or current rivals"? Where in the hell did you get that crap from?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
You keep applying Christian values and logic to Satanism. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. What if I used the Koran to show you what's wrong with Christianity? Would you take me seriously?


Not really; I'm trying to demonstrate that there are certain fallacies at work here. The "Christianity doesn't promote fun" argument that you keep espousing doesn't apply as much as you think it does, and is probably the worst argument you've presented.

There are dozens and dozens of verses glorifying denial of Earthly happiness in order to get more heavenly benefits. There are dozens and dozens of verses stating or implying that happiness, comfort and prosperity on Earth make it harder to get into heaven - camels and eyes of needles and all that. The only happiness the bible promises is "joy" that comes from serving God - either just by the act of serving, or as a reward for serving.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Just because I've purposely limited my options doesn't mean that I'm necessarily naive; it merely means that I've decided that I don't need the full list of options. You don't look down on a vegetarian because they limit themselves to certain foods; rather, you respect that person (unless, of course, they're doing it for non-philosophical reasons, but that's something that I think that we'd agree on).

In short: You can either pick the entire menu (Satanism) or a few specific items to concentrate on (Christianity). However, it doesn't mean that either path is necessarily better than either...just different.

What are you talking about now? >.< First Satanism was a substitute for people who couldn't get religion, and now it's the superior choice? First Satanism was only short-term happiness as opposed to longer term happiness and now it's the entire menu? You are making a case that there should be a requirement to get a licence before you can use analogies, one that requires some training and maybe a minimum intellectual standard. How about not using them anymore and simply stating your position clearly? You just don't seem to have the knack for analogies.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, I don't even know what stereotype you're talking about. The hell is a study group? The hell was all that randomness about women? I was talking about churches.

Specifically, you had mentioned support groups, which church's actually has, and which tend to be ruled by women. In other words: I'm guessing that you attempted to equate churches with support groups, not being aware that that churches already had that in place.

Churches are Christian support groups.

And all that woman stuff...? Wow. >.< You're in an entirely different mental universe from me man.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
"You can't have advances in science without forcing your beliefs unto others, even if it's paying them to do something for you or finding volunteers." What? O.o

I... man, I don't even know how to respond. There's not a rational, coherent thought anywhere in that paragraph.

Again with the derogatory remarks Wink ...

Try this then: Biblical Satanism doesn't care about advancing the society; although advances can be used to tempt people, if the society advances too far then there is nothing to tempt anyone with (after all, it actually becomes easier to get yourself instead of relying on someone else, or the temptation is replaced by something else). A LaVeyan Satanist needs the status quo (it seems to respect Machivellian, which requires a static playing field, something advances tend to disrupt).

[Note that I'm not trying to portray either as old serial villains. Just trying to show that society advancing on any level is bad for Satanism of any stripe.]

On the other hand, by occasionally disrupting the playing field, you can shake people up and get rid of corrupt structures, hopefully replacing it with a better structure...which is something that Christianity has shown it doesn't mind doing once in a while...

Good god man. O.O;

Wow... ok...

1.) What the hell is biblical Satanism? You mean how the bible portrays Satan? No form of Satanism agrees with the biblical portrayal. Every form of Satanism either calls the bible a lie, or has nothing to do with it at all.
2.) Every new technology means another source of temptation. Every advance means a new technology. So how does advancing far enough suddenly magically take all those sources of temptation away?
3.) If society advanced far enough that we had everything we could possibly need without having to rely on anyone but ourselves... why would we need God? If we could live happily and healthily forever - all possible with enough technology - what's the point of Christianity? If Satan existed, wouldn't that serve his ends by pretty much ending God's supply of souls?
4.) Why does a LaVeyan Satanist need the status quo?
5.) How does LaVeyan Satanism have anything to do with "[respecting] Machivellian (sp)"?
6.) Why does Machiavellianism require a static playing field? Machiavellianism is about doing anything for personal gain - how can you gain if everything's even? How does advancing technology make for less things to gain?
7.) How is advancing bad for Satanism of every stripe? Don't you know that some forms of Satanism revere Satan for bringing knowledge to man against the wishes of God? And that using that knowledge is glorfying Satan and sticking it to God? Doesn't that pretty much make your entire argument crap?
8.) How does Christianity occasionally disrupt the playing field?
9.) How can you rationally argue that Christianity is pro progress? Do you know what the Catholic Index Prohibitorum is? Do you know that it was in full force until 1966? That's right, not 1696, 1966. Do you know that Christian groups are doggedly trying to change the school curriculums everywhere to remove evolution/abiogenesis/big bang theory in favour of their own dogma? Christianity itself may not encourage opposition to progress, but if there were any pro progress teachings in the bible, how could generations of Christian thinkers have been (and continue to be) so explicitly anti-progress?
tingkagol
so.... about why god created satan...

entertainment? does that word even apply to him?
abhiz
god gave satan coz only through teh presence of satan u know that there is god.
Light become useful only in the dark.
HereticMonkey
I officially hate work...Guess I'd better answer some of this, at least before Indi misses me...

Indi wrote:
The intelligent person in me answers: "By alternately stating that God is unable to make you happy yet able to control your free will and emotions." Influence means indirect or intangible control, but it's still control.


At the same time, influence allows for some free will; that is, even though you do apply some influence, the choice of what to do is still ultimately mine. Just because you threaten to break both of my legs if I do something, doesn't mean that I can't do that something. It just means that a specific consequence has been laid down if I continue doing that something. It's still my choice whether or not to do that something.

Quote:
You can try and worm and weasel it anyway you like, but you were disparaging Satanism, pure and simple. That is the only interpretion of your words that makes sense. If that wasn't your intention, then you should apologize for misstating your position, not tell me I'm wrong for not guessing correctly at your "real" intentions when you weren't being clear.

I have stated my intentions; you simply choose to ignore them so that you can claim that you have yet again been attacked.

Yet again: It was an off-the-cuff remark, but, given the various definitions of Satanism that have been tossed around, one that seemed to fit rather well. You're adding far more to it than was implied; it was simply the most visceral way I could point out that Satanism seems to be best for the short-term and Christianity for the long-term. An analogy doesn't always need concern itself with every possible translation of the terms involved; you either accept the terms of the analogy as given or not. But...to add a number of layers of meaning just to disprove the analogy is bad logic at best, emotional blindness at worst.

Quote:
There are several different kinds of Satanism, but none of them have anything in common philosophically with the biblical portrayal of Satan. Furthermore, LaVeyan Satanism doesn't even believe Satan exists (or God for that matter), they just use him as a figurehead for LaVey's philosophy, so how could a question about Satan's philosophy have anything to do about LaVeyan Satanism?


Two notes:
1) To use a person, however metaphorical, as the symbol of your religion implies a belief in that person; otherwise, why not choose something more abstract? To be a Satanist, you need to believe in Satan; otherwise, why use him as your model on any level?

2) I decided to bring LaVeyan Satanism because Biblical Satanism is just too Snidely Whiplash; I wanted to debate something real.

Quote:
And no, it is not acceptible to discuss any of those things in a thread about why God created Satan. Especially when there are already threads about Satanism.


You are aware of the ridiculousness of that statement, right? Why not discuss Satanism in a thread regarding the origins of the symbol itself?

Quote:
A thread abut why God created Satan is, in essence, a thread about the problem of evil. It has nothing to do with Satanism, in any form.

Now I'm really confused. As Satan is not necessarily a force of Evil (Snidely again!), why should Satanism (which is obviously not necessarily evil) be discussed, or at least touched on, in a thread re: Satan? If we're going to discuss the person, why not the effects that the person has had on the world, and especially why not beliefs that have sprung up because of that person? Especially when those beliefs may help us to understand the person in question, or at least how that person is thought of? Especially when how that person is thought of seems to be intrinsic to the debate...

Quote:
First of all, Satan's philosophy, as shown and demonstrated throughout the bible, is not to tempt people into acting for their own interest. It is to fool people into turning away from God, which is most certainly not in their own interest.

This is sort of where I point out where the short-term part comes into play. Unfortunately, just about time Satan is shown in The Bible, it is tempting someone to do something that they know is great in the short-term, but may have major consequences in the long-term. Eve and that apple, for instance; she and Adam gained knowledge, but also gained mortality. And what would have happened had Jesus been successfully tempted by Satan?
It is worth noting that Jesus would have led a much simpler life, and as whatever He wanted if He had taken Satan's offer; does that mean that it was the right one? After all, He wouldn't have to deal with all of the pain and suffering of The Crucifixion.

You've confused a person's belief in what is in their own interest with what society believes is in their own interest; what society wants and what a person needs can be two different things. This applies even to something as basic as food: Society needs people to be healthy, and sources of calcium are thus considered to be good. However, individuals may not be able to properly process milk products; does that mean that society's need should take precedence, and the individuals be forced to drink milk? Or should other sources for calcium be found, regardless of expense (after all, kale, which is a good source of calcium, is a more expensive than the milk it replaces).

Sometimes the needs of the few do outweigh the needs of the many...

Quote:
On top of that Satan does horrible, horrible things to people - how is that in their interest? Satan's philosophy, biblically speaking, is nothing more and nothing less than "****** God", and any people he talks to he's just using as means to that end, with no interest in their well-being at all.

Actually, a case could be made that Satan is questioning God because He needs to be questioned. After all, is their any value to a belief system that isn't questioned?

Quote:
Secondly, saying that any religion has a self-interested flavour is a tautology.

I always get nervous when people start throwing around big words...Specific issue here is that Satanism is all about self-interest as opposed to group-interest: The needs of the one are more important than the many. Even LaVeyan Satanism constantly reinforces the idea that the individual's needs and desires take precedence.

This is different from most other religions, where the group is important. A number may offer Heaven (or an equivalent), but it seems that the group is is ultimately paramount, and those needs are to be considered before the individuals, and that the individual's rights are to be considered in regards to the group. In other words, although there may be the promise of Heaven (or an equivalent), the main thrust of the religion is that the group needs to survive, and these are the basics for that.

In other words, they seem more geared towards long-term goals, even when you get past the spiritual aspects, whereas the various stripes of Satanism seem geared towards merely the individual's survival.

Quote:
LaVeyan Satanism offers the promise to everyone else that the practicing Satanist will not do anything to harm them, ever, unless they harm him first.

Any definitions of what it takes to be considered "harm", or will any harm work, no matter how slight? In other words, although it looks good, what is there to stop a Satanist from taking umbrage at the smallest slight, however unintentional?


Quote:
Christianity? Varies from book to book (and sometimes verse to verse), but in general the idea is that everything you do has one final motivation - getting in good with God; any benefits to anyone else are side-effects. There are no guarantees of safety or non-interference to non-Christians (as evidenced by the Christian organizations trying to enact hateful laws about things like homosexuality that will apply to non-Christians) - you will undoubtedly say "what about 'do unto others'", to which I would reply "it is superseded by dozens of verses, such as 'suffer not a witch to live'".

Except...that most of those verses no longer apply. Too much of the OT is more of guidelines than rules; too many people forget that. Ever been to a crab feed at a church? Now, just think about that for a sec: Isn't shellfish verboten?


Quote:
Don't you lecture me about the benefits of masturbation. You're the one who said that it's just for people who can't get laid.

Actually, I said that it was more useful than that; it does have use even for those in a relationship, where you can presumably get laid.

Quote:
Right before launching into a defence of it... when you knew it was lame.

Note the "right before", meaning that I had tried to forget about it, and then someone forced the issue, forcing me to defend it. Meaning, someone attacked it to such a degree that I felt it had to be defended. In other words: Had you let it die, it would have.

Quote:
Again, you have no right to lecture me. You are the one who put a negative spin on it. Any negativity I might have brought to the discussion was when I was repeating your words.

Actually, I just noted that Satanism was like it. So, any negative connotations are on you, not me. I think I've made it perfectly clear to anyone that I don't have any negative connotations regarding masturbation; it's just another technique available to a sexually mature adult. In other words, I don't think that someone who didn't have something invested in the conversation would agree with you that I have placed no negative connotations on the act.

The closest I've gotten is by pointing out that it's merely a substitution for sex, and pointing out that there are advantages that romance has over it. Neither comment is necessarily a negative connotation; it's just pointing out that masturbation has some limitations compared to sex between adults in a committed relationship, and I don't know of any sex therapists that would disagree with me on that point.

It's sort of like comparing a cheese burger to a full meal; no one disagrees that the cheese burger may be fun to eat, but it just isn't as good for you as the full mean (it's just a snack, after all).




Quote:
I see no need to respect someone that has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for others. You dissed Satanists and celibates in a single post, and ever since have been defending those intolerant statements. No, I'm not gonna pat you on the head for that.

I didn't want a pat on the head, and I haven't really dissed anyone. You have a specific agenda, and are trying to act as if you were attacked. Kill the indignation, and get into the discussion; it just doesn't apply.

Quote:
Now, just as an aside, I should point out that our policy when defending any argument is to try to think like whatever we're defending. When defending Christianity, we think like Christians. When defending Islam we think like Muslims. And now, we're Satanists. Technically speaking, by reacting so vehemently, we are acting out the Satanist philosophy.

So, in other words, Satanists are more emotional than logical? Doesn't say much for showing the supposed long-term advantages...

Quote:
But of course, you should know that already if you know the Satanist philosophy so well.

Well, I have been pointing out that it has certain limitations...

Quote:
You're still not playing the Think game. First of all, forget what Jesus allegedly did and why, because every single action he made was part of a grand master plan. Anyone he cured wasn't for their benefit, it was in order to solidify his own reputation - and anyone he didn't cure, or any time he didn't use his superpowers, was simply because it didn't suit his agenda to. If he really was God, he could have wiped out disease and suffering, but he didn't because it didn't work for his game. How is that not selfish?

You're limiting the scope of your thinking. Keep in mind that "help yourself" is intrinsic to the Christian mindset; when Jesus didn't heal someone, He usually stressed that as the reason why He didn't do it. He didn't want people becoming dependent on miracle cures, so He did occasionally not heal people.

If you're going to point out that it's a game, it helps to know what the game is, and recognize that there are other stratagems in play. Jesus wanted to show that His philosophy worked, and relying on miracles for everything would have shown that it didn't.

Oh, and I'm ignoring the arguments about charity; any experienced debater knows that it's a dead end. There is no way to prove, one way or the other, to an opposed viewpoint that your case is the right one. Note: Either way it's a difficult sale...


Quote:
Absolutely not. You have no idea what Satanism is. No form of Satanism says that stealing is ok, and LaVeyan Satanism explicitly speaks against it.

Gee, and here I was taking pains to point out that stealing was pointedly forbidden; nice to see that it was totally ignored. Yes, we agree that Satanism prevents stealing; I see no issue here. However, I do tend to be cautious of any belief system that allows you take something if someone else "cries out for it to be taken"; there just seems to be too much room for interpretation.

Quote:
Your entire view of the philosophy is skewed and has no bearing whatsoever on the actual philosophy. "[O]nly respecting those laws that can be enforced"? "[Eliminating] potential or current rivals"? Where in the hell did you get that crap from?

Probably reading the same sources that you did, but paying attention to what was being said rather than merely looking for agreement...

Quote:
You keep applying Christian values and logic to Satanism. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. What if I used the Koran to show you what's wrong with Christianity? Would you take me seriously?

Actually, I'm not. I'm looking at a set of ideals shared by philosophies that look at things long-term, rather than living for the moment (something that is stressed by Satanism). In other words, denying temptation usually enables the group to last, whereas more...hedonistic pursuits ensure its downfall (Ancient Rome, anyone?).

Quote:
There are dozens and dozens of verses glorifying denial of Earthly happiness in order to get more heavenly benefits. There are dozens and dozens of verses stating or implying that happiness, comfort and prosperity on Earth make it harder to get into heaven - camels and eyes of needles and all that. The only happiness the bible promises is "joy" that comes from serving God - either just by the act of serving, or as a reward for serving.

However, there are hundreds of verses showing celebration and pursuing some fun pursuits; like I said, you have Jesus Himself converting water into wine to make a party last longer. I think that pretty much puts your point into serious doubt.

The key is in moderation; a road between the two extremes. The goal is to avoid too many delights, but still enjoy life.

Quote:
What are you talking about now? >.< First Satanism was a substitute for people who couldn't get religion, and now it's the superior choice? First Satanism was only short-term happiness as opposed to longer term happiness and now it's the entire menu?

No...It's just part of the menu. It's not a superior choice, it's merely a choice. You really seem to be into injecting a lot of yourself into things...

Quote:
You are making a case that there should be a requirement to get a licence before you can use analogies, one that requires some training and maybe a minimum intellectual standard. How about not using them anymore and simply stating your position clearly? You just don't seem to have the knack for analogies.

Again with the insults; interesting for someone who takes offense at the slightest things...


