Let's talk about Satan

[Hazard]

Something like:
"Just like you keep telling me, you are WRONG!"

Not sure if those are the precise words but the meaning is identical.

I feel this is the truthful reaction. I was wrong to treat you that way. However I still feel that you are also wrong.

This is not logic, this is intuition.

I initially responded to the personal attack you made on me and the hatred you felt toward me in order to say it in a negative manner in a poor way so I phrased it from "you're WRONG" which was emotional to saying specifically "your discernment of me was wrong." What's wrong with that?

 

[sprinkles]

I initially responded to the personal attack you made on me and the hatred you felt toward me in order to say it in a negative manner in a poor way so I phrased it from "you're WRONG" which was emotional to saying specifically "your discernment of me was wrong." What's wrong with that?

I had no malice or hatred. I was trying to help you from my view.

I also do not think it was negative. Maybe it had a slightly negative color but I was attempting to be as neutral as possible. I actually felt quite little when I wrote that. Maybe that's why it hurt you.

However I think this new information supports my supposition more than it does yours.

 

[Hazard]

I had no malice or hatred. I was trying to help you from my view.

I also do not think it was negative. Maybe it had a slightly negative color but I was attempting to be as neutral as possible. I actually felt quite little when I wrote that. Maybe that's why it hurt you.

However I think this new information supports my supposition more than it does yours.

I think you're missing the point and what's going on here. You made a personal attack on me and I impulsively acted in like manner.

 

[sprinkles]

I think you're missing the point and what's going on here. You made a personal attack on me and I impulsively acted in like manner.

You think I made an attack. You're taking it as an attack.

For me it was what I believe to be a quite frustrating truth, and my frustration with it colored it and caused me to use emphasis on certain words, making it appear strong.

None the less, presenting how I see things is not an attack unless you are taking certain things against yourself as an attack. My intention is not to discredit or harm you. Yet you fail to believe me and continue to say it is.

What am I to do with you? You tell me. I'm at a loss.

 

[SealHammer]

Saying that God is a bully or thug and that Satan was right in rebelling against Him is blasphemy. I believe in God. I'm discussing God to help others with their search for Him, not for myself, but for God's glory. Letting go of God would be losing me sanity though.

Have you ever considered that basing your entire mental well-being on faith might be rather a bad idea?

I mean, I know that consideration and questioning are antithetical to faith, but there are more warm, fuzzy, universal truths in the world that you can prop yourself apart from something which, over time, will create cognitive dissonance within you.

 

[Hazard]

You think I made an attack. You're taking it as an attack.

For me it was what I believe to be a quite frustrating truth, and my frustration with it colored it and caused me to use emphasis on certain words, making it appear strong.

None the less, presenting how I see things is not an attack unless you are taking certain things against yourself as an attack. My intention is not to discredit or harm you. Yet you fail to believe me and continue to say it is.

What am I to do with you? You tell me. I'm at a loss.

I don't like this. This is too personal. First you say you were unemotional when you made that post, now you're putting in a light way by saying your frustration "colored it" an caused you to put emphasis on certain words. I'm going with my original perception and sticking with the belief that whether it was intentional or not, it was a personal attack. Please stop this. You don't have to do anything with me besides stop coming at me and trying to prove something negative within me.

 

[Hazard]

Have you ever considered that basing your entire mental well-being on faith might be rather a bad idea?

I mean, I know that consideration and questioning are antithetical to faith, but there are more warm, fuzzy, universal truths in the world that you can prop yourself apart from something which, over time, will create cognitive dissonance within you.

Please explain and rephrase.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't like this. This is too personal. First you say you were unemotional when you made that post, now you're putting in a light way by saying your frustration "colored it" an caused you to put emphasis on certain words. I'm going with my original perception and sticking with the belief that whether it was intentional or not, it was a personal attack. Please stop this. You don't have to do anything with me besides stop coming at me and trying to prove something negative within me.

Oh really. How does it feel?

Have you ever considered that this might be mutual, and that what you say might have this same effect on others?

But now you want mercy and want me to be considerate of you. Now that you are in the emotional corner you want me to back off and not take it personally??

Do you get it now?

 

[Skarekrow]

Deep breaths everyone.....

 

[sprinkles]

Deep breaths everyone.....

Why?

I want to get to the core and rip its heart out and eat it and obtain its knowledge. I'm tired of doing things the conventional way. This is dead serious and not a joke.

To learn we must some times endure pain!

 

[Hazard]

Oh really. How does it feel?

Have you ever considered that this might be mutual, and that what you say might have this same effect on others?

