Let's talk about Satan

[Skarekrow]

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.

I think most people here try to be respectful...but it is easy for things on a thread to be misconstrued...so much is lost when you are writing...the tone of how you would say something for instance...I myself am very sarcastic more often than not....but I don’t do it in an intentionally insulting way....I do realize though that it could easily be taken that way and I have that understanding while I write. It’s easy to get passionate about certain subjects...and while some are merely being passionate in their eyes, other’s take it as an attack.
Anyhow, nice intervention rawr...

lol

 

[Skarekrow]

I don’t know why I decided to post that picture...it just made me laugh.

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

lol

 

[CogentPursuit]

Why is everyone talking about free will and why god would create Satan and all that?

Satan does not exist. He never existed in Judaism and nor did hell. This was mixed into Christianity by Paul and Rome views of hell and hades. (Greek Myth). So why do Christians adopt an idea that was never part of the Jewish religion?

 

[just me]

http://biblez.com/search.php?q=bruise+his+head,+bruise+his+heel

 

[sprinkles]

Why is everyone talking about free will and why god would create Satan and all that?

Satan does not exist. He never existed in Judaism and nor did hell. This was mixed into Christianity by Paul and Rome views of hell and hades. (Greek Myth). So why do Christians adopt an idea that was never part of the Jewish religion?

Actually they more than likely got it from Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian exile, or at least the beginnings of it, well before Paul ever was born.

Regardless, we're allowed hypothetical discussions whether Satan exists or not.

 

[LucyJr]

Umm... Buddha wouldn't go to heaven. He would be reincarnated. Depending on his good or bad karma, respectively his rebirth could be a better life or a shitty one. This depends upon samsara. To be even more politically correct, Buddha doesn't even believe in Christianity so the "rules" and beliefs of Christianity is irrelevant to Buddha.

The truth is absolute by his very nature. Either Budha religion is right and karma is a real karma, or Budha was wrong and christianity is true. The fact that Budha did not belief in christianity doesn't mean that will not face the the judgement of God if christianity is true, and also the reverse it's true.

 

[LucyJr]

Why is everyone talking about free will and why god would create Satan and all that?

Satan does not exist. He never existed in Judaism and nor did hell. This was mixed into Christianity by Paul and Rome views of hell and hades. (Greek Myth). So why do Christians adopt an idea that was never part of the Jewish religion?

Book of Job?

 

[LucyJr]

This isn't a valid choice because it has options which are weighed by mores which didn't necessarily have to be present.

In a "serve me or die" choice, the "die" must also be a valid option, or it is not a choice. But if we're meant to be able to choose the "die" option, then why is it there as an ultimatum to begin with??

Regardless, I choose "die".

The "die" is a spiritual law. Everything that won't obey to God will die eventually. It can't stand on it's own !

 

[sprinkles]

The "die" is a spiritual law. Everything that won't obey to God will die eventually. It can't stand on it's own !

I recon so. It's still a valid option.

All choices come down to some kind of law because choice requires a framework. You pick from options presented, the options arise from the framework which you have no control over.

Without this fact there is no need to choose anything. Without the framework there'd be no need to choose anything - you'd either be able to inherently will anything you wish, or be able to do nothing.

For example you can choose to eat food, or choose to starve. These options are presented by natural laws. If it were not limited by laws you might be able to create options instead, such as causing yourself to not need food, or causing yourself to live on sunlight, sound waves, unicorn beams, or whatever. So really this 'law' applies to everything.

 

[LucyJr]

I recon so. It's still a valid option.

All choices come down to some kind of law because choice requires a framework. You pick from options presented, the options arise from the framework which you have no control over.

Without this fact there is no need to choose anything. Without the framework there'd be no need to choose anything - you'd either be able to inherently will anything you wish, or be able to do nothing.

For example you can choose to eat food, or choose to starve. These options are presented by natural laws. If it were not limited by laws you might be able to create options instead, such as causing yourself to not need food, or causing yourself to live on sunlight, sound waves, unicorn beams, or whatever. So really this 'law' applies to everything.

Yes, this law applies to everything. But you pictured it in a naturalistic sense, that is to natural causes. I was making referrence to a spiritual law. It's a kind of moral law.

This isn't a valid choice because it has options which are weighed by mores which didn't necessarily have to be present.

In a "serve me or die" choice, the "die" must also be a valid option, or it is not a choice. But if we're meant to be able to choose the "die" option, then why is it there as an ultimatum to begin with??

Why it's not a valid choice ? The choice is this: serve me or not. It has two options, both with consequences.

 

[sprinkles]

Yes, this law applies to everything. But you pictured it in a naturalistic sense, that is to natural causes. I was making referrence to a spiritual law. It's a kind of moral law.


Why it's not a valid choice ? The choice is this: serve me or not. It has two options, both with consequences.