[/quote]
HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, I don't even know what stereotype you're talking about. The hell is a study group? The hell was all that randomness about women? I was talking about churches.

Specifically, you had mentioned support groups, which church's actually has, and which tend to be ruled by women. In other words: I'm guessing that you attempted to equate churches with support groups, not being aware that that churches already had that in place.

Churches are Christian support groups.

And all that woman stuff...? Wow. >.< You're in an entirely different mental universe from me man.[/quote]
Sorry, I needed a specific example. Just trying to point out that there is a difference between a support group and a church (a church may support its members, but only in the general sense; a support group gives specific help, and usually has someone with relevant experience and education).

In other words, you're confusing a specific service of a group for the group itself...

Quote:
1.) What the hell is biblical Satanism? You mean how the bible portrays Satan? No form of Satanism agrees with the biblical portrayal. Every form of Satanism either calls the bible a lie, or has nothing to do with it at all.

So...what's the logic of calling your belief after something with a specific pejorative meaning if you don't believe in the source material? Or are you trying to demonstrate that your beliefs have no actual foundation, as they are based on something that doesn't exist?

In other words, I appreciate that Satan is just a symbol, but why use that as symbol when the specific meaning to a group? Why not just create a new symbol?

Quote:
2.) Every new technology means another source of temptation. Every advance means a new technology. So how does advancing far enough suddenly magically take all those sources of temptation away?

As I said: It doesn't take them away. It merely allows people to get them themselves rather than relying on a middleman. The temptation itself, however, is removed. Yes, new temptations are found, but the list slowly dwindles down...

Quote:
3.) If society advanced far enough that we had everything we could possibly need without having to rely on anyone but ourselves... why would we need God? If we could live happily and healthily forever - all possible with enough technology - what's the point of Christianity? If Satan existed, wouldn't that serve his ends by pretty much ending God's supply of souls?

No. We would stop worrying about physical issues, and start worrying about spiritual ones. This is based on some historical precedents, where the society has advanced to a certain point and believed that they no longer had to worry about other issues, or those issues weren't as important. For example, Greeks, Babylonians, Renaissance Europe...

Quote:
6.) Why does Machiavellianism require a static playing field? Machiavellianism is about doing anything for personal gain - how can you gain if everything's even? How does advancing technology make for less things to gain?

Static, not level: In other words, the value of every piece is known, and can thus it's moves can be predicted. Note that advancing technology makes things less predictable, it doesn't make for less things to gain (and that came from...?). Consider the affect of the printing press' ability to quickly get information out to the masses, or the ability to manipulate your image on TV has had on elections (it had been assumed that Nixon would easily trounce Kennedy, for example). Technology has made things more dynamic, and therefore harder to control.

Quote:
5.) How does LaVeyan Satanism have anything to do with "[respecting] Machivellian (sp)"?

Probably because there are a number of points in LaVeyan Satanism that sound Macivellian in nature (ranging from the direct "feel free to torture anyone that displeases you in your lair" (lairs seem to be mentioned a lot) to how to act). It just sounds too much like a belief system that is more interested in being in control and ensuring that you don't overstep your bounds than one that is interested in any kind of spirituality...

Quote:
4.) Why does a LaVeyan Satanist need the status quo?

Well, if it's Machievellian in nature, and Machivellian groups require the status quo, then it follows that LaVeyan Satanism requires the status quo...

Quote:
7.) How is advancing bad for Satanism of every stripe? Don't you know that some forms of Satanism revere Satan for bringing knowledge to man against the wishes of God? And that using that knowledge is glorfying Satan and sticking it to God? Doesn't that pretty much make your entire argument crap?

Nope. Satan never brought knowledge to Man; Woman took it (albeit through the temptation of Satan, but She did take it of her own free will in the final analysis).

Besides: Isn't "sticking to God" just a bit, er, teen-agerish? I can respect a certain degree of rebelliousness, but building an entire religion around it? That's just...immature? I'm a Monkey, and I venerate trickster spirits, but there is a certain point where rebellion should become wisdom. If the point is to glorify Satan (and why are your glorifying a non-existent being?) through rebellion, then where is the wisdom?

Quote:
8.) How does Christianity occasionally disrupt the playing field?

Just look at it's history. Christians have led revolts and rebellions, as well as created technologies (or exploited them) in order to foment change, and Christianity itself has occasionally changed, split, and even fought against itself. If that doesn't cause disruption, I'd really like to see your definition of disruption...

Quote:
9.) How can you rationally argue that Christianity is pro progress?

[I'd like to point out that the set-up itself is derogatory, but that would be too obvious...]
Let's see: Like most religions, it gave math a serious looking at, which ended up advancing that. Medicine, chemistry and astronomy were also seriously explored by Christianity, allowing for major advances in them. Evolution was essentially created by a Christian (Darwin was pretty much a fanatic until late in life). Also, an exploration of The Bible has been a major assist to historians and archaeologists. That's a lot of progress for something that's supposed to prevent it...

It's also worth noting that even the Kansas School Board made no attempt to dispute that evolution isn't necessarily correct. Rather, they just wanted to point out that there was another perspective (a reactionary response to too many atheists deciding that evolution was a way to disprove The Bible). In other words, by pursuing a course that attempted to totally eliminate Christianity from the picture (rather than co-opt it and then eliminate God, as the Deists did), the Christians decided to fight back using the same methods atheists had used...

You gotta appreciate the irony...

HM
joyfulheart
First of all, God did not "create" Satan. Lucifer was the most beautiful of God's heavenly angels but he rebelled and was cast out of heaven along with his followers.

God does not "make" anyone, be it angel or human being, "do" anything. Both have something called "free will" and are able to make their own decisions and choices. Like many humans, Lucifer chose to turn his back on God and chose evil over good.

joyfulheart
(Bible Thumper and proud of it)
moworks2
Yantaal wrote:
wasnt satan one of gods angels or summit? the he got banned. sooooo, god being all knowing, knew this would happen, so why did god create him?


i think humans created god and satan...it's a plot to confuse us...good and evil, you know...it does make for some rather entertaining stories though...and boy, so much paper and ink and now cyber space has been wasted on the what if this and what if that of god and satan...

the brains of humans created god...the brains of humans created satan...thought is just this endless spool of images going round and round until it drives you mad and you gotta pick something, ahhh religion, to try and stop it...

but sadly all religion does is create more confusion, like these silly god and the devil questions...it's quite childish and I'd think it will be very embarrassing when someone looks at all this junk in a hundred years and sees what you've been keeping busy with...

M
joyfulheart
Christianity has been around for over 2000 years and those who believe, don't see it as stupid or foolish. And it will be around LONG after we are gone to our eternity unless the Lord returns before we die.

Prayers for you and others,
joyfulheart
joyfulheart
chastise wrote:
Theoritically speaking; if there was a God, then Satan would be it's repeatance of existance or vice versa. Satan is thought to be God's brother. He wasn't evil or what not. God's duty was to create, and Satan's duty was to punish.

I think the Mormon's believe that Satan was Jesus' brother but Christians do not.

joyfulheart
joyfulheart
Rad Ultima 2 wrote:
sancho wrote:
to make us see the difference(contrast) between good and evil


That is a really good way of thinking about it! It's amazing that some people type out several paragraphs of trying to explain this, and you have a small sentence that sounds just as good. Wink


I think many unbelievers get lost when there are too many words. I have been a Christian for as long as I can remember (I am 59) and often I don't understand what someone is saying when the posts get too "wordy".

I say, keep it simple and to the point. God kept salvation simple and to the point, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and it has been well understood by millions if not billions over the past 2000+ years!

I say keep the complex posts for lists specifically devoted to that purpose!!

joyfulheart
Heart Ticket
S3nd K3ys wrote:
First of all, convince me there's a God. Secondly, I heard rumor that it was God's brother.



Yeh i believe what S£nd K3ys said. I don't personally believe in god but if hes real its obvious he hates me so... Satan I Love You!!! lol

James
joyfulheart
Actually, God loves you so much that He sent His only Son to die for your sins so you can spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

ajoyfulheart
http://ajoyfulheart.net
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
Indi wrote:
The intelligent person in me answers: "By alternately stating that God is unable to make you happy yet able to control your free will and emotions." Influence means indirect or intangible control, but it's still control.


At the same time, influence allows for some free will; that is, even though you do apply some influence, the choice of what to do is still ultimately mine. Just because you threaten to break both of my legs if I do something, doesn't mean that I can't do that something. It just means that a specific consequence has been laid down if I continue doing that something. It's still my choice whether or not to do that something.

You have completely changed the discussion topic. -_- Try to stay on track.

You said: "God can't make you happy". And you said: "He could adjust it through outside actions are intensify your emotions" (which I had to reinterpret because it doesn't make sense in English). I said those two terms are contradictory. Now you're on a completely different question.

If I can influence your emotions via outside actions, then I can make you happy. Why not? That was the question, not whatever you think you were answering.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
You can try and worm and weasel it anyway you like, but you were disparaging Satanism, pure and simple. That is the only interpretion of your words that makes sense. If that wasn't your intention, then you should apologize for misstating your position, not tell me I'm wrong for not guessing correctly at your "real" intentions when you weren't being clear.

I have stated my intentions; you simply choose to ignore them so that you can claim that you have yet again been attacked.

Yet again: It was an off-the-cuff remark, but, given the various definitions of Satanism that have been tossed around, one that seemed to fit rather well. You're adding far more to it than was implied; it was simply the most visceral way I could point out that Satanism seems to be best for the short-term and Christianity for the long-term. An analogy doesn't always need concern itself with every possible translation of the terms involved; you either accept the terms of the analogy as given or not. But...to add a number of layers of meaning just to disprove the analogy is bad logic at best, emotional blindness at worst.

The analogy was wrong even at face level. The only reason it seems to make sense to you is because of your bigotry. To you Christianity is true and thus you're going to get your reward for eternity in the after life, and Satanism is wrong, so even if you enjoy yourself now you will suffer in the long run. That is the thinking you used to develop your analogy, and it is bigoted.

If you take the Satanist perspective, then Satanism rewards you in this life and the next life (if any) will be another challenge... but there is no judgement waiting for you for what happens in this life, so there is no reason you can't be a happy Satanist now and a happy ghost later. On the other hand, Christianity preaches turning away from worldy pleasures and possessions - effectively limiting the potential happiness in this life... and if there is no judgement in the next, then they're just wasting their time here. So even if they manage to find happiness in the next life, they will have forever wasted their chance to be happy here. Thus from the Satanist perspective, the analogy is ass-backwards. That you don't see that is because of your emotional attachment to Christianity, which is clouding your judgement.

If you take a neutral perspective, then Satanism wins again. Satanism advocates seeking happiness in this life, Christianity advocates limiting it. Both of them have the same chance of happiness in the next life (from a neutral perspective), therefore presuming both make the same choice there, the Satanist will always have had more happiness in total. Your analogy is flawed unless you take the Christian viewpoint... which would make it a bigoted judgement of Satanism (just like a Satanist judging Christianity using Satanist principles would be).

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
There are several different kinds of Satanism, but none of them have anything in common philosophically with the biblical portrayal of Satan. Furthermore, LaVeyan Satanism doesn't even believe Satan exists (or God for that matter), they just use him as a figurehead for LaVey's philosophy, so how could a question about Satan's philosophy have anything to do about LaVeyan Satanism?


Two notes:
1) To use a person, however metaphorical, as the symbol of your religion implies a belief in that person; otherwise, why not choose something more abstract? To be a Satanist, you need to believe in Satan; otherwise, why use him as your model on any level?

2) I decided to bring LaVeyan Satanism because Biblical Satanism is just too Snidely Whiplash; I wanted to debate something real.

1.) Idiotic. -_- Think about what you're saying man. Unicorns symbolize elegance and purity. If I use a unicorn as the symbol of my group because of those traditional symbolic meanings, that means I have to believe in unicorns? Come on, man. -_-

2.) Yet this remains a thread on biblical satanism - specifically on why God may have created Satan. You are simply being off-topic... and totally irrelevant... and offensive... all at once.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
And no, it is not acceptible to discuss any of those things in a thread about why God created Satan. Especially when there are already threads about Satanism.


You are aware of the ridiculousness of that statement, right? Why not discuss Satanism in a thread regarding the origins of the symbol itself?

No I am not aware of any ridiculousness in that statement. I just think you have problems with staying on topic. The topic of this thread is why God assumedly created Satan. That has absolutely no relevance to LaVeyan Satanism, because they don't believe in either. To discuss LaVeyan Satanism here is the equivalent of discussing Playboy magazine in a thread about Watership Down that asks why the gods made rabbits. Absurdly irrelevant.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
A thread abut why God created Satan is, in essence, a thread about the problem of evil. It has nothing to do with Satanism, in any form.

Now I'm really confused. As Satan is not necessarily a force of Evil (Snidely again!), why should Satanism (which is obviously not necessarily evil) be discussed, or at least touched on, in a thread re: Satan? If we're going to discuss the person, why not the effects that the person has had on the world, and especially why not beliefs that have sprung up because of that person? Especially when those beliefs may help us to understand the person in question, or at least how that person is thought of? Especially when how that person is thought of seems to be intrinsic to the debate...

"Now I'm really confused." That much is obvious. This thread is not about Satan. Read the title. Read the first post. I mean actually read them and comprehend them. The thread is about why God created Satan, is it not? That is the explicit title of the thread. That is the explicit question asked in the first post. You have issues with inserting your own interpretation into what you read. The question is as clear as the English language allows. It is, in other words: "for what reason(s) did God create Satan?" It is not a thread about Satan. It is a thread about GOD'S MOTIVES FOR CREATING SATAN. What part of that has anything to do with a philosophy that has doesn't believe in God? Why would God's motives have any relevance for Satanists, when that philosophy doesn't have anything to do with God or his imaginary motives?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
First of all, Satan's philosophy, as shown and demonstrated throughout the bible, is not to tempt people into acting for their own interest. It is to fool people into turning away from God, which is most certainly not in their own interest.

This is sort of where I point out where the short-term part comes into play. Unfortunately, just about time Satan is shown in The Bible, it is tempting someone to do something that they know is great in the short-term, but may have major consequences in the long-term. Eve and that apple, for instance; she and Adam gained knowledge, but also gained mortality. And what would have happened had Jesus been successfully tempted by Satan?
It is worth noting that Jesus would have led a much simpler life, and as whatever He wanted if He had taken Satan's offer; does that mean that it was the right one? After all, He wouldn't have to deal with all of the pain and suffering of The Crucifixion.

You've confused a person's belief in what is in their own interest with what society believes is in their own interest; what society wants and what a person needs can be two different things. This applies even to something as basic as food: Society needs people to be healthy, and sources of calcium are thus considered to be good. However, individuals may not be able to properly process milk products; does that mean that society's need should take precedence, and the individuals be forced to drink milk? Or should other sources for calcium be found, regardless of expense (after all, kale, which is a good source of calcium, is a more expensive than the milk it replaces).

Sometimes the needs of the few do outweigh the needs of the many...

What in the HELL are you talking about now? O_o Nothing I have said has anything to do with anything you just wrote.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
On top of that Satan does horrible, horrible things to people - how is that in their interest? Satan's philosophy, biblically speaking, is nothing more and nothing less than "****** God", and any people he talks to he's just using as means to that end, with no interest in their well-being at all.

Actually, a case could be made that Satan is questioning God because He needs to be questioned. After all, is their any value to a belief system that isn't questioned?

And you go ahead and make such a case. That would be relevant to the thread, unlike your idiotic analogy and everything you've said about Satanism. (And before you try to find a way to link that case back to LaVeyan Satanism, let me hammer this in again: LAVEYAN SATANISM DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD (or Satan), SO THE POSSIBILITY OF SATAN BEING REQUIRED TO QUESTION GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LAVEYAN SATANISM.)

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Secondly, saying that any religion has a self-interested flavour is a tautology.

I always get nervous when people start throwing around big words...Specific issue here is that Satanism is all about self-interest as opposed to group-interest: The needs of the one are more important than the many. Even LaVeyan Satanism constantly reinforces the idea that the individual's needs and desires take precedence.

And the bible makes clear in several places that God/Jesus takes precedence over family, society and everything else. What's the diff? If Christianity requires worship of God above all else, and Satanism requires worship of self above all else (which, by the way, isn't true, and is simply another aspect of your ignorance of Satanism shining through... but assume it is for now), what's really the difference?

HereticMonkey wrote:
This is different from most other religions, where the group is important. A number may offer Heaven (or an equivalent), but it seems that the group is is ultimately paramount, and those needs are to be considered before the individuals, and that the individual's rights are to be considered in regards to the group. In other words, although there may be the promise of Heaven (or an equivalent), the main thrust of the religion is that the group needs to survive, and these are the basics for that.