But now you want mercy and want me to be considerate of you. Now that you are in the emotional corner you want me to back off and not take it personally??

Do you get it now?

What did I do that was in any way a personal attack besides saying that Satan rebelling against God was blasphemy? That's not even a personal attack. At least you admit to it now.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5383]Hazard[/MENTION] [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] [MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION] and others

Sorry guys. I just needed a good freakout to get this urge and desire out of my system. It's been building up for days. This isn't the way.

I had to remind myself that there are limits to being attached to knowledge and that it can hurt you.

What did I do that was in any way a personal attack besides saying that Satan rebelling against God was blasphemy? That's not even a personal attack. At least you admit to it now.

We don't need a real reason just like you didn't.

You didn't explain either, did you? You just said it was so!

 

[Hazard]

[MENTION=5383]Hazard[/MENTION] [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] [MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION] and others

Sorry guys. I just needed a good freakout to get this urge and desire out of my system. It's been building up for days. This isn't the way.

I had to remind myself that there are limits to being attached to knowledge and that it can hurt you.



We don't need a real reason just like you didn't.

You didn't explain either, did you? You just said it was so!

IDU [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] but whatever. You are forgiven. <3

 

[Matt3737]

An excerpt from the Campbell/Moyer's interview in The Power of Myth:

Moyers: And yet one of my favorite myths is the story from Persia that Satan was condemned to hell because he loved God so much.

Campbell: Yes, that's a basic Muslim idea about Satan being God's greatest lover. There are a number of ways of thinking about Satan, but this is based on the question, Why was Satan thrown into hell? The standard story is that, when God created the angels, he told them to bow to none but himself. Then he created man, whom he regarded as a higher form than the angels, and he asked the angels to serve man. And Satan would not bow to man.
Now, this is interpreted in the Christian tradition, as I recall from my boyhood instruction, as being the egotism of Satan. He would not bow to man. But in the Persian story, he could not bow to man because of his love for God--he could bow only to God. God had changed his signals, do you see? But Satan had so committed himself to the first set of signals that he could not violate those, and in his--I don't know if Satan has a heart or not--but in his mind, he could not bow to anyone but God, whom he loved. And then God says, "Get out of my sight."
Now, the worst of the pains of hell, insofar as hell has been described, is the absence of the Beloved, which is God. So how does Satan sustain the situation in hell? By the memory of the echo of God's voice, when God said, "Go to hell." That is a great sign of love.

Moyers: Well, it's certainly true in life that the greatest hell one can know is to be separated from the one you love. That's why I've liked the Persian myth. Satan is God's lover--

Campbell: --and he is separated from God, and that's the real pain of Satan.

 

[sprinkles]

IDU [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] but whatever. You are forgiven. <3

Dear [MENTION=5383]Hazard[/MENTION] I don't think any of us really understand. And I'm happy that you forgive me.

I'd say I forgive you but I don't think you did wrong so there's nothing to forgive. We merely don't understand each other. I don't hate you. I care about you and that is why I've been so persistent. I don't bother with people that I don't care about.

I'm satisfied with this outcome. I think it was worth it.

 

[Hazard]

Have you ever considered that basing your entire mental well-being on faith might be rather a bad idea?

I mean, I know that consideration and questioning are antithetical to faith, but there are more warm, fuzzy, universal truths in the world that you can prop yourself apart from something which, over time, will create cognitive dissonance within you.

Questioning is not anti-ethical to faith. Doubt is anti-ethical. They are not synonymous. You can question but still have faith that what you believe is true. IOW I know God exists but I still accept new information and try to understand contradictions. Contradictions are the means to future correlations. I have faith that whatever reason or logic exists that contradicts God is false. I still search for answers to questions, I just believe the answers will end up correlating with the truth while others have no idea what the truth is. I think believing God will keep me safe so I can have peace, that he's always there with me when I'm alone, that he'll always guide me with the next step I take are examples of sanity that can't be attained without God.

How does having faith cause cognitive dissonance and what other universal truths are there that I should be made aware of?

 

[Hazard]

Dear [MENTION=5383]Hazard[/MENTION] I don't think any of us really understand. And I'm happy that you forgive me.

I'd say I forgive you but I don't think you did wrong so there's nothing to forgive. We merely don't understand each other. I don't hate you. I care about you and that is why I've been so persistent. I don't bother with people that I don't care about.

I'm satisfied with this outcome. I think it was worth it.