Matthew 25 says:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’
40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’
45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

It isn't "Serve me or not" it is "Serve me or be punished"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

According to the Bible these aren't just merely consequences. They are judgments!

The Bible does not teach that God will just so happen to save you from a life or death that just so happens to suck without God, as if God has nothing to do with the alternative and is just rescuing you from it.

 

[bionic]

The truth is absolute by his very nature. Either Budha religion is right and karma is a real karma, or Budha was wrong and christianity is true. The fact that Budha did not belief in christianity doesn't mean that will not face the the judgement of God if christianity is true, and also the reverse it's true.

It wouldn't work that way. This premise is irrational. Christianity is based upon folklore and pagan deities. Most of the ideas in the bible come from ancient folklore like: Tamuruz, Mithras, and even from Osiris; so it is far from truth. As for what comes in the afterlife, who knows. You don't have enough evidence to draw a proper conclusion. All you have is your belief. Belief does not always mean truth.

 

[LucyJr]

It isn't "Serve me or not" it is "Serve me or be punished"

Well, it's really "Serve me or not".
Joshua 25:15
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.
It is serving the Lord or other Gods. With consequences !

According to the Bible these aren't just merely consequences. They are judgments!

Well, yes, God is The Judger. He will judge based on his very moral essence, which is perfection ! So consequences will be judgements.
Deuteronomy 30:19
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

The Bible does not teach that God will just so happen to save you from a life or death that just so happens to suck without God, as if God has nothing to do with the alternative and is just rescuing you from it.

I couldn't agree more. You got it. The life is not "just so happens to suck without God". All it's related to God, the Creator.

as if God has nothing to do with the alternative and is just rescuing you from it.

He has everything to do with the alternatives.
Romans 11:36
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen. Like it says, to Him be the glory forever !

 

[LucyJr]

It wouldn't work that way. This premise is irrational.

What premise? That truth is absolute?

Christianity is based upon folklore and pagan deities. Most of the ideas in the bible come from ancient folklore like: Tamuruz, Mithras, and even from Osiris; so it is far from truth.

This is a logical fallacy. To refute christianity by showing how its beliefs originated doesn't say anything about the accuracy of those beliefs.
You'll have to actually give some sound arguments !

All you have is your belief. Belief does not always mean truth.

Yes, belief does not always mean truth. I agree here. That's way Budha's beliefs could be false, or mine beliefs too.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
Also, there is no a third alternative. It's not like God could give as a third alternative, leave as alone and we could just live our lives happy whithout the pressure of serving Him or burning in Hell. If God of the Bible exists, there are just two alternatives !

 

[bionic]

What premise? That truth is absolute?

This is a logical fallacy. To refute christianity by showing how its beliefs originated doesn't say anything about the accuracy of those beliefs.
You'll have to actually give some sound arguments

You've assumed that Christians would have to seek judgment from Buddha in the afterlife or vice versa. But you cannot just condense all these beliefs into one and expect them to have the same afterlife and judgment in the afterlife. Why? Their belief systems are factually different. That is an irrational conclusion.

Furthermore, did you understand what I was saying? I was not talking about accuracy. It is fact that Christianity is based upon a combination of ancient beliefs/folklore like Mithraism, Greek mythology, Roman mythos, Mesopotamian beliefs, etc. I'm not talking about the accuracy of Christian beliefs - that would be TOO subjective and muddled with bias. I'm eluding to the fact that the history of Christianity is inaccurately depicted and it's assumed that Christianity is based on "ultimate truth" when it's actually based on other ancient belief systems.

 

[LucyJr]

You've assumed that Christians would have to seek judgment from Buddha in the afterlife or vice versa.

What? I was not assuming that at all!

But you cannot just condense all these beliefs into one and expect them to have the same afterlife and judgment in the afterlife. Why? Their belief systems are factually different. That is an irrational conclusion.

I don't understand you here.

Furthermore, did you understand what I was saying? I was not talking about accuracy. It is fact that Christianity is based upon a combination of ancient beliefs/folklore like Mithraism, Greek mythology, Roman mythos, Mesopotamian beliefs, etc. I'm not talking about the accuracy of Christian beliefs - that would be TOO subjective and muddled with bias. I'm eluding to the fact that the history of Christianity is inaccurately depicted and it's assumed that Christianity is based on "ultimate truth" when it's actually based on other ancient belief systems.

Fair enough. My mistake and I'm sorry .

 

[just me]

Satan was addressed in Genesis 3, first chapter of the Bible. He took on the form of a serpent. I feel sure there is more to what happened in the Garden of Eden. I feel it was written simply and plainly for ease of understanding, as most people walk the path to understanding at the very surface of the spiritual. They walk on the ice, and Satan is hidden below the surface of the entire Bible.