In other words, they seem more geared towards long-term goals, even when you get past the spiritual aspects, whereas the various stripes of Satanism seem geared towards merely the individual's survival.

Quote:
LaVeyan Satanism offers the promise to everyone else that the practicing Satanist will not do anything to harm them, ever, unless they harm him first.

Any definitions of what it takes to be considered "harm", or will any harm work, no matter how slight? In other words, although it looks good, what is there to stop a Satanist from taking umbrage at the smallest slight, however unintentional?

And now we're back to your ignorance of Satanism. And, indeed your ignorance in general.

You're talking about long-term goals as if the phrase has any real meaning. Why don't you give an example of a Christian belief that serves the "long-term goals" of society, that doesn't have a Satanist equivalent? Why don't you try and show a case where Satanist beliefs are opposed to the rights of other individuals, and the general harmony of society? I say you will find you cannot, and the only reason you think you can is ignorance of Satanism. Go ahead and try. Find one Christian rule that doesn't have a Satanist analogue, or whose analogue is slightly different, and show how that means that Christian ethics are more "long-term" oriented.

Incidently: "what is there to stop a Satanist from taking umbrage at the smallest slight, however unintentional?" Answer: the rules of Satanism. If you would bother to learn them instead of judging them from ignorance, you would know.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Christianity? Varies from book to book (and sometimes verse to verse), but in general the idea is that everything you do has one final motivation - getting in good with God; any benefits to anyone else are side-effects. There are no guarantees of safety or non-interference to non-Christians (as evidenced by the Christian organizations trying to enact hateful laws about things like homosexuality that will apply to non-Christians) - you will undoubtedly say "what about 'do unto others'", to which I would reply "it is superseded by dozens of verses, such as 'suffer not a witch to live'".

Except...that most of those verses no longer apply. Too much of the OT is more of guidelines than rules; too many people forget that. Ever been to a crab feed at a church? Now, just think about that for a sec: Isn't shellfish verboten?

Uh huh. Talk to 10 Christians and you'll get 11 different interpretations of the bible, and every damn one is convinced that they're right. The vast majority of Christians do hate homosexuals, and support laws outlawing homosexuality in one way or another. Do you deny that? Don't be absurd. That's an easily demonstrated truth - just do a poll. The question is whether or no Christianity itself supports such a position. You say no, most say yes. What, you're smarter than the majority of Christians? They say they're smarter than you. On the question of shellfish, you should know - I hope - about the doctrines of moral law versus ceremonial law. Your objection is nonsense.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Don't you lecture me about the benefits of masturbation. You're the one who said that it's just for people who can't get laid.

Actually, I said that it was more useful than that; it does have use even for those in a relationship, where you can presumably get laid.

Not until after I chastised you about the ignorance of this statement: "it's just a sign that you can't really get laid by any other means and need to go with a...substitute." So I say again, don't you lecture me.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Right before launching into a defence of it... when you knew it was lame.

Note the "right before", meaning that I had tried to forget about it, and then someone forced the issue, forcing me to defend it. Meaning, someone attacked it to such a degree that I felt it had to be defended. In other words: Had you let it die, it would have.

Quote:
Again, you have no right to lecture me. You are the one who put a negative spin on it. Any negativity I might have brought to the discussion was when I was repeating your words.

Actually, I just noted that Satanism was like it. So, any negative connotations are on you, not me. I think I've made it perfectly clear to anyone that I don't have any negative connotations regarding masturbation; it's just another technique available to a sexually mature adult. In other words, I don't think that someone who didn't have something invested in the conversation would agree with you that I have placed no negative connotations on the act.

The closest I've gotten is by pointing out that it's merely a substitution for sex, and pointing out that there are advantages that romance has over it. Neither comment is necessarily a negative connotation; it's just pointing out that masturbation has some limitations compared to sex between adults in a committed relationship, and I don't know of any sex therapists that would disagree with me on that point.

It's sort of like comparing a cheese burger to a full meal; no one disagrees that the cheese burger may be fun to eat, but it just isn't as good for you as the full mean (it's just a snack, after all).

So it's my fault, huh? You make an ignorant statement. You realize that statement is wrong. I challenge the statement and call it ignorant. And thus you're now obligated to defend the statement you know is wrong and ignorant... just because you can't handle me being right? Or what? And that's my fault?

Were your statements true? If not, admit that. Where they ignorant? If so, apologize. End of story. And stop blaming me for your insecurity and poor behaviour.

Again, all of this came after I pointed out your ignorance. Then you completely changed your tactics, without retracting your previous statements. In fact, you didn't take back your ignorant statements, you didn't say "whoops, I didn't mean for it to sound ignorant, I juse meant..." or anything like that. What you did was immediately attempt to moralize at me about the benefits of masturbations as if I were the one who had been ignorant. And you're still doing it.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
I see no need to respect someone that has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for others. You dissed Satanists and celibates in a single post, and ever since have been defending those intolerant statements. No, I'm not gonna pat you on the head for that.

I didn't want a pat on the head, and I haven't really dissed anyone. You have a specific agenda, and are trying to act as if you were attacked. Kill the indignation, and get into the discussion; it just doesn't apply.

You were ignorant and judgemental of another group, and have yet to apologize. It has been shown already that you don't know as much about Satanism as you think you do... thus you are ignorant. Your analogy (and all aspects of your bizarre "long-term" defence since) are judging Satanism from a Christian perspective... thus you are judgemental. These things have been proven. In fact, you even admit to doing wrong, but blame me for "forcing" you to continue being a jerk.

You want me to back off so you can get away with being ignorant and judgemental without an apology? No. Not going to happen.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Now, just as an aside, I should point out that our policy when defending any argument is to try to think like whatever we're defending. When defending Christianity, we think like Christians. When defending Islam we think like Muslims. And now, we're Satanists. Technically speaking, by reacting so vehemently, we are acting out the Satanist philosophy.

So, in other words, Satanists are more emotional than logical? Doesn't say much for showing the supposed long-term advantages...

That conclusion does not follow. That is your bigotry speaking.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
But of course, you should know that already if you know the Satanist philosophy so well.

Well, I have been pointing out that it has certain limitations...

Every fact you have quoted about Satanist philosophy has been false. Every time you have assumed Satanist beliefs and goals, it has not been based on actual Satanist philosophy. Thus, everything you have "pointed out" has been bullshit.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
You're still not playing the Think game. First of all, forget what Jesus allegedly did and why, because every single action he made was part of a grand master plan. Anyone he cured wasn't for their benefit, it was in order to solidify his own reputation - and anyone he didn't cure, or any time he didn't use his superpowers, was simply because it didn't suit his agenda to. If he really was God, he could have wiped out disease and suffering, but he didn't because it didn't work for his game. How is that not selfish?

You're limiting the scope of your thinking. Keep in mind that "help yourself" is intrinsic to the Christian mindset; when Jesus didn't heal someone, He usually stressed that as the reason why He didn't do it. He didn't want people becoming dependent on miracle cures, so He did occasionally not heal people.

If you're going to point out that it's a game, it helps to know what the game is, and recognize that there are other stratagems in play. Jesus wanted to show that His philosophy worked, and relying on miracles for everything would have shown that it didn't.

Oh, and I'm ignoring the arguments about charity; any experienced debater knows that it's a dead end. There is no way to prove, one way or the other, to an opposed viewpoint that your case is the right one. Note: Either way it's a difficult sale...

So Jesus left sick people to "help themselves"? "Got leprosy in that leg? Aw, walk it off you big baby." Presumably everyone Jesus refused to heal would "help themselves" using 1st century, middle eastern medicine, right? -_-

"Keep in mind that "help yourself" is intrinsic to the Christian mindset" ^_^; Prayed today?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Absolutely not. You have no idea what Satanism is. No form of Satanism says that stealing is ok, and LaVeyan Satanism explicitly speaks against it.

Gee, and here I was taking pains to point out that stealing was pointedly forbidden; nice to see that it was totally ignored. Yes, we agree that Satanism prevents stealing; I see no issue here. However, I do tend to be cautious of any belief system that allows you take something if someone else "cries out for it to be taken"; there just seems to be too much room for interpretation.

Only if your comprehension skills are lacking. It's quite clear. If someone says aloud "take this" or "I want this gone", then you can take it. Where's the problem?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Your entire view of the philosophy is skewed and has no bearing whatsoever on the actual philosophy. "[O]nly respecting those laws that can be enforced"? "[Eliminating] potential or current rivals"? Where in the hell did you get that crap from?

Probably reading the same sources that you did, but paying attention to what was being said rather than merely looking for agreement...

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated that paying attention to what was said is not your strong point. You might want to try again. Quote me the teachings that support the claims you made that I quotes above, or admit to being a liar.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
You keep applying Christian values and logic to Satanism. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. What if I used the Koran to show you what's wrong with Christianity? Would you take me seriously?

Actually, I'm not. I'm looking at a set of ideals shared by philosophies that look at things long-term, rather than living for the moment (something that is stressed by Satanism). In other words, denying temptation usually enables the group to last, whereas more...hedonistic pursuits ensure its downfall (Ancient Rome, anyone?).

And yet again, you don't understand the philosophy. Satanism is not hedonism. It does not stress the idea of living for the moment - in fact, that is contradictory to many of the precepts of Satanism.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
There are dozens and dozens of verses glorifying denial of Earthly happiness in order to get more heavenly benefits. There are dozens and dozens of verses stating or implying that happiness, comfort and prosperity on Earth make it harder to get into heaven - camels and eyes of needles and all that. The only happiness the bible promises is "joy" that comes from serving God - either just by the act of serving, or as a reward for serving.

However, there are hundreds of verses showing celebration and pursuing some fun pursuits; like I said, you have Jesus Himself converting water into wine to make a party last longer. I think that pretty much puts your point into serious doubt.

The key is in moderation; a road between the two extremes. The goal is to avoid too many delights, but still enjoy life.

It does not put my point into serious doubt, it puts your interpretation of my point into serious doubt. Needless to say, your interpetation does not match what I have been saying, which seems to be a common theme. I did not say anywhere that Christianity advocated the denial of all Earthly happiness. Such an argument is idiotic, so I can't imagine why you would think anyone would make it.

However, you cannot deny that Christianity does require you to deny yourself Earthly pleasures in favour of heavenly ones. Not all Earthly pleasures of course (I can't believe I have to stress that in an intelligent conversation).

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
What are you talking about now? >.< First Satanism was a substitute for people who couldn't get religion, and now it's the superior choice? First Satanism was only short-term happiness as opposed to longer term happiness and now it's the entire menu?

No...It's just part of the menu. It's not a superior choice, it's merely a choice. You really seem to be into injecting a lot of yourself into things...

Quote:
You are making a case that there should be a requirement to get a licence before you can use analogies, one that requires some training and maybe a minimum intellectual standard. How about not using them anymore and simply stating your position clearly? You just don't seem to have the knack for analogies.

Again with the insults; interesting for someone who takes offense at the slightest things...

"At the slightest things", huh? Insulting an entire belief system is a slight thing for you. Gotta love those Christian morals. And I can't even guess at what you mean about the "injecting a lot of yourself" quote.

In point of fact, you made statements that were ignorant and prejudiced. You are defending those statements. You want a medal for that? No way. By defending those statements, you are being ignorant and prejudiced. I don't really see why you think you deserve to be treated with respect when you are showing none.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, I don't even know what stereotype you're talking about. The hell is a study group? The hell was all that randomness about women? I was talking about churches.

Specifically, you had mentioned support groups, which church's actually has, and which tend to be ruled by women. In other words: I'm guessing that you attempted to equate churches with support groups, not being aware that that churches already had that in place.

Churches are Christian support groups.

And all that woman stuff...? Wow. >.< You're in an entirely different mental universe from me man.

Sorry, I needed a specific example. Just trying to point out that there is a difference between a support group and a church (a church may support its members, but only in the general sense; a support group gives specific help, and usually has someone with relevant experience and education).

In other words, you're confusing a specific service of a group for the group itself...

What? Just because a church supplies more specific support groups it can't be a support group itself? Is that your point?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
1.) What the hell is biblical Satanism? You mean how the bible portrays Satan? No form of Satanism agrees with the biblical portrayal. Every form of Satanism either calls the bible a lie, or has nothing to do with it at all.

So...what's the logic of calling your belief after something with a specific pejorative meaning if you don't believe in the source material? Or are you trying to demonstrate that your beliefs have no actual foundation, as they are based on something that doesn't exist?

In other words, I appreciate that Satan is just a symbol, but why use that as symbol when the specific meaning to a group? Why not just create a new symbol?

O_o Do you... even know what a symbol is?

Are you... seriously confused about how it is possible for me to use - for example - the Tower of Babel as a symbol of hubris, without believing that the bible is true? If I used a centaur as a symbol for my beliefs... my beliefs must be false because the centaur is a myth?

You're not really that stupid, are you? I mean, this objection is just because you were lazy or tired or something, right?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
2.) Every new technology means another source of temptation. Every advance means a new technology. So how does advancing far enough suddenly magically take all those sources of temptation away?

As I said: It doesn't take them away. It merely allows people to get them themselves rather than relying on a middleman. The temptation itself, however, is removed. Yes, new temptations are found, but the list slowly dwindles down...

What? O_o The technology doesn't take the temptation away, it makes it easier to get. But the temptation is removed.

What?

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
3.) If society advanced far enough that we had everything we could possibly need without having to rely on anyone but ourselves... why would we need God? If we could live happily and healthily forever - all possible with enough technology - what's the point of Christianity? If Satan existed, wouldn't that serve his ends by pretty much ending God's supply of souls?

No. We would stop worrying about physical issues, and start worrying about spiritual ones. This is based on some historical precedents, where the society has advanced to a certain point and believed that they no longer had to worry about other issues, or those issues weren't as important. For example, Greeks, Babylonians, Renaissance Europe...

Amusing. I don't know about the Babylonians, but during the Greek golden age, and the European enlightenment, both societies were at their most atheistic. Mocking the gods or treating them as symbolic only was widespread in Greece, and the Renaissance is where the ideas of separation of church and state and religious tolerance really came from. The latter of which you should really look into, by the way.

In both cases I know of, more people turned away from the established religions than turned to it, which would support my claim.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
6.) Why does Machiavellianism require a static playing field? Machiavellianism is about doing anything for personal gain - how can you gain if everything's even? How does advancing technology make for less things to gain?

Static, not level: In other words, the value of every piece is known, and can thus it's moves can be predicted. Note that advancing technology makes things less predictable, it doesn't make for less things to gain (and that came from...?). Consider the affect of the printing press' ability to quickly get information out to the masses, or the ability to manipulate your image on TV has had on elections (it had been assumed that Nixon would easily trounce Kennedy, for example). Technology has made things more dynamic, and therefore harder to control.

Machiavellianism is not despotism. It's not about control, it's about doing whatever it takes to get what you want (in the common form, of course). In the Nixon-Kennedy example, manipulating television signals would be supremely Machiavellian. The printing press could be used to print anything you wanted, true or false, to manipulate the public to believe what you want. Technology doesn't make being underhanded harder.

(And incidently: "advancing technology makes things less predictable"? Give me a break. You're obviously no engineer.)

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
5.) How does LaVeyan Satanism have anything to do with "[respecting] Machivellian (sp)"?

Probably because there are a number of points in LaVeyan Satanism that sound Macivellian in nature (ranging from the direct "feel free to torture anyone that displeases you in your lair" (lairs seem to be mentioned a lot) to how to act). It just sounds too much like a belief system that is more interested in being in control and ensuring that you don't overstep your bounds than one that is interested in any kind of spirituality...

It has already been made clear that you don't understand Satanism. Now it is clear that you don't understand Machiavellianism either. The "feel free to torture anyone that displeases you in your lair" is not Machiavellian; it's not even close. Nothing about that matches any of the various definitions of Machiavellianism.

Whatever Satanism "sounds" to you like, it does not advocate being Machiavellian. Of course, until you understand both Satanism and Machiavellianism, nothing you say on either topic will be sensible.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
4.) Why does a LaVeyan Satanist need the status quo?

Well, if it's Machievellian in nature, and Machivellian groups require the status quo, then it follows that LaVeyan Satanism requires the status quo...

Excellently logical argument. That is totally wrong. You have two premises and a conclusion. Both premises are wrong. Satanism isn't Machiavellian in nature. And Machiavellianism doesn't require status quo.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
7.) How is advancing bad for Satanism of every stripe? Don't you know that some forms of Satanism revere Satan for bringing knowledge to man against the wishes of God? And that using that knowledge is glorfying Satan and sticking it to God? Doesn't that pretty much make your entire argument crap?

Nope. Satan never brought knowledge to Man; Woman took it (albeit through the temptation of Satan, but She did take it of her own free will in the final analysis).