I agree. Much Love. <3 <3 <3

 

[sprinkles]

Questioning is not anti-ethical to faith. Doubt is anti-ethical. They are not synonymous. You can question but still have faith that what you believe is true. IOW I know God exists but I still accept new information and try to understand contradictions. Contradictions are the means to future correlations. I have faith that whatever reason or logic exists that contradicts God is false. I still search for answers to questions, I just believe the answers will end up correlating with the truth while others have no idea what the truth is. I think believing God will keep me safe so I can have peace, that he's always there with me when I'm alone, that he'll always guide me with the next step I take are examples of sanity that can't be attained without God.

How does having faith cause cognitive dissonance and what other universal truths are there that I should be made aware of?

Faith causes cognitive dissonance when faith is challenged but yet you must uphold it. When it comes to questions of what to believe - your faith, or what apparent reasoning is telling you.

I will not presume to tell you which one is right. That is not my place, and I'd temporarily forgotten this fact just moments ago.

However, I will say that doubt is not intentional, it is emotional. Doubt may be a verb but it is not a willful verb. This is why people seek a thing to remove it, because it cannot be helped otherwise.

Belief is not a voluntary action. It is involuntary. This is why people seek truth, or what they think to be truth. One cannot simply choose to have the truth on their own - if they could, they'd be either omniscient or able to invent their own reality. There'd be no need to seek what they can give themselves.

 

[rawr]

Questioning is not anti-ethical to faith. Doubt is anti-ethical. They are not synonymous. You can question but still have faith that what you believe is true.

how is doubt unethical?

---

As a side-note, to all parties involved (@SealHammer @Hazard @sprinkles , others) (and yes, i haven't been following this thead completely.)

To those of faith:

While i recognize you have your beliefs, and hold them dear, if you're posting in a Religious discussion thread, you should prepare to have them challenged, debated, etc. While having your beliefs questioned in noway means you have to relinquish your beliefs, posting in this forum is effectively an agreement to submit them for discussion. When you do feel threatened, it's by no means a reason to get "huffy" and engage in fallacies and/or attack the other person. (ad hominem). When you post in this subforum, you should be able to distance yourself from offence (within reason) and think logically enough for a rational, well-mannered discussion. Not to say you need to disassociate from beliefs, but carry on a civil and logical conversation.
If you feel increasingly offended, address the situation politely, not out of anger or frustration. Submit a report if necessary (not for petty things). And, perhaps most importantly, consider bowing out of the discussion until you can think clearly again.

​

To those "not of faith"/engaging for intellectual reasons:

Be respectful of others' beliefs, and discuss things logically, clearly, and in a non-inflammatory manner. If you disagree with a belief, phrase your thoughts both clearly and neutrally as possible. Read above about being civil in discussion.
​

Now i'm NOT saying that all the above are happening, or trying to call anyone out specifically (just mentioned the dominant players in the thread) but i think this thread (like many others have) tips in that direction.

TL;DR - be mindful of others. speak clearly and neutrally within reason/as warranted.. if you post in this thread, you are submitting your ideas for discussion.

 

[Hazard]

how is doubt unethical?

---

As a side-note, to all parties involved (@SealHammer @Hazard [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION], others) (and yes, i haven't been following this thead completely.)

To those of faith:

While i recognize you have your beliefs, and hold them dear, if you're posting in a Religious discussion thread, you should prepare to have them challenged, debated, etc. While having your beliefs questioned in noway means you have to relinquish your beliefs, posting in this forum is effectively and agreement to submit them for discussion. When you do feel threatened, it's by no means a reason to get "huffy" and engage in fallacies and/or attack the other person. (ad hominem). When you post in this subforum, you should be able to distance yourself from offence (within reason) and think logically enough for a rational, well-mannered discussion. Not to say you need to disassociate from beliefs, but carry on a civil and logical conversation.
If you feel increasingly offended, address the situation politely, not out of anger or frustration. Submit a report if necessarily (not for petty things). And, perhaps most importantly, consider bowing out of the discussion until you can think clearly again.

​

To those "not of faith"/engaging for intellectual reasons:

Be respectful of others' beliefs, and discuss things logically, clearly, and in a non-inflammatory manner. If you disagree with a belief, phrase your thoughts both clearly and neutrally as possible. Read above about being civil in discussion.
​

Now i'm NOT saying that all the above are happening, but i think this thread (like many others have) tips in that direction.

TL;DR - be mindful of others. speak clearly and neutrally within reason/as warranted.. if you post in this thread, you are submitting your ideas for discussion.

Hmm... perhaps not doubt but the lack of faith. I thought of them to be synonymous but I suppose they aren't.