I don't care what your religious beliefs are, or what your interpretation is. I'm telling you what Satanists believe. (Not LaYeyan Satanists, of course.) Satanists believe that God wanted ignorant slaves, and Satan saved humanity by convincing Eve to disobey and think for herself. Thus, any time human knowledge increases, it is flipping off our wannabe enslaver and glorifying the being who brought us knowledge.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Besides: Isn't "sticking to God" just a bit, er, teen-agerish? I can respect a certain degree of rebelliousness, but building an entire religion around it? That's just...immature? I'm a Monkey, and I venerate trickster spirits, but there is a certain point where rebellion should become wisdom. If the point is to glorify Satan (and why are your glorifying a non-existent being?) through rebellion, then where is the wisdom?

You are either not following the discussion properly or being deliberately dumb. Did I not explicitly say: "Don't you know that some forms of Satanism..."? Doesn't it follow then that when I say some forms believe Satan did something, I am not talking about the forms that don't believe he exists? I mean... duh? -_-

Anyway, it is ignorant and judgemental to call those beliefs immature. I could turn around and say Christianity is just as philosophically void, but that would hardly be productive. Whether you think it immature or not, it is what those people believe. And I can't imagine they really care what you think about it. I don't.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
8.) How does Christianity occasionally disrupt the playing field?

Just look at it's history. Christians have led revolts and rebellions, as well as created technologies (or exploited them) in order to foment change, and Christianity itself has occasionally changed, split, and even fought against itself. If that doesn't cause disruption, I'd really like to see your definition of disruption...

It has also created states that it ruled absolutely for centuries, repressing all contrary thought. I see nothing in the doctrine of Christianity that encourages disrupting society and having revolutions. In fact, just the opposite. The instances when they did, one can argue that they were hardly following the "turn the other cheek" ideology, for example.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
9.) How can you rationally argue that Christianity is pro progress?

[I'd like to point out that the set-up itself is derogatory, but that would be too obvious...]
Let's see: Like most religions, it gave math a serious looking at

It sure did. ^_^

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." Saint Augustine, church father.

HereticMonkey wrote:
which ended up advancing that. Medicine, chemistry and astronomy were also seriously explored by Christianity, allowing for major advances in them. Evolution was essentially created by a Christian (Darwin was pretty much a fanatic until late in life). Also, an exploration of The Bible has been a major assist to historians and archaeologists. That's a lot of progress for something that's supposed to prevent it...

It's also worth noting that even the Kansas School Board made no attempt to dispute that evolution isn't necessarily correct. Rather, they just wanted to point out that there was another perspective (a reactionary response to too many atheists deciding that evolution was a way to disprove The Bible). In other words, by pursuing a course that attempted to totally eliminate Christianity from the picture (rather than co-opt it and then eliminate God, as the Deists did), the Christians decided to fight back using the same methods atheists had used...

Your facts on Darwin are questionable. Darwin stopped believing in the bible while on the Beagle in his 20's, although he still believed in God and Christianity as a good source of morality. Not long after that, his daughter died, which completely ended his religious beliefs. Before that he was famous for his zoological work and taxonomies on strange and exotic (to Britain at the time) species. Everything on evolution and natural selection was published after he lost faith. But that's beside the point. Nothing in the Christian doctrine promoted the idea of seeking truth to Darwin, and in fact, the pursuit of truth is what led Darwin away from Christianity. And the bible has been about as much use to historians and archeologists as any other writing of the period, which has nothing to do with Christianity.

As for the Kansas School Board, whatever their claimed justification for it, they tried to influence secular knowledge in order to promote their own beliefs. That is so ridiculously anti-progress, it's not even worth further comment.

HereticMonkey wrote:
You gotta appreciate the irony...

No, I don't. Instead I shake my head and sigh sadly at the hypocrisy of it. You stand before me claiming that Christian teachings are supposed to be better for society, and that they put the group ahead of the individual. And yet you happily cheer on the reactionary behaviour of the Kansas School Board, and justify your own reactionary behaviour after having your nonsense claims challenged by me by saying that it is warranted because of my actions. Where is "turn the other cheek" in there? Did I miss a verse? Does it really go: "When someone strikes you, turn the other cheek... unless they're atheists, in which case it's ok to hit them back and then say it's their fault." Hypocrisy abounds....
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey: Indi has said all of these but you may be more likely to read if its in a shorter post.
LeVan satanism has no connection to biblical satanism, satanists don't believe in God or Satan, they use him as a symbol only (and using something as a symbol dose not mean you have to believe in it). You say satanism focuses on short term happiness, and Christianity focuses on long term happiness, but that argument only works from the Christan perspective, not the other way around, from the satanist perspective you've wasted many patently happy and pleasurable moments for a spiritual pipe dream. And some of things you've said about satanism are false, you need to read up on satanism (pleaser read these. http://web.satanism101.com/ http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html).
Lavan satanism isn't even the topic, Satan isnt ether its "why did 'god' create 'satan'" And there is only two reasonable arguments for why 1. God is not omniscient, omnipotent or omnibenevelint. 2. God wonted Satan to do what he did/dose.

You said God can not make you happy, read the bible, if God can talk to people, bring people back from the dead, manipulate people (see the Pharaoh from Exodus) and the world, that yes he can.
StickHotel
god didnt create satan
Yantaal
StickHotel wrote:
god didnt create satan


worst repsonce ever.. i think so. care to elaborate?



i think god was avin trouble with the missus so created satan to help sort her out.
moworks2
joyfulheart wrote:
Christianity has been around for over 2000 years and those who believe, don't see it as stupid or foolish. And it will be around LONG after we are gone to our eternity unless the Lord returns before we die.

Prayers for you and others,
joyfulheart


So I guess you'd say that because we've been murdering each other for 2000 years we shouldn't question that behavior and just go on doing it,...cause it's been going on for a long time.

I don't know, I think I'd like to discuss the options. How about living in peace with each other for a change?

People take themselves too seriously. I mean really, we don't seem very bright. We have all these buidings all around the planet filled with knowledge. Libraries. We have all these religions telling us how to live 'right'. We have all these 'holy' lands we keep killing each other over. So much stuff. Are we good human beings? Are we?

M
quex
That anyone asks this question is a clear sign that they will not understand the best answer. -_-

deanhills
Well quex. Look at the many times Epicurus used the word God. Sort of negating that there is no God? Not even Dawkins can prove it. He sort of came up with a theory that maybe it is a cultural "gene" of sorts. Bottomline, scientists have not found any conclusive proof that there is no God and I doubt they ever will.
Bikerman
for the same reason that scientists have not found definitive proof that there is not a small teapot in orbit around one of Jupiter's moons. It is difficult, often impossible, to prove a negative. That doesn't mean that the notion of the teapot is sensible. It cannot be proved that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless her holy hooves) does not exist. Does that mean we should take the possibility seriously?
Bluedoll
Smile
Is it possible Satan is posting negatives on Frihost!
@quex - feel it is a false slogan on the bottom but very good questions and all questions!
Why create period? Why create without having total control? The answer is there are some things that God actually can not do. God can not lie. Free will and the possibility that anything in this universe is possible is the answer to these questions.

Wanted: Seeking low cost rocket builder developer to run advertiser campaign to help pay for a rocket launch to one of Jupiter’s moon’s. Payload, one little teapot. If someone could invent a star trek warp engine too that would be nice, so we don’t have to live under the prime directive.
quex
deanhills wrote:
Well quex. Look at the many times Epicurus used the word God.


o.o? Do you mean in this particular passage, or in all of the works of Epicurus? Because in your own post, you use the passage "there is no god" exactly twice, which is just the number of time Epicurus just said the word "God", and... wait, why does this make any difference? Frequency of word usage does not have any bearing on the argument at hand. >_< And anyway, it is worth noting that Epicurus's "god" was one or more of the Greek pantheon. Are you now arguing in favor of the existence of a multiplicity headed by Zeus?

Quote:
Not even Dawkins can prove it.


Lulz. The phrase "not even Dawkins can prove it" is exactly like an elementary school student assuming that it is impossible to whistle more than three notes because his own music teacher cannot do it. Why should Dawkins' capabilities have anything to do with what we are discussing? XD

Quote:
Bottomline, scientists have not found any conclusive proof that there is no God and I doubt they ever will.


Okay, how about this? Scientists (nor anyone else) have not found any conclusive proof that there IS a god, and I doubt they ever will. You see why this is a poor argument? The teapot is a fantastic second example.

In the meantime, scientists (and hundreds of thousands of regular people throughout history who never realized what they were doing was science) HAVE found conclusive proof that innumerable phenomena once attributed to the powers of gods the world over are, in fact, caused by the interaction of tiny particles, electric charges, and electromagnetic fields acting on a grand scale. We know how it rains. We know how children are conceived. We know the world is round, and that the sun and stars are massive balls of fusing gasses. We will know even more tomorrow. The farther we go, the more people come to understand that there will be no "god" sitting there behind the curtain, working the machine.
quex
Bluedoll wrote:
:)
Is it possible Satan is posting negatives on Frihost!
@quex - feel it is a false slogan on the bottom but very good questions and all questions!
Why create period? Why create without having total control? The answer is there are some things that God actually can not do. God can not lie. Free will and the possibility that anything in this universe is possible is the answer to these questions.

Wanted: Seeking low cost rocket builder developer to run advertiser campaign to help pay for a rocket launch to one of Jupiter’s moon’s. Payload, one little teapot. If someone could invent a star trek warp engine too that would be nice, so we don’t have to live under the prime directive.


Agreed, the /B/ slogan is crap, but I couldn't find a cleaner copy of the image I wanted to post. <:)

I believe with complete faith that there is a matching teacup to said Jupiter teapot in orbit around Gliese 581c. This is my new religion. XD
spinout
Epicurus, my thoughts:

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. / God is not willing actually, not directly. God must have evil to make good things, just like yin/yang.

2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. /Correct Smile and in turmoil!

3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? /There must be evil to have love...

4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Able yes! and not willing, directly.

Satan is God! yin/yang!
Klaw 2
joyfulheart wrote:
Actually, God loves you so much that He sent His only Son to die for your sins so you can spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

ajoyfulheart
http://ajoyfulheart.net


THOUSANDS of STARS DIED for us to EXIST, Jesus seems a bit dull compared to that.
spinout
This jesus and the dying for sins is so dumb!!!! Unlogical...

1. Gods only son????? Look around, sons everywhere!!! Omnipotence is all things!
2. Die ??? - Jesus didn't die, he came back to proof that he didn't die!!
3. Eternity in heaven??? Heaven is only another word for sins! Not only, but still!!!! You must have sins to create heaven! To die for heaven to come to heaven - how stupid is that???
4. Eternity??? If you stay eternity in heaven then heaven don't exist!!!!

5. What loving God would stop you from entering heaven??? ouch - pure logical eh?

Yep - grande stupidity! Twisted Evil So that eastern celebration - oh, the celebration of stupidity!
tingkagol
deanhills wrote:
Well quex. Look at the many times Epicurus used the word God. Sort of negating that there is no God? Not even Dawkins can prove it. He sort of came up with a theory that maybe it is a cultural "gene" of sorts. Bottomline, scientists have not found any conclusive proof that there is no God and I doubt they ever will.

I think quex' post had more to do with the confusing characteristics of God more than his existence; that the popular definition of the word "God" has to be ultimately redefined to remain consistent with itself. As it is, the popular definition remains inconsistent. (I guess adding "God transcends and is beyond logic" fixes that inconsistency)
quex
tingkagol wrote:
(I guess adding "God transcends and is beyond logic" fixes that inconsistency)


Changes it, but doesn't fix it. If god is beyond logic, why does his supposed will obey the lines of good and evil as established by mankind's own logic? There is no religious text where the god(s) figure is not telling people what they should and shouldn't do in accordance with good and evil, and why or why not.

(Personal hatred of that "well, god just transcends us" argument when it comes from any god-centered religion... humanism, agnosticism, and deism can use it, though.)
Bikerman
If God is beyond logic then trying to understand the will of God is an exercise in futility. Why, then, would a Christian take the bible seriously?
tingkagol
I stand corrected. And I never really tried to argue against the notion that God "transcends logic" as it seemed pointless to me until now.
Bikerman
You are not the first to try that argument. It was quite popular in the 13th Century when it was used to counter the paradoxes that arise from the idea of an omnipotent God.
The most common form of the paradox is 'can God create a weight that God cannot lift?'.
If the answer is no then God is not omnipotent. If the answer is yes then God is not omnopotent. Aquinas came up with a supposed solution by asserting that God cannot do what it is not possible to do - this was his answer and since then the Church pretty much adopted it.
tingkagol
I did a bit of reading about the paradox and found other proposed answers. One amused me: it involves God creating the stone which he cannot lift at the time of creation- then does either of the following afterwards: (a) reduce the weight of the stone so that he can lift it; or (b) increases his strength so that he can lift it.
'a' would mean he's basically not lifting the same stone, and 'b' would mean he did not have infinite strength (omnipotence) in the first place.

Others likened the paradox to God creating a square circle. But I quickly dismissed it since the paradox is not "can God lift a weight he cannot lift?", which is as nonsensical as drawing a square circle, but "can he create a weight he cannot lift?", which does make sense since humans do it all the time, but somehow nonsensical for an omnipotent being.
spinout
I don't understand this:
The most common form of the paradox is 'can God create a weight that God cannot lift?'.
1. If the answer is no then God is not omnipotent. / Everything must be able to be lifted in the function weight/gravity - otherwise the term weight is not existing!

2. If the answer is yes then God is not omnipotent. / The function gravity-weight can only work if everything can be lifted - !!! the answer yes is not existing in the function "gravity-weight".

Malplaced question - yes / no is not valid answers!

Correct question: Can God make a function that does not have a function? Not in a relative world... It has nothing with omnipotens to do...
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
I don't understand this:
The most common form of the paradox is 'can God create a weight that God cannot lift?'.
1. If the answer is no then God is not omnipotent. / Everything must be able to be lifted in the function weight/gravity - otherwise the term weight is not existing!
Weight is used lazily to mean a massive object rather than mass*acceleration (the force g).
Quote:

2. If the answer is yes then God is not omnipotent. / The function gravity-weight can only work if everything can be lifted - !!! the answer yes is not existing in the function "gravity-weight".
You will have to explain that one.
Here's how it could work in practice:
Presuming God makes n objects of mass m and packs them into a convenient sphere, then you have mass=m*n which would exert a gravitational attraction. The question is, therefore, can God create another mass - M (at which point gravity takes hold between the new mass and the existing sphere) and lift it, where the weight lifted would be GmM/r^2 (where r is the height of God+radius of sphere)
spinout
Hm, GmM/r^2 , G=?, m and M are masses, r is the height of God+radius of sphere...

I'm not so good at thinking math terms today... Can you please rephrase the terms above in words!

Still, having the idea of mass * acc as force is the same logic to me -> there can't be a force that not can be overforced!!! The function of force terminates in the same moment as when a force is not to be overcome by another!
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
Hm, GmM/r^2 , G=?, m and M are masses, r is the height of God+radius of sphere...

I'm not so good at thinking math terms today... Can you please rephrase the terms above in words!
G is the universal gravitational constant. In short, can God, standing on mass m, create mass M, such that he cannot lift mass M above his head against the force of gravity - as given in the formula.
Quote:
Still, having the idea of mass * acc as force is the same logic to me -> there can't be a force that not can be overforced!!! The function of force terminates in the same moment as when a force is not to be overcome by another!
No, that is simply incorrect.
spinout
Thanks for the formula in words!

Again - if God created a mass that not includes in the function mass, ie not liftable, then it is not a mass... Bingo! Do you get it??? You can not proof God by thinking if God can make a thing outside a function!

This leads to another idea: God can not be constant in a relative world! God is changing constantly!!!
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
Thanks for the formula in words!

Again - if God created a mass that not includes in the function mass, ie not liftable, then it is not a mass... Bingo! Do you get it??? You can not proof God by thinking if God can make a thing outside a function!

This leads to another idea: God can not be constant in a relative world! God is changing constantly!!!
The use of the word function is wrong and confusing. Mass is not a function. If God creates a mass it is, by definition, a mass - regardless of whether it is 'liftable' or not. Mass is not defined in terms of whether it is liftable.
spinout
In this universe, mass can not BE if it is not relative.

Mass is defined in the relative! Mass can not just be mass, it must be relative to something.
Bikerman
I think you are confused. Mass (rest mass) is not relative. It is a distinct quantity and is not defined relative to other masses.
spinout
Hehe, always confused in life!!

Hm, have you heard of antimateria???
Bikerman
Anti-matter I have heard of. It is simply normal matter with the charge sign reversed.

Thus an anti-electron is an electron with a charge of +1 rather than -1 (we call it a positron).
spinout
ok, the sum of matter and antimatter? (ok i am not english-speaking so u have to correct me in terms quite often...)

If U need antimatter to do matter - do u need an anti-universe to do an universe like this????
Bikerman
You don't need antimatter for matter to exist.
The Big Bang theory (one version) predicts that matter and anti-matter should have been produced in equal amounts, so the mystery then becomes what has happened to all the anti-matter. This is actually one of the questions that may be answered conclusively by the Large Hadron Collider. The best current hypothesis is that in the very early universe there was a slight imbalance between matter and anti-matter - 1 part in ten billion (10^10) more matter was produced than anti-matter. Matter and anti-matter then annihiliate each other, producing photons, leaving the 1% matter left over - that is what we see today as the universe.
This is an attractive hypothesis because it would also answer the question of why there are so many photons in the universe, compared to matter (10,000,000,000 photons for every particle of matter).
spinout
So u are saying antimatter is useless?
Bikerman
No, on the contrary. Anti-matter is a fantastic energy source - or it would be if we had any worth speaking of. Unfortunately there is almost none in existence, and the only anti-matter we know about is the stuff we make ourselves - a tiny amount.
spinout
ok, u missed my point.

Hm, that imbalance u wrote about -> could that be in balance with another imbalance??

(Hoping u to get my point this time Smile )
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
ok, u missed my point.

Hm, that imbalance u wrote about -> could that be in balance with another imbalance??

(Hoping u to get my point this time Smile )

No, I still don't get your point.
If there was an imbalance it will be because there is a slight difference in decay rate between matter and anti-matter which would mean slightly more anti-matter decayed before it could annihilate with matter, leaving a small amount of matter left over.
spinout
why is there a slight difference between matter and antimatter? (decay rate - any more differences than just beeing "anti" ?)
Bikerman
Are you familiar with Charge-parity violation? If not then it would take a long time to explain.
spinout
I have read that there are several theorys for disparity/assymetricness...
Right now I don't have a good idea for explaining my point in several theories, hm,

U wrote before: You don't need antimatter for matter to exist. ->
If you don't have the anti stuff then you don't get the imbalance - correct? Somehow needs matter antimatter in the beginning (and the imbalance) to exist - correct?
Bikerman
As I said this is just one hypothesis contained in the overal BB theory.
If there was no antimatter then there would have been no annihilation and the universe would be 10 billion times as massive as it is now.
spinout
Ok, you complete miss my point. Fair enough, I was heading at parallell universes and other strange stuff, but that would also be dumb to mention when describing logic of a function.

If I go to a mathemathic analogy; Describe how big a mass can get?
I'm seeing an answer in terms of the infinite??? Or?

(I suck at math but I think I can explain my point with some mathematics...)
Bikerman
There is no theoretical maximum to mass. There is, however, a theoretical maximum density, which is where the old paradox gets quite interesting in new physics.
If the mass is large enough and the volume small enough then it will collapse under gravity into a singularity - a Black Hole. Now God isn't going to be lifting any black holes.....
spinout
1. There is no maximum to mass - because:
2. How do you lift a singularity!


Can you now see what i mean below???


I quote myself:
I don't understand this:
The most common form of the paradox is 'can God create a weight that God cannot lift?'.
1. If the answer is no then God is not omnipotent. / Everything must be able to be lifted in the function weight/gravity - otherwise the term weight is not existing!

2. If the answer is yes then God is not omnipotent. / The function gravity-weight can only work if everything can be lifted - !!! the answer yes is not existing in the function "gravity-weight".

Malplaced question - yes / no is not valid answers!

Correct question: Can God make a function that does not have a function? Not in a relative world... It has nothing with omnipotens to do...
Bikerman
No I don't understand at all. If God stands on Earth and creates a mass of about 10 solar units then he will have created a mass he cannot lift because it will collapse under gravity to a singularity (same mass) and you can't lift a singularity because you would be spaghettified when you got close.
spinout
I like that word; Spaghettified! Laughing
*<The spaghettified God!>*

We are talking about the same thing, in the end, and I understand your point of view -> I shall try to figure out a better analogy so U can see mine.

How would God appear to you - have you ever seen God appear in some way?

Do you think God can change every rule in the universe instantly???

Is there any "rule" that God can't change????
Bikerman
I don't believe there is a God so it would be odd for me to have seen him Smile
I am a plain and simple man - I believe that which I have evidence for in the main. I do have a couple of non-rational beliefs (as opposed to irrational - ie they are not based on logical evidence, but neither do they go against such evidence). One would be that there is perhaps something inevitable about the evolution of intelligence. I find hypotheses like the Evolving Universes (Lee Smolin) very satisfying and pleasing scientifically. Such an hypothesis would tend to indicate, to me at least, that there is an inevitability about intelligent life.
Of course I would give up that belief should the evidence compel me to - it isn't 'faith' in that sense Smile
spinout
I am the opposite - a polytheist Very Happy

anyhow back to another analogy of my thinking:
I say a black hole is NOT a singularity! Can you tell me something to make me change my mind? Why would a black hole be a singularity - there is always a bigger hole!!!
Bikerman
That is better discussed in the science forums.
spinout
You are not willing to see my point then.
Bikerman
Well, up to now you haven't made one. Simple asserting that you don't believe in black holes for the reason you give tells me that you don't understand black holes. This is not the forum to explain and it would sidetrack the current thread even more than it has already...
In short, mass can only 'hold itself up' against gravity to a certain point. After that point it collapses in on itself, like a can being crushed under pressure. If gravity is sufficient the collapse will continue all the way down to a zero dimensional point. That is a singularity. The singularity can be any mass you like, it doesn't change size. The event horizon changes size according to mass, but not the singularity.
spinout
My point is not about physic details.

Singularity is outside relativeness.?

Ah, hm, hum, erm, I am wanting you to answer me shortly in math-terms (not formulas) the difference and hoping you see my point actually... Not the answer to jump to other part of this forum. That was what went wrong before, no offence!
Bikerman
I don't know what you want. I can give you the equations of a black hole. I have described what it is. What else is there?
spinout
Imagine if u see me going into a black hole singularity... i didn't quite get there - or? No I never did to you...
still there is hypothesis that the holes never truely get to singularity...

from a philosopfic view singularity never was a obstacle from the beginning ...
Bikerman
Yes, I never see you get there. So what? That has nothing to do with the existence of the singularity. It is the effect caused by relativistic dilation.
The question was about lifting a black hole and it isn't possible...therefore qed..end..
spinout
1. so what...?? hm think again!...Yes it has to do with the existence from 2 views, mathematic and philosophic! Mathematically you never get there...
2. A singularity is out of this world - philosophically, then also the proof of it beeing a true singularity is not present. If I remember correct the quantum physics disallow it?
3. Is it impossible for God to lift a black hole? Can't be ??? Or do you have any physic terms against it? no offence!
Bikerman
1) Nonsense. Mathematically, philosophically and actually, you get there in normal time.
distance/velocity = time. If the singularity is 10 miles away and you are doing 10mph then you get there in an hour. When you reach the event horizon i see you stop and gradually fade, but YOU carry on as normal towards the singularity until you get close enough for the gravitational field to tear you apart.
2) Oh really. Please elaborate. Explain why and how quantum physics rules out a Black Hole if you would be so kind.
3) Yes. As you approach the singularity you are encountering stronger and stronger gravity. The difference in gravitational attraction between your head and feet increases until it stretches you into a long thin tube - spaghettification. That happens to any matter - even Godly matter - so if God has adopted material form in order to lift, he is done for.
spinout
1) we disagree, fair enough -> this makes a good forum!
Even if I tear apart - I (or what was me) never reach a singularity! Due to the quantums and philosophically and mathematically.
2) Have you ever heard of quantum physics going singularity Smile Hehe, ka-chinng! You get what I mean - quantums are all about not beeing singularty!
3) Ok, you are correct as you write it. I'm thinking outside the box!
Bikerman
I haven't got a clue what you are now talking about and I don't think you have either. I think you are just stringing words together and hoping they make sense. They don't.
'nuff said.
spinout
Sorry for that - geez, I really really mean what I write.
I am not english speaking, even people talking the same language have trouble understanding each other.

Hm, I don't find your statement polite but I don't care. Unpoliteness makes a forum.

I never said quant fysics rules out black holes - just singularity!

If you point out singularity as non-existant then it is outside the function as liftable? So adding singularity to the how much is liftable is just false. "Beeing Close" is the way - how close can you get to a black hole? How little can that be? Something is always smaller!
Our (as I have mentioned before in another thread) books in school says there is no smallest mass ...
Bikerman
Well, I am not always polite but I try not to be deliberately offensive. I meant what I said, I don't think you have an understanding of this. My understanding is limited, but fortunately I have ready access to several very knowledgable physicists.Quantum physics does not rule out a singularity - General Relativity breaks down at the singularity.Quantum physics actually predicts black holes in some circumstances.
Unless you can support your contention about Quantum physics then I think it is time this conversation stopped. QM has some problems with black hole singularities but those are to do with information loss and don't question the existence of the singularity.
I'm afraid it is time to either use the loo or get off the pot, to put it genteely.
spinout
It's ok.

In the future you may see what I am seeing.
ghanster
Yantaal wrote:
wasnt satan one of gods angels or summit? the he got banned. sooooo, god being all knowing, knew this would happen, so why did god create him?


In my view, I would say God is all knowing, and He also knows why He allowed all that to happen.
We humans have no idea of what happens or happened in Heaven until we ask God and He speaks to us! I would recommend you asking God and not human, because God is wiser than human, and He created us...
Indi
ghanster wrote:
In my view, I would say God is all knowing, and He also knows why He allowed all that to happen.
We humans have no idea of what happens or happened in Heaven until we ask God and He speaks to us! I would recommend you asking God and not human, because God is wiser than human, and He created us...

If God is speaking to you, you should see a doctor. Seriously. That's a symptom of schizophrenia.

But if you really believe that God is wiser than us, and that he speaks to us, then by all means, ask him the hard questions. Ask him why people suffer. Tell us what he says.
ghanster
We all suffer because of our sins! Stop sinning and accept Christ, and you'll see the greatness of God!

And about hearing God's voice, unbelief doesnt actually mean telling the believer that he suffers from some kinda disease. I wouldnt challenge with you, all is that I pray that you'll have an encounter with God.
tingkagol
ghanster wrote:
We all suffer because of our sins! Stop sinning and accept Christ, and you'll see the greatness of God!

Clearly there are people who suffer more than most. Those suffering from famine in Africa, for example. Are you saying they are more sinful than us since we're well-fed? If not, why does God allow this to happen?

Does this girl look like she's more sinful than you?
ghanster
Do you know what happened? Do you know EXACTLY what is going on there?
And remember, that everything that happens is for a purpose
spinout
Hm, I heard this video from Sweden, an interview with a reptile person (living inside the earth) saying its kind was the evil serpent from the religious texts. And the war was with aliens (the angels in the text) over earth. But it proclaimed that it not was evil as printed in the holy books!

Laughing

so Satan is another word for the reptile ancesters still living here (human sized) . not only birds, crocs aso survived the war but also the satan people - the earth true people. Laughing

fun stuff but thinkable!

The word satan mean to me trying to be GOD but not getting there!
Ankhanu
ghanster wrote:
Do you know what happened? Do you know EXACTLY what is going on there?
And remember, that everything that happens is for a purpose

Remember that everything happens for a purpose?? That's a clear assertion, and one I don't happen to agree with. You're assuming predestiny and intent, neither of which are conclusive.
Bikerman
ghanster wrote:
Do you know what happened? Do you know EXACTLY what is going on there?
And remember, that everything that happens is for a purpose

Why would that be necessary? Do you seriously contend that an infant, not yet capable of speech, is nontheless capable of sin? REALLY?
Or maybe you think the mother is sinful and that the baby is being tormented for the sins of the mother? That would be a good old-testament viewpoint, for sure. Doesn't alter the fact that such beliefs are not only idiotic, they are pretty damned offensive.
spinout
Many religions and old testament point to this BUT whom are more offensive to this child???
1. the ones who believe the child or its mom have commited a sin and therefor is in "pain" or
2. the ones of this planet not sharing resources???

next idea:

10% of the worlds population have 90% of the resources... (i.e. the group 2 above) - of those whom are the most "*ssholes";
a. Those who see the greatness is being rich (true capitalists ? )
b. Those who also tend to be of group 1 above

And other combos of group 2 of course...

It is worse to have ideas about how people ended up where there are in an outside world belief OR not even support the starving (with strange belief or not)?
spinout
"must be more than 20000 are dying every day from hunger...

I am living in a rich country...

Who are the biggest *sshole here; the ones who strives for bigger differences in wealth or those how are not? "

That is one favorite quote when I say we have to much poor people here and someone say "those who work hard are worth big wealth even if it is too much..."
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
Many religions and old testament point to this BUT whom are more offensive to this child???
1. the ones who believe the child or its mom have commited a sin and therefor is in "pain" or
2. the ones of this planet not sharing resources???

next idea:

10% of the worlds population have 90% of the resources... (i.e. the group 2 above) - of those whom are the most "*ssholes";
a. Those who see the greatness is being rich (true capitalists ? )
b. Those who also tend to be of group 1 above

And other combos of group 2 of course...

It is worse to have ideas about how people ended up where there are in an outside world belief OR not even support the starving (with strange belief or not)?

This is all very much 'motherhood and apple-pie'. By that I mean it is rather a statement of the obvious which everyone can agree with but actually pushes the discussion nowhere.
Case in point:
In some African countries where starvation of the sort we are talking about is endemic, or at least chronic, the reasons are complex. More often than not - eg the Congo - it is related to civil war or huge corruption or both. So what do you propose to do about it? Give massive aid to governments that are corrupt and will, experience teaches, simply divert it into their own pockets? Fund aid programs which simply 'firefight' the problem and don't address the core issues - meaning that the situation simply progresses from one crisis to the next? Regime change (which requires military intervention) ?
Spouting platitudes about nasty capitalists is easy - I've done it myself. Suggesting real-world solutions is much more tricky.
There again, if one believes that this suffering is some sort of divine justice at work then why intervene at all? That would simply mean one was fighting against a divine plan/order. THAT is why such beliefs are not just unhelpful but are truly immoral and disgusting.
spinout
So they are so corrupted, ie *ssholes themselfes, so the child suffers therefore...

This wouldn't push this discussion somewhere but I actually NOT think that mindset is better than group 1 or 2 !

Ok, this is a huge problem and needs a big mindset change on a mass of people to change. But it is not impossible... I think. even the distribution is a big problem but solvable.
Bikerman
Are you really saying that you see no moral difference between those who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to solve poverty as an issue, and those who believe that children suffer because it is just that they SHOULD suffer?
spinout
Both have really bad moral... just a coloration of shitty kind of moral.

so in Stockholm... the people living on the streets have increased dramatically the last years... I think the ones supporting that powerty have worse moral than those thinking they should suffer...

yes I do see the moral difference Laughing
Bikerman
So, have you solved the housing problem in Stockholm? No? Why not? Surely that makes you immoral?
spinout
Yes I have solved it. Immoral NO! I am an *ssshole! As the rest of the Swedish majority...
Iceaxe0410
I never really thought of it. I'm told my beliefs are heavily that of a deist. I'm not strongly religious. I haven't even read most of the Bible or any religious scriptures for that matter. Assuming that God is pretty much everything omnipresent, omnipowerful, etc I would expect that he was also good and evil at the same time. Most things in life have opposites; left and right, plus and minus, etc. You could make the argument of neutral, but meh details. I guess my point is that I would not find it surprising if there were both good and evil angels. Good cannot exist without evil. It's the balance, yin and yang.
Bikerman
Do you know what the beliefs of a Deist are?

If your beliefs are really Deistic then you don't believe that God takes any part in the universe. Deists basically believe that God kicked the universe off and then went for a 13.7 billion year rest. So far from being omnipresent, Deists believe that God is, effectively, not present at all...
Indi
Ah, that's not necessarily true. That's one form of deism, yes, but not the only one. All forms of deism have God as non-interfering, but that's not the same as non-present. Pandeism and panendeism not only have God present in the universe, they say God is the universe (or the universe is part of God).

All deism means, really, is that God isn't interfering with the universe or poking his nose in our affairs - or sending us coded messages through wild-eyed prophets. It doesn't mean that he isn't here, now, watching.

And, there are versions of deism that have God acting as moral judge. He won't step in now, but at some unspecified point in the future when he does, the guilty will pay. That's more or less what the 18th century type of deist believed: that God started the universe then stepped back to watch, but his fingerprints are visible with proper inspection of nature, and he is watching everything we do and acting as moral judge, so if you're bad, you will answer to his judgement in the afterlife.

So, technically, what Iceaxe0410 described could be deism, sorta.
sunbox10
Here are my two cents. First of all we cannot understand how God thinks we can never do. As i mentioned in another post it is like a 2 year old or a 5 year old or 7 year old able to understand why an adult does what he does why he goes to work why cant he just stay home? Because an adult know how life works while a child doesnt. We as humans are like children to him our adult brain is a micro small to his ever knowledge so as a child cannot understand why an adult does what he does us humans cannot understand why God does what he does not until we reach enlightenment which might be when we pass to the other world and we are ready to understand the next step. So the question at hand why did God create Satan knowing he would turn out the way he would and people said because of free will. Well this is how i see it but again only God knows and if we want the true answer we ask him. Anyway, i will try and use logic if God knows everything and knew there will be evil then why even create anything like saying there is no crime it will be a boring place no police officers no shows nothing to do. Well why did he want evil then? this is were the free will comes in. God loves us that he gives us free will he knows what you will do but chooses not to step in. It is like a parent you give birth to a child you love him or her soo much but as days pass by you see your child as a criminal you know he steals you know he does drugs you know he has even killed before but the love of the mother or father prevents them from calling the police and sending their child to jail. Other people will say send that kid to jail he deserves it but thats because you dont understand the joy the mother has and the love. Even the mother of Ted Bundy the notorious serial killer denied and could not believe but she saw with her eyes and even until his execution remain his son and cried for his son.

Then the question comes up God can remove all suffering and diseases why is there so much suffering. Well let me use logic again. If your a parent and your son or daughters are disobedient steal do crime sin whatever the case and only come to you for money your going to punish that brat spanking them sending them to their room if they want to leave the house and be disobedient ok fine let them go and when they need my help i wont be there so they can be punished. After a while children well some not all common sense pops back in their head and comes looking for their parents asking for forgiveness only they came to prison to visit them only they feed them when things were grim. So God is the same you want to turn away from him ok that is fine go out in the world, but if your in a pickle you have pain. So thus people turn to him for help and guidance.

I believe that when the world was young God spoke to man more so than now. But as years past by people turned away from him so thus we start seeing suffering and pain develop God is sitting back just like any parent and saying well if they dont want to listen then let them learn the hard way. When they are tired i am here for them just like any parent they are always there to receive their trouble teens. We cannot know how it was back then because we were not around in those times but maybe somewhere along the way something cause people to be more evil again free will that pain suffering became more noticeable.

So again why did God create Satan again no one knows only he knows if he knew ahead of time everything then he must have knew what was ahead of that and ahead of that and eventually boiling down to evil needs to be present in order to have free will people who are good.

It is like i once hear all battles are won before they are fought. Meaning you already know every single move sometimes you have to sacrifice your king or bishop in order to be in position to win. In this case God only knows why Satan was created again we dont know the answer because our brain and understanding is unlike his and cannot comprehend his knowledge.

If people say well why doesnt God just bring world peace if he did people will start turning slowly back into sin and little by little we will be back to square one. And God will once again allow pain and suffering to occur so that they can seek him. He is not bad for doing this same as a parent who punishes their children or spanks them the parents are not bad they are disciplining them right to grow up as good citizens and not burdens to society. So perhaps Satan was just put there to toughen us up can we over come his temptations? Can we be mentally broken down and be good citizens?

It is like boot camp or better yet the military you send people to clean up their acts and you have a Sargent screaming at your hear push ups push ups lets move move move. Seems like a Satan for boot camp. Parents can go and take their kids out of boot camp because they cannot stand their children suffering in pain but wait they leave them their knowing what they are going through because they know they will come out better off than when they first came in. Same thing must be with God he knew ahead of time and ahead of time that a Sargent was going to be needed to set these people straight. Gods way of disciplining and turning people from blind to self aware good people. God sits back and lets everything unfolded but again we dont know unless we ask but we cant get answers unless your one with him in human language you cant call your mother if you dont know her phone number.
Bikerman
sunbox10 wrote:
Here are my two cents. First of all we cannot understand how God thinks we can never do. As i mentioned in another post it is like a 2 year old or a 5 year old or 7 year old able to understand why an adult does what he does why he goes to work why cant he just stay home? Because an adult know how life works while a child doesnt. We as humans are like children to him our adult brain is a micro small to his ever knowledge so as a child cannot understand why an adult does what he does us humans cannot understand why God does what he does not until we reach enlightenment which might be when we pass to the other world and we are ready to understand the next step.
This is SUCH a bogus argument it is surprising to see it still used. Firstly it is logical nonsense. An infinite being would not be to mankind as parent is to child - the comparison is idiotic. Secondly it relies on the bizarre concept that real 'morality' is only apparent when you die. Aside from the fact that this is deeply insulting to those of non-Christian belief who live good and ethical lives, it would be a pretty crazy way to organize anything. I can hear God....
God wrote:
How here's the rules....you have to be good and worship me, then you get eternal life. Now, as to the 'being good' bit, just for fun you won't actually know what is good and what is evil until after you die....whilst you live, clearly things like murder, even genocide, can't really be evil, because I did them and since I, by definition, am good then.....
anyway, this is advanced God stuff, and you wouldn't understand. It absolutely ISN'T hypocritical bollox at all.

Quote:
Anyway, i will try and use logic if God knows everything and knew there will be evil then why even create anything like saying there is no crime it will be a boring place no police officers no shows nothing to do. Well why did he want evil then? this is were the free will comes in. God loves us that he gives us free will he knows what you will do but chooses not to step in. It is like a parent you give birth to a child you love him or her soo much but as days pass by you see your child as a criminal you know he steals you know he does drugs you know he has even killed before but the love of the mother or father prevents them from calling the police and sending their child to jail. Other people will say send that kid to jail he deserves it but thats because you dont understand the joy the mother has and the love. Even the mother of Ted Bundy the notorious serial killer denied and could not believe but she saw with her eyes and even until his execution remain his son and cried for his son.
And here the extent of the bogus-ness becomes apparent. For a start it completely ignores the fact that evil is not always a result of free-will. Tsunami, earthquake and other 'natural' disasters are all your loving God mucking around - since that same God could easily prevent them, and nobody would loose any freewill...
Then, the notion that an omnipotent being could be so emotionally crippled that it requires worship from a comparatively trivial and limited lifeform - that's like a bacteriologist falling in love with a new cell that he has created - deeply weird and troubling.....
Finally, even if we pursue this silly analogy, what sort of parent would condemn their disobedient child to INFINITE suffering? No sort of parent I've met....
sunbox10
Quote:
This is SUCH a bogus argument it is surprising to see it still used. Firstly it is logical nonsense. An infinite being would not be to mankind as parent is to child - the comparison is idiotic. Secondly it relies on the bizarre concept that real 'morality' is only apparent when you die. Aside from the fact that this is deeply insulting to those of non-Christian belief who live good and ethical lives, it would be a pretty crazy way to organize anything. I can hear God....


First of all i am not claiming i know what God thinks i am saying my theory. Second how can it be bogus if you make claims and logic as well based on your theory why cant others too? In this case your ideas are bogus as any other crazy person.

* Galileo Galilei believed the world was round (People said wha?t he was crazy nonsense and bogus ideas lets kill him)
* Nicolaus Copernicus Theory that earth was not the center of the universe (solar system) but the sun ( What did people think of his bogus ideas and nonsense thinking.... ?)

They observed, analyze and theorized. I am just trying to make as much sense from what i read, see and compare.

The reason why i did the comparison is because it make sense rather than saying God did it this way and have no real reason to back up what i say like many Christians out there.

Reference:
Verse :Galatians 3:26: --> "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus," New International Version (©1984)

This verse i found is the reason why i even compare that theory if i had not found it would be a bogus idea to say something without backing up what i said and why i said it. I think there might be others but this was one that sticked out right away from the top of my mind.

And finally you did not even explained why it was idiotic nor why it did not make sense at all. All you said was it "its bogus" "it is logical nonsense" and "An infinite being would not be to mankind as parent is to child" but you did not explain why you believe this is so.


Quote:
And here the extent of the bogus-ness becomes apparent. For a start it completely ignores the fact that evil is not always a result of free-will. Tsunami, earthquake and other 'natural' disasters are all your loving God mucking around - since that same God could easily prevent them, and nobody would loose any freewill...
Then, the notion that an omnipotent being could be so emotionally crippled that it requires worship from a comparatively trivial and limited lifeform - that's like a bacteriologist falling in love with a new cell that he has created - deeply weird and troubling.....
Finally, even if we pursue this silly analogy, what sort of parent would condemn their disobedient child to INFINITE suffering? No sort of parent I've met....


Ofocurse parents are not going to be openly about their feelings. Many people have skeletons in their closet but do they reveal them?? Most likely no. You might have not met a parent but if you search i am sure you could find some. Maybe Jerry Springer who knows.

* Nicholas Lindsey Sr. and Deneen Sweat's parents of Nicholas Lindsey beg son to confess to murder. Result life time in jail if found guilty not 18 yet so he doesnt qualify for the death penalty.

Nevertheless if you see the confession video you can see these parents are condemning their son to man up and take responsibility for what he did. This kid is going to suffer all his life in jail for what he did. Jail isnt fun ask any former prisoner. They see jail as hell on earth.

Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNU3N3RhFXw

Condemning:
1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment: to condemn a murderer to life imprisonment.

Reference :
Dictionary.com

Your probably will say it doesn't compare jail time for life to eternity and your right life on earth is short to compare it to eternity in fact i took the liberty of looking for a verse that backs up what you said burning in everlasting punishment.

In Matthew 25:46, Jesus said, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into eternal life."


However, when studying the bible or verses i find it to be like looking at the United States Constitution it says something very clear well based on what you read but is it really what it is saying is the interpretation correct? Remember the bible has been translated for many many years so along the way someone had to screw up or reword it to try and translate it the best way possible. If we look at the 1st amendment of the US Constitution we have freedom of speech. But do we really have freedom of speech? If i say something harmful or say something vulgar to a woman i am screwed and punished but why? Isnt suppose to protect my freedom to say anything stupid or smart i say??

"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference...."

Reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Not exactly if we have kept an eye on the news or if you have a personal story.

Therefore, when looking at text and its meaning can we truly say we understand what the heck one is saying or does it have different meanings. If this is the case could it be people burn in hell not for eternity but until you paid your debt? Then your introduced back into society? If God loves us this would be possible we try to make sense out of what one text is trying to express but what we think something means might not always mean what an author(s) of a text was trying to say. Razz Very Happy
Bikerman
sunbox10 wrote:
First of all i am not claiming i know what God thinks i am saying my theory. Second how can it be bogus if you make claims and logic as well based on your theory why cant others too? In this case your ideas are bogus as any other crazy person.
I made no claims based on anything other than established SCIENTIFIC theory. That is nothing at all to do with the sort of 'theory' that you mean. You don't have a 'theory' about an interpretation of the bible. You have an 'opinion'. You can't have a theory (in the scientific sense) unless your theory can be, and has been, tested. In other words, the thing about a theory is that there has to be a way to prove it wrong.
Quote:
* Galileo Galilei believed the world was round (People said wha?t he was crazy nonsense and bogus ideas lets kill him)
* Nicolaus Copernicus Theory that earth was not the center of the universe (solar system) but the sun ( What did people think of his bogus ideas and nonsense thinking.... ?)

They observed, analyze and theorized. I am just trying to make as much sense from what i read, see and compare.
Nope - completely different thing. Both Galileo and Copernicus (re)posited scientifically testable hypotheses. What YOU are doing is offering opinion, with little or no empirical evidence, and, more importantly, no way that it can be shown to be wrong.
Quote:
And finally you did not even explained why it was idiotic nor why it did not make sense at all. All you said was it "its bogus" "it is logical nonsense" and "An infinite being would not be to mankind as parent is to child" but you did not explain why you believe this is so.

a. A human parent-child relationship is between a developing infant who will one day become a mature adult, and one or more existing adults. We are not 'developing infants' in any comparable sense - unless you believe we will one day become Gods.
b. A human parent-child relationship is an evolved behaviour, which can be observed in many social species. God is not a member of any species and, presumably, is not the product of any evolutionary process.
c. A human parent-child relationship is between members of the same species - by definition.
d. A human parent-child relationship depends on physical contact and interaction between the parent and the child.
(I could go on, but I really think that the bogus nature of the analogy should be abundantly clear without me having to list the ways in which it is...)

Nor do your examples show any parent who would consign their offspring to ETERNAL suffering, and it is noticeable that you chose 'dysunctional' (to put it mildly) examples. You don't have to be a killer to get consigned to hell. You can be a very moral person, who lives an ethical life helping others - but if you don't happen to believe in Jesus as God then you burn.
There really is no sane comparison between a lifetime in Jail and an eternity of suffering in the flames of hell.

As for whether the bible tells us that such a thing awaits - it does, in Mark (3:29), Hebrews (6:2), Matthew (5:29-30), Mark (9:43-47), Revelation (1:1Cool.
Quote:
Therefore, when looking at text and its meaning can we truly say we understand what the heck one is saying or does it have different meanings. If this is the case could it be people burn in hell not for eternity but until you paid your debt? Then your introduced back into society? If God loves us this would be possible we try to make sense out of what one text is trying to express but what we think something means might not always mean what an author(s) of a text was trying to say. Razz Very Happy
Well, now you are on more rational grounds. Certainly the bible can be interpreted to say almost anything one chooses. I can use it to support the notion that genocide is holy, murder is necessary and godly, killing children is a religious duty.....and so on. The weakness of the 'interpretation' argument is that it generally supposes that there IS a 'right' interpretation - something which. because of the nature of the bible, is almost certainly not correct. The bible was written over a long period of time for different audiences, conveying different worldviews. It is confused and often self-contradictory for that very reason. Assuming that there is some 'deeper' meaning behind the bible, and that if we can only interpret it correctly then we will have discovered that meaning, strikes me as an extremely naive notion which is contradicted by what we know of the actual history.
sunbox10
Quote:
I made no claims based on anything other than established SCIENTIFIC theory. That is nothing at all to do with the sort of 'theory' that you mean. You don't have a 'theory' about an interpretation of the bible. You have an 'opinion'. You can't have a theory (in the scientific sense) unless your theory can be, and has been, tested. In other words, the thing about a theory is that there has to be a way to prove it wrong.


Your correct a theory is something that you can test i should have said opinion rather than theory i did say my two cents but being consistent with my words is best to avoid confusion. However, as you pointed out "a theory is that there has to be a way to prove it wrong." To test something one is willing to test it if you dont test you cant know if something is correct or wrong. Scientist do not know the answers to things until they try different combinations and test until hopefully they come up with an answer. So if anyone who says there is no God or anything of this short then there are many ways to try to test this again for the sake of testing we will try to prove or disprove something. Some of these suggestions might be bogus but heck if it is in the name of science and testing why not right?
So one thing people argue is if there is evil there is good while others say if there is evil there cannot be good. If evil or demons or the devil enters you then it wont leave since one idea is if no evil no good. But if it leaves because of God and what the bible teaches us then if evil then there is good. Evil cannot be good so they cant be the same its either good or bad.
People perform exorcist to cast out demons, but non believers say it is not really possession of evil but some brain imbalance or psychological or just fake. If so then lets take a none believer perfectly fine and start testing by having someone use a ouija boards, performing evil rituals, selling their souls (i know atheist don't believe in one but if they dont believe then they should have no problem stating they are willing to sale or give it up for an exchange for something cant be free because we can't prove it if its free), doing everything in the book. If fake nothing will happen nothing to worry about what is there to be afraid off its not real why even bother believing this can occur? Only through testing can we determine it and recording everything down. If someone gets possess (person who believes its fake) and is delivered or cast out the evil using Gods word then we might have something to continue testing. Of course we can only test it on non believers would not make sense to test it on believers because they can easily fake it. Am sure there should be other ways to test. Let the testing begin...

Quote:
a. A human parent-child relationship is between a developing infant who will one day become a mature adult, and one or more existing adults. We are not 'developing infants' in any comparable sense - unless you believe we will one day become Gods.
b. A human parent-child relationship is an evolved behaviour, which can be observed in many social species. God is not a member of any species and, presumably, is not the product of any evolutionary process.
c. A human parent-child relationship is between members of the same species - by definition.
d. A human parent-child relationship depends on physical contact and interaction between the parent and the child.
(I could go on, but I really think that the bogus nature of the analogy should be abundantly clear without me having to list the ways in which it is...)


I did not mean having the same characteristics or the same species to compare what i mean is the behavior or actions. God is not human but we are that is correct meaning we cant mix apples and carrots and call them the same they look taste and have different vitamins. But the behavior of a fruit/vegetable or different species is somewhat similar to a certain degree. Although fruit and vegetable are different they still behave the same they break down in people's body. People in the Zoo nurture baby bears, horses etc as the animal develops. adult human-baby animal relationship is not the same as human adult-baby relationship but we see similarities in behavior. Both share a bond of affection the human at the zoo cares for the animal but the animal's brain will not reach the same awareness and intelligence as the human. God is all knowing and humans have limited knowledge.

Different species or not the same but have the same behavior.
God ----> humans God thinks different than Humans
Adult Humans----> baby bear Adult humans think different than bears


Here is same species but still same behavior.
Human adult ---> human baby
Adult bear ----> baby bear


I was not really referring that our brain continues to develop even after death what i was suggesting or an opinion to know the answer once we pass we ask the creator then we know. Of course for this to even have any impact you must first believe this is going to happen. However, my comment was another possibility or opinion of how or why certain things occur when they could be prevented maybe not testable but opinion. Like one time my friend said maybe we are all already in heaven with God and all of this is just a dream and when we die we really just wake up from the dream.
Bikerman
sunbox10 wrote:


Your correct a theory is something that you can test i should have said opinion rather than theory i did say my two cents but being consistent with my words is best to avoid confusion. However, as you pointed out "a theory is that there has to be a way to prove it wrong." To test something one is willing to test it if you dont test you cant know if something is correct or wrong. Scientist do not know the answers to things until they try different combinations and test until hopefully they come up with an answer. So if anyone who says there is no God or anything of this short then there are many ways to try to test this again for the sake of testing we will try to prove or disprove something. Some of these suggestions might be bogus but heck if it is in the name of science and testing why not right?
The claims of religion have been tested over and over and always found wanting.
Google the templeton prayer experiment for example.
The proposition that God exists can only be tested if it is also proposed that said God interacts with the universe (ie non-Deist). Whenever such claims are made - normally claims of miracles, they are usually investigated and, in all but a tiny number of cases, proved bogus. £ven where there is no obvious duplicity or delusion, alternative naturalistic explanations are available. Obviously whenever a naturalistic explanation is available it should always be favoured over any supernatural explanation.*
Quote:
Different species or not the same but have the same behavior.
God ----> humans God thinks different than Humans
Adult Humans----> baby bear Adult humans think different than bears
It is another bogus comparison. Adult humans do not have a parental relationship with baby bears. They MAY have a 'guardianship' relationship, but that is a different sort of relationship.
The whole framework of the analogy - the parent-child analogy - is fundamentally flawed for the reasons I have already stated. If you mean something OTHER than a human child-parent relationship then the analogy needs to be changed accordingly.
Quote:
Here is same species but still same behavior.
Human adult ---> human baby
Adult bear ----> baby bear

So, continue...
Adult God ---> ?
Quote:
I was not really referring that our brain continues to develop even after death what i was suggesting or an opinion to know the answer once we pass we ask the creator then we know. Of course for this to even have any impact you must first believe this is going to happen. However, my comment was another possibility or opinion of how or why certain things occur when they could be prevented maybe not testable but opinion. Like one time my friend said maybe we are all already in heaven with God and all of this is just a dream and when we die we really just wake up from the dream.
You have failed to address the issue of non-human 'evil'. If you want to posit that God needs to allow evil in order for freewill to be allowed (and that argument is fundamentally flawed as I will demonstrate in a moment), then the fact that God allows evil where there is no question of freewill would seem to render the hypothesis either invalid or redundant.
The argument that freewill requires evil is, itself, flawed, as can easily be seen if it is properly thought-through
a) It is perfectly possible to imagine human nature without evil. If human nature did not include the possibility of doing evil then the issue of free-will would not arise.
b) The notion that a believer actually HAS free-will is itself bogus. Free-will is not truly free where there is coercion. If you hold a gun to someone's head and tell them they are free to do X, but if they do X you will pull the trigger, that would not be considered a free-will situation by any court or any reasonable person. The threat of eternal damnation strikes me as a fairly clear example of coercion..
c) The idea that evil is a consequence of human free-will MUST be bogus even accepting the bible at face value. Where did Satan come from...and WHEN ?

* There are an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations for any event E. The probability of a particular supernatural explanation for event E being true is, therefore, vanishingly small. Furthermore there is no valid way of deciding between supernatural explanations, since normal considerations of probability do not hold in such circumstances. One therefore has no way to chose a particular supernatural explanation over an infinite number of alternatives - they are, in a sense, all equally improbable.
In addition, a naturalistic explanation involves no extra 'entities' or assumptions whereas any supernaturalistic explanation for event E absolutely REQUIRES at least one additional entity/assumption. Ockhams razor tells us that where there are two equally competing explanations, we should always chose the one with the fewest additional entities. Do NOT multiple entities needlessly is a short and sweet summary. It follows that any naturalistic explanation for event E, no matter how unlikely, must ALWAYS be favoured over any supernatural explanation.
sunbox10
Quote:
The claims of religion have been tested over and over and always found wanting.
Google the templeton prayer experiment for example.
The proposition that God exists can only be tested if it is also proposed that said God interacts with the universe (ie non-Deist). Whenever such claims are made - normally claims of miracles, they are usually investigated and, in all but a tiny number of cases, proved bogus. £ven where there is no obvious duplicity or delusion, alternative naturalistic explanations are available. Obviously whenever a naturalistic explanation is available it should always be favoured over any supernatural explanation.*


The templeton prayer experiment is very interesting i read the experiment on google and the Harvard Prayer Experiment. Unfortunately, this is not the experiment i was referring since this is an experiment to test prayer. Payer is used on patients who are going through Heart Surgery non possesses. Are there any experiments done were an individual try to invite a demon or evil spirit to enter them or engaging in a deal with satan? The closest thing i found was people performing exorcism on people broadcast by Channel 4 but this isnt it either because here it is doing experiment after the person is so called demon posses. What i want to know has anyone done an experiment or a documentary on the process of someone literally trying to be get possessed then being exorcise? But the person being experiment on needs to be a non believer because it wont make sense to use it on someone who believes or is mentally ill or have any medical conditions to begin with?

Quote:
It is another bogus comparison. Adult humans do not have a parental relationship with baby bears. They MAY have a 'guardianship' relationship, but that is a different sort of relationship.
The whole framework of the analogy - the parent-child analogy - is fundamentally flawed for the reasons I have already stated. If you mean something OTHER than a human child-parent relationship then the analogy needs to be changed accordingly.


Ok i looked more into what your saying and your using the definition of parent-child relationship to argument my comment.
Parent-Child Relationship:
The legal definition of a parent-child relationship is established either with proof of a biological relationship or proof of legal adoption by the parent or parents.

Ok after looking at the definition i see why you disregard what i said, but then what i said was not this kind of relationship which goes back to interpretation. The definition is using the proof of biological relation or legal adoption which doesn't quiet fit. When you mention guardianship relationship i started to investigate a little more but it doesnt seem to fit what i am trying to say either. Maybe dances around but then that might be a new idea.

So this brings me to mentor relationship.
Mentor Relationship
A mentor is an experienced person who provides information, advice, support, and encouragement to a less experienced person, often leading and guiding by example.

What would you call the social and physical development of children who are influence by cartoons? Would this be a relationship between TV set and Children? Since they spend a lot of time watching programs and are interacting? Cartoons characters are not real but yet children are being influenced or shape their behavior based on what they are seeing.

Quote:
You have failed to address the issue of non-human 'evil'. If you want to posit that God needs to allow evil in order for freewill to be allowed (and that argument is fundamentally flawed as I will demonstrate in a moment), then the fact that God allows evil where there is no question of freewill would seem to render the hypothesis either invalid or redundant.
The argument that freewill requires evil is, itself, flawed, as can easily be seen if it is properly thought-through
a) It is perfectly possible to imagine human nature without evil. If human nature did not include the possibility of doing evil then the issue of free-will would not arise.
b) The notion that a believer actually HAS free-will is itself bogus. Free-will is not truly free where there is coercion. If you hold a gun to someone's head and tell them they are free to do X, but if they do X you will pull the trigger, that would not be considered a free-will situation by any court or any reasonable person. The threat of eternal damnation strikes me as a fairly clear example of coercion..
c) The idea that evil is a consequence of human free-will MUST be bogus even accepting the bible at face value. Where did Satan come from...and WHEN ?


Wow you really took free-will and ran with it. I wanted to point out that we don't think like God and what he does is beyond our understanding. Those who know physics know how to solve issues compare to those who do not know physics because their understanding of how it works is greater than those who do not. My point is there are things we cannot explain, things that do not make sense, things we don't know how to interpret correctly. In order for this to even have any impart you must first believe there is a God. Those who believe in God and dont understand they seek him for answers. Non believers test something if there is no hard evidence then it stops there. Even in NASA first they said there was no water on the moon and now they say there is??? So there are things we cant be certain because we think its true then later someone else find something to disprove it and perhaps later revert back to the original conclusion or find a new one.
Bikerman
sunbox10 wrote:
The templeton prayer experiment is very interesting i read the experiment on google and the Harvard Prayer Experiment. Unfortunately, this is not the experiment i was referring since this is an experiment to test prayer. Payer is used on patients who are going through Heart Surgery non possesses. Are there any experiments done were an individual try to invite a demon or evil spirit to enter them or engaging in a deal with satan? The closest thing i found was people performing exorcism on people broadcast by Channel 4 but this isnt it either because here it is doing experiment after the person is so called demon posses. What i want to know has anyone done an experiment or a documentary on the process of someone literally trying to be get possessed then being exorcise? But the person being experiment on needs to be a non believer because it wont make sense to use it on someone who believes or is mentally ill or have any medical conditions to begin with?
No experiment of this type would ever get past the ethics committees - and rightly so. What the religious call 'possession' is usually mental illness or epilepsy. We don't need to encourage people to behave as if they were possessed because it wouldn't prove a damn thing. DO you really doubt that this is complete bollox? Do you really think there ARE evil spirits who suddenly take-over otherwise normal people? Come on...this is not even worthy of comment, and certainly no basis for testing any truth claim.
Quote:
What would you call the social and physical development of children who are influence by cartoons? Would this be a relationship between TV set and Children? Since they spend a lot of time watching programs and are interacting? Cartoons characters are not real but yet children are being influenced or shape their behavior based on what they seeing.
Nonono... Cartoon characters don't actually exist - hate to break it to you. Cartoon 'characters' are creations of people who may or may not have an agenda. For example, many cartoon characters are created specifically to educate - they are really acting as a proxy for the educator, who feeds the words and actions into his/her proxy because that is a good way to get to kids.
Other cartoon characters are transgressive, and they allow children to play-out fantasies in their imaginations. Tom and Jerry would be the obvious example - butchery and animal atrocity fill almost every episode, but only a very confused and damaged child would be unable to distinguish the cartoon from reality.

If you are trying to say that non-material 'agents' can 'affect' behaviour in real people - well yeah,,,duh! Of course they can - books, films, music, and nowadays you can add anonymous, atavistic chat, video etc etc.
Quote:
Wow you really took free-will and ran with it. I wanted to point out that we don't think like God and what he does is beyond our understanding.
That is just a lazy get-out-of-the-crap notion - the universal answer to anything too difficult.
In logic there is logic and non-logic. There is no 'super-logic'. In maths there are proofs, theorems and conjectures. There is nothing 'higher' or 'better' than a proof. If one believes that truth is not some relativistic notion with no real basis in physical reality (as I do and as, I maintain, anyone who has not had their brains terminally softened by postmodern relativists spouting their offensively stupid crap) then there isn't a 'super-truth' - there is just right and not-right, true and not-true. The notion that there is a higher state of being which God occupies, above our ability to comprehend, strikes me as wishful thinking rather than a seriously defensible argument.
Quote:
My point is there are things we cannot explain, things that do not make sense, things we don't know how to interpret correctly.
Really? Examples? You see, I can't really think of anything that I would say fits that description. Certainly there is a massive amount that we don't yet know, and certainly modern physics doesn't make sense to anyone who has not spent a few years really studying it, but the phrases 'cannot explain' and 'do not make sense' ? hmm....no, I think not. I think we can explain pretty much everything, given time and energy, and 'sense' is a concept for lazy thinkers, not serious scholars.

As an acquaintance of mine once, rather superbly, put it - Common sense is rarely either.
It went straight over the heads of the people we were debating at the time - but they were fundamentalists, so it would have been a shock had it NOT done so.
sunbox10
Quote:
No experiment of this type would ever get past the ethics committees - and rightly so. What the religious call 'possession' is usually mental illness or epilepsy. We don't need to encourage people to behave as if they were possessed because it wouldn't prove a damn thing. DO you really doubt that this is complete bollox? Do you really think there ARE evil spirits who suddenly take-over otherwise normal people? Come on...this is not even worthy of comment, and certainly no basis for testing any truth claim.


You answered my comment by assuming i was asking to test people who already suffer with a mental illness or epilepsy or normal people who will act like they are possessed. Why would an atheist or a hard core non believer start behaving in a posses manner if they are stating that this does not exist? That will contradict what they say don't you think?. Why would the ethics committee reject something that is not even true to begin with or is harming anyone? If it is not possible for a NORMAL person that does not suffer from mental illness, epilepsy, or have any medical history but is someone who is an atheist or a strong non believer what is the worst that can happen according to the notion that there is no evil spirits that suddenly take over? Well nothing it gets recorded as nothing happened to this normal individual thus the theory of someone being posses by an evil spirit or what not can be tested and proved wrong. Time, money, and energy has been used on more stupid things and experiments why not this, which seems to affect a great deal of the world's population. How can this experiment harm the subject if this does not exists? Like saying a monster under the bed will harm us how can it when it doesn't exist? Doesn't harm anyone do the experiment and get this recorded along with the templeton prayer experiment.

You did not comment on the mentor relationship you just skipped that part of my comment.


Quote:
Nonono... Cartoon characters don't actually exist - hate to break it to you. Cartoon 'characters' are creations of people who may or may not have an agenda. For example, many cartoon characters are created specifically to educate - they are really acting as a proxy for the educator, who feeds the words and actions into his/her proxy because that is a good way to get to kids.
Other cartoon characters are transgressive, and they allow children to play-out fantasies in their imaginations. Tom and Jerry would be the obvious example - butchery and animal atrocity fill almost every episode, but only a very confused and damaged child would be unable to distinguish the cartoon from reality.

If you are trying to say that non-material 'agents' can 'affect' behaviour in real people - well yeah,,,duh! Of course they can - books, films, music, and nowadays you can add anonymous, atavistic chat, video etc etc.


Again you answered my comment by assuming i said something else. I clearly said Cartoon characters are not real and you commented as if i said otherwise. Then you go on to explain how cartoons are being used on television, which expands what i said. The point of this example was to try and show a relation between two parties that are not bind by a biological relationship or proof of legal adoption by the parent or parents or even a guardianship relationship.This is where i brought the mentor relationship God and human since parent-child relationship did not fit my original statement.
Bikerman
*sigh*
Sticking with the ill subject (and yes, I know you have suggested using a well person - I'll get to that next) for the moment:
It is unthinkable. Basically, you would have an authority figure giving credence to an irrational explanation for a serious medical condition. Not only would it violate the Hippocratic oath, it would run the risk of further damaging the subject.
If someone goes to a doctor with epilepsy, and that doctor then says - just what I need. I am going to introduce you to some people who believe your epilepsy is actually some sort of invisible demon that has somehow got inside you and is making you suffer Petit mal seizures and grand-mal blackouts - I would go looking for that doctor and he would be wise to ensure I didn't find him. OF COURSE it harms the damn patient. It is scary enough being subject to fits and seizures without some well-meaning pillock telling you it might be something supernatural.

There is NOTHING TO TEST. The notion of demon possession is lunatic nonsense that doesn't merit the time needed to conduct a rigorous trial. It is ludicrous.

As for the idea of using a healthy person - what would be the point of the experiment? To make them ill (possessed)? And you really don't see any ethical problem with that? What sort of experiment do you think you are describing here? You take a healthy person and then wait to see if they exhibit signs of possession? So, of course, they WON'T exhibit such signs....so what is your experimental results? No possession today? Do you seriously think that this would tell you anything useful, let alone give you evidence to persuade people who are not really open to such evidence in the first place? It is, frankly, not going to achieve anything..

I'm really not trying to be a git about this, but I really cannot see any sense or merit in this. Tell you what - YOU design an experiment to investigate possession, scientifically. Do it however you like, and I'll comment on it as if it were a genuine proposal.

Maybe you can come up with something that I'm missing - and I really hope you do - but I'm very dubious.

As for the 2nd part:
You are wrong about 'my assumptions'. I read your posting carefully - as I always try to do - so of course I saw that you had written that cartoons are not real. THAT WAS MY POINT - they are avatars of VERY real people. In other words, a HUMAN intelligence is behind the avatar/cartoon which behaves as a HUMAN has designed it to, with human motivations, emotions etc etc. I don't think this takes us anywhere in considering how God can have a relationship with humans (and I didn't realise that you were still trying to pursue this line with the cartoons....why ? )
OK - so now you want to call it a mentoring relationship - it is still damn silly - I didn't ignore it because it caused me problems, but because I couldn't see what difference it makes - it still strikes me as a profoundly bogus analogy.

Let me say this as clearly as I can:
There IS NO RELATIONSHIP. There is a monologue. God doesn't speak to people, doesn't give them advice on what to do (let alone mentoring them).
A mentor is someone who has skills/expertise/knowledge in an area which the mentee lacks. The mentor must be able to communicate with the mentee and must be able to enthuse and motivate them.
God has, to my pretty sure knowledge, never, in 2000+ yrs, imparted a SINGLE piece of wisdom to ANY person, above and beyond information which was available to them via other naturalistic means.
Now, what do we actually KNOW about this supposed God? Only what we have in the bible. So, let's see what this deity actually knows.
a) Nothing about technology or science - so no help there.
b) Really really REALLY bad at the sympathetic, listening, empathic skills that one would like to see from a mentor.
c) Specialist knowledge in murder and pillage, with expertise in egoism and cruelty. Not particularly great skills for a mentor usually.....
d) Maybe the Jesus Mk2 version would be better? But not really. His message was basically - hate your family, and abandon them to follow me, otherwise you are nothing.
e) He wasn't very PC either - he regarded (and said as much) non-Jews as 'dogs'....remember?
Quote:
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
JNow, this is a big improvement on...err....himself....his dad....his other self....whatever - Yahweh didn't call Caananites 'dogs' - he ordered them to be slain to a man, woman and child (and the animals). So Jesus scores over....himself.....on that point - but is this really someone you would like to see mentoring?

Finally, the one thing that is consistently overlooked is the power-dynamic. Power is critical in ANY relationship. In unequal relationships we even find it necessary to impose pretty strict rules about what sort of relationship is OK and what is not (teacher-pupil, doctor-patient, psychiatrist-patient, carer-person with mental disability etc etc etc).
Ideally any trusting relationship will be roughtly equal in terms of the power dynamic - no partiner having total, or even partial, control or power over the other.

God could not be a more different example. The power dynamic is TOTALLY one-sided. God has ALL the power and the human has none. So you have an entity with complete power over you - who then tells you that you must love him as he loves you. That is actually sickening to me. Commanded to love? I think not...In any event, a proper relationship or trust, respect, even love, is surely not possible with such a crazy power dynamic - even if God WAS able/willing to take his proper role IN such a relationship.
sunbox10
Quote:
*sigh*
Sticking with the ill subject (and yes, I know you have suggested using a well person - I'll get to that next) for the moment:
It is unthinkable. Basically, you would have an authority figure giving credence to an irrational explanation for a serious medical condition. Not only would it violate the Hippocratic oath, it would run the risk of further damaging the subject.
If someone goes to a doctor with epilepsy, and that doctor then says - just what I need. I am going to introduce you to some people who believe your epilepsy is actually some sort of invisible demon that has somehow got inside you and is making you suffer Petit mal seizures and grand-mal blackouts - I would go looking for that doctor and he would be wise to ensure I didn't find him. OF COURSE it harms the damn patient. It is scary enough being subject to fits and seizures without some well-meaning pillock telling you it might be something supernatural.


This is the thing why do you keep bring this up when i did not suggest studying someone with epilepsy? Of course it will further harm the person for doing an experiment on someone already suffering from an illness. Like doing an experiment with someone who suffers with diabetes and trying to do a sugar test to see which product is best to market. This is not the test i proposed.

Quote:
As for the idea of using a healthy person - what would be the point of the experiment? To make them ill (possessed)? And you really don't see any ethical problem with that? What sort of experiment do you think you are describing here? You take a healthy person and then wait to see if they exhibit signs of possession? So, of course, they WON'T exhibit such signs....so what is your experimental results? No possession today? Do you seriously think that this would tell you anything useful, let alone give you evidence to persuade people who are not really open to such evidence in the first place? It is, frankly, not going to achieve anything..


This is the the experiment i was suggestion taking a healthy person who is an strong atheist or strong non believer. If the subject WON'T exhibit such signs after the experiment is over how can it harm him/her? People have done outlandish experiment to prove or disprove something why can't we add another unusual experiment to the list.

Experiments such as:

* Electrifying a Human Corpse
-learn that a high amount of voltage introduced to the body will make it move.

* Keeping a Dog’s Head Alive
-From these experiments, the first successful heart-lung machines were later created.

* Trying to create a Cerberus like dog.
- Demikhov’s experiment with making two-headed dogs lead to advances in heart and lung transplants in human.

Quote:
I'm really not trying to be a git about this, but I really cannot see any sense or merit in this. Tell you what - YOU design an experiment to investigate possession, scientifically. Do it however you like, and I'll comment on it as if it were a genuine proposal.


Great ill try and design an experiment to investigate possession this sounds like its going to be interesting hopefully i can somehow turn it into a documentary. Funny i have always wanted to make a documentary on something give me some time to talk to some professors at my university and see if i can come up with a scientific way of doing this experiment and post it so you can comment on it.
TheLimey
I don't believe myself... anymore.. however what I do look for is a good solid argument either way. The question of "Why did God create Satan?"... is not a good argument. Even as a non-believer I can answer that without light there is no dark, no evil there is no good, no bad days there is no good days. This question simply does not give a good reason to not believe. What we need is solid points from people that have studied it and at least read the Bible. Instead of people just trying to make a quick excuse to not bother with it. Like where did God come from? and Why did God make evil man?... these questions are bad grade 7 questions which really do not give a good support for the argument of no God.

If you do not know enough about this subject to bring up any decent points to the table just stay away from it. Its like debating your Doctor on health because you had a slither once.
Bikerman
I think you have it backwards. Why should it be up to me, or other atheists, to provide good reasons NOT to believe? Surely it is up to the various religions to provide good evidence TO believe? Do you expect people to provide good reasons for NOT believing in pixies or Santa ?

I certainly agree that the question is rather 'begged' - since it presupposes the thing which is, perhaps, most contentious, and therefore sets up a non-real debate - but that is what theology IS, after all Smile
Iceaxe0410
I don't think the whole debate whether God exists or not to be something that will ever be solved unless if something like the rapture comes around. Scientists rely on hard evidence they can measure to prove things while most religions are based on faith which doesn't need evidence to support the claims.

Pointing towards the Bible isn't exactly reliable either, at least for me. It's a collection of works from multiple authors from different eras in history. It's also written in poetry, narratives, parables, and other forms of writing styles. All of these can be interpreted differently by many people. It's a work of art that takes on different meanings depending on the reader. It's not something that's clear cut and straightforward. It takes some scholars a lifetime to decipher. It's one reason I'm not too religious. Most people aren't scholars able to interpret the Bible for themselves so they rely on the teachings from pastors and other prominent religious leaders.

One thing I've always wondered is why the Bible was put together in such a way that the common person can't read and interpret it on their own. If you think back in history, generally the wealthy were the only ones well educated and able to read. This gives all the power to rich and a means to control the poor. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it seems like an age old method to control the masses. To me, it's a far better explanation for the implementation of religion than saying that God exists. I'm not saying that religion is bad, it can be used to bring groups of people together and promote civilization.

When I think about it this way, it makes a little bit of sense how Satan was created in my mind. In order for there to be good, there has to be an opposing force. How can good exist when most humans have emotions that are considered evil? It makes a religion far more appealing and easier to control. All the problems that people encounter can be blamed on evil or sin. Sometimes these are used for less than good intentions if you think back to the crusades and the witch trials. Too much room for corruption. Without science we would be back in the Dark Ages where things like the witch trials could happen. It's just like present day stories of fiction. There's the hero of good fighting for justice and opposing the evil lord. It's a common theme in literature. I don't think Bible is anything different. Of course, this all is just the way I think about things and no way makes it the correct answer.

I still believe there's a God. It's just that I'd rather search for the truth in my own way then rely on others and things written in an old text. I would hope it's possible to find the answer on one's own then rely on others to tell you what is truth and what is not. The only things left is to rely on things like history, the nature of humans, and old texts like the Bible. By Bible, I mean one can read and interpret it to scrutinize it to see if that's the answer. For me, the Bible doesn't stand up to the rigors of evidence so I look towards other things like the nature of humans and history. I kind of explained that above. Anyway, that's my take on it.
loveandormoney
Yantaal wrote:
wasnt satan one of gods angels or summit? the he got banned. sooooo, god being all knowing, knew this would happen, so why did god create him?



Good evening. I am newbie and I am learning the rules of the forum.
So I just looked aroung for a thread with a lot of tension
and I did find this.


You write: "wasnt satan one of gods angels or summit?"

Both is wrong. What is nur basic of Your opionion?
The bible?
Genesis?

So Your topic
Why did god create satan is wrong
because god did not do that.
darthrevan
I have heard that satan was originally an angel, but thought he was as powerful as God or stronger he did what he wanted and disobeyed God. For that he was cast out of heaven and to rule hell.
loveandormoney
Good moring.
Where did You here that.
In school we find out
there are two kind of bad guys in movies.
First is a fallen angel does mean a stupid student like Harry Potter or Lord of the Ring.
Other bad guy is created by nature like Alienmovies.

But this is a question of literature or the other word is fiction.
regards
TheLimey
I woud just rather stay away from questions like this. Been through the religious phase in my life I know what it is like to ACTUALLY believe in something so ridiculous. It is really amazing how someone can really literally be brainwashed into believing such things. However it is not the believers fault, they think it is actually real. When someone says "I will pray for you" it could be taken as a compliment as someone is thinking of you and wants better for you. It is just the believers way of showing that,even though what they believe is ridiculous...
loveandormoney
ocalhoun wrote:
I really don't know; this puzzles me as well.
My only guess is that to truly have free will, we had to have an alternitive to God's guidance.
Another question I have is why are we made in such a way that we intrinsicly want to sin? Sure, there's original sin, but why does that have to carry over to us? We didn't do anything before we were born to deserve that.


Good morning.
With the "free will" You will have a big problem.
All the bad things like
war
kill
divorce
misuse of children
using drugs
violence in relationship
they all are without "free will".

Or is there anybody here existing who likes to hit his partner or his children?

Regards
nguyenvulong
maybe he wants us to try to become sinless ...
dharmin
For every ying there must be a yang.. that is my take on the why god created satan thing?
anyway...the ying ying theory is that Yin and yang are the negative and positive phases in the cyclic flow of Chi. These are the root of power and the beginning of everything. Since they constitute the beginning of everything and constitute the basic principles of the entire universe, they are indeed the cause of both life and death. thats the reason the chinese refer to the sky as yang and the earth as ying.
Hinduism refers to satan as rakshasas or asuras...according to the hindu scripture Ramayana Rakshasas were created from Bhrama's foot (one of the main gods in hinduism)...
Some claim the rakshasas descended from patulysa (roughly translated as hell)
busman
dharmin wrote:
For every ying there must be a yang.. that is my take on the why god created satan thing?
anyway...the ying ying theory is that Yin and yang are the negative and positive phases in the cyclic flow of Chi. These are the root of power and the beginning of everything. Since they constitute the beginning of everything and constitute the basic principles of the entire universe, they are indeed the cause of both life and death. thats the reason the chinese refer to the sky as yang and the earth as ying.
Hinduism refers to satan as rakshasas or asuras...according to the hindu scripture Ramayana Rakshasas were created from Bhrama's foot (one of the main gods in hinduism)...
Some claim the rakshasas descended from patulysa (roughly translated as hell)


According to your theory with the yin and the yang wouldn't that make a little bit of Satan holy and a little bit of God evil?
loveandormoney
nguyenvulong wrote:
maybe he wants us to try to become sinless ...


Who is HE?



Regards
Afaceinthematrix
dharmin wrote:
For every ying there must be a yang..


Why? For celibate people there isn't a penis for every vagina. Not everything needs to have an opposite and I certainly do not know of any philosophical arguments that would show otherwise. Sure, most things have an opposite but it certainly isn't always a necessity.

Quote:
that is my take on the why god created satan thing?


So then God would willingly create something as supposedly evil as Satan just to please his "opposite fetish?" Your god is so obsessed with having an opposite for everything that it would willingly create evil just so that there is an opposite to good? Do you realize that that, in itself, is probably more evil than anything that Satan can do? Your God will let billions and billions of people throughout history live in misery, poverty, be raped, murdered, tortured, etc. for the pure purpose of satisfying his "everything needs an opposite" obsession? We don't need a Satan when your god can be far more evil than Satan ever dreams of being.

Quote:
anyway...the ying ying theory is that Yin and yang are the negative and positive phases in the cyclic flow of Chi. These are the root of power and the beginning of everything.


And your evidence for that statement? What do you mean with "power," why does it have to have a root, and what is your evidence that it is the beginning of everything? As far as actual evidence, the earliest that we know about is this.

Quote:
Since they constitute the beginning of everything and constitute the basic principles of the entire universe, they are indeed the cause of both life and death. thats the reason the chinese refer to the sky as yang and the earth as ying.
Hinduism refers to satan as rakshasas or asuras...according to the hindu scripture Ramayana Rakshasas were created from Bhrama's foot (one of the main gods in hinduism)...
Some claim the rakshasas descended from patulysa (roughly translated as hell)


Now you're just spitting out religious gibber jabber that you have absolutely no evidence for, is factually wrong, and that has no real use in our world.
loveandormoney
Quote:

dharmin wrote:
For every ying there must be a yang..


Why? For celibate people there isn't a penis for every vagina. Not everything needs to have an opposite and I certainly do not know of any philosophical arguments that would show otherwise. Sure, most things have an opposite but it certainly isn't always a necessity.


Good morning.
Yin und Yang is only interesting in Buddism. An example:
Husband and Wife are kissing.
Maybe: This is yin, what is yang?
Boy and Boy are kissing?
Husband and Wife are fighting?
The Single.
Husband and two wifes.
And also in Buddism, You cannot find the devil.
harrer
No, Satan was created first by the core of the universe but he became corrupt.

So the core of the universe created god to combat him.
Ankhanu
harrer wrote:
No, Satan was created first by the core of the universe but he became corrupt.

So the core of the universe created god to combat him.

Whaaaaaaaaa??

What is the core of the universe? It sounds like some sort of conscious entity; how can this be?
redhakaw
harrer wrote:
No, Satan was created first by the core of the universe but he became corrupt.

So the core of the universe created god to combat him.


That's new!

can you site your sources?
harrer
redhakaw wrote:
harrer wrote:
No, Satan was created first by the core of the universe but he became corrupt.

So the core of the universe created god to combat him.


That's new!

can you site your sources?


No source, I just took the story from transformers.

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_One

You can compare Unicron to Satan and Primus to God
Indi
Ha ha ha! That's brilliant! That is how you pull a poe. ^_^;
spinout
Is there a problem with comparing order & chaos/mulitverse to god & satan? Both God n satan goes under "order"! Or correct me if Im wrong!
dansm01
Why did god create satan? Or to rephrase, why did the people who wrote the bible create satan? It's very hard to come up with a good story that doesn't have a good villain. Why did Jerry Siegel create Lex Luthor when he wrote Superman? The bible would be a very boring read without satan.
redhakaw
Indi wrote:
Ha ha ha! That's brilliant! That is how you pull a poe. ^_^;


didn't really like transformers.

spinout wrote:
Is there a problem with comparing order & chaos/mulitverse to god & satan? Both God n satan goes under "order"! Or correct me if Im wrong!


actually, you are quite right.

the best opposite that we can use to describe God and Satan, is dependence and independence, instead of order and chaos.

Lucifer was a grade A archangel, he was like the SWAT commander of God, he was near perfect ion many ways.
SpaceInvader75
But this doesn't really change anything. In fact, I don't even understand how, if angels were capable of choice, just like people, then why is it that some angels actually don't sin, but some decided to. Because we are told that because of Adam, we all sin.

Now, that to me sounds like we really don't have a choice. If the Bible teaches us that nobody is perfect (OK, I believe that part) but God will accept nothing less than perfection, or else he would have to punish us eternally, how is that a choice? And why couldn't people make the same choice (like the angels and Satan)?

And here's another question: If man was capable of evil all by himself, then why wouldn't he have been evil without Satan? I believe the tree was called the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." So, if man didn't even know the difference between good and evil before that, how could he have possibly been good?

So in conclusion, I do not see the point of Satan.
Related topics
Politicaly incorrect blonde jokes
religion issues
Contradictions to Stories in the Christian Bible.
Do Nonbelivers Go Too Hell?
Did the Big Bang just happen or did God make it happen?
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHY GOD CREATE HUMAN AND NATURE?
books about islam
Why did God create humans?
WHy did Human being create GOD?
Why did man create the Devil ?
Is there a 'general anti-Christian sentiment' in this forum?
God and the Angler fish.
Bible texts shown to be of non-human origin ?
Why did god create viruses?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.