NationStates Jolt Archive

Question about Christianity

Hawaiian Islands

13-08-2004, 03:38

Letila

13-08-2004, 03:47

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Satanism is actually a mixture of philosophical egoism and strongly pleasure-positive views. It also glorifies hate.

LordaeronII

13-08-2004, 03:49

I'm not Christian, but I'm bored enough I'll answer some of your questions from a Christian perspective. Most of them I'd have to look up and I'm not bored enough to do THAT.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

Might be wrong on this one, but I believe it is because Satan was an Archangel... and thus would still have his power?

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

Unimaginable to the living human mind I believe.... at least that's what many have told me when I asked them that

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

As the most powerful and beautiful Archangel in heaven, he believed he was greater than god, and tried to rebel

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

It's not someplace specific... since nothing physical goes there (your soul is hardly physical), imagine it as a seperate plane of existance, even though that's not exactly accurate to what they believe

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Modern Satanists are not really the same as Christians portray them to be. Go to http://www.churchofsatan.com for more information. It's an interesting take on things... although I think to be honest, their principles are quite... ummm... off shall we say?

Javala

13-08-2004, 04:23

I'll try to answer what I can...

1. Satan is kind of like God in the sense that he dwells in everyplace...he is omnipresent. Don't think of him as like an individual entity. He is in everything that does not come from faith. Satan is sin.

2. Like what I said before. He's present in everything that isn't from faith in God. Its not that he's on earth, its that he lives in things that are on earth and his goal is to tempt us and make us fall.

3. Did you know that satan used to be an angel? Lucifer was the most beautiful angel and angels themselves hold certain powers. Its not like he's a person just walking around. Its more like he's a notion that hides in everything and is waiting for you to fall into him. Its not like he's invisible...becuase honestly, if you look you can see him...its not obvious. But like strip clubs are works of satan. You can feel satan. I know that as a Christian, I can feel him pulling me one way and I have to step back and think about what my decision would be without satan influencing it.

4. To find out what heaven is like read Revelation 4-5. Its a description of God's throne room. Kinda scary. But heaven....its what you would consider paridise. Also read Revelation 21:1-22:5. That sounds pretty cool to me. But whatever you view paradise as in a christian way...sorry but no naked hot chicks with wings...that is what heaven would be to you.

5. I can't answer that. I really don't know why any one would want to betray God to that extent and so purposefully.

6. If I get what you mean...which I'm not too sure that I do...but Adam and Eve were around LOOONG before Jesus Christ. And Jesus did die for our sins...but we can only take advantage of that if we become Christians and let Him into our hearts. Sorry to sound preachy but that's how it works.

7. I can't really say where Hell is. Its an eternal lake of fire somewhere... As to where Heaven is...well after the rapture and then after the 1,000 year reign of Jesus and the angels the New Jerusalem will descend down and take over earth if I understand Revelation 21:1-22:5 correctly.

8. The word of God gets to us in many different ways. That's how the whole old testament of the bible was written pretty much. Actually...yeah I don't know how to answer this to be honest...I'm just trying to explain it in the way that I believe.

9. God tries to communicate with everyone on earth. Some people just don't realize that He is trying to communicate. He also gave us a free will so that we can choose to listen to Him or choose not to. And those people who are never exposed to Christianity becuase of the environment that they live in are covered in God's mercy and will go to heaven when the rapture happens. So will children who are too young to make a choice in the matter and those incapable of doing so.

10. I think Lordaeron answered this question better than I can...

I know that its not much but I hope that it helps....

Gosheon

13-08-2004, 04:26

Answer to q1. Simply because Satan was sent to Hell does not mean he can 'influence' other mortal beings. Being an archangel gives him said powers.

Answer to q2. People speculate this, but it probably isn't true.

Answer to q3. I don't know where you pulled this out of. He doesn't want to be not seen, but rather, does not want to appear evil. And, if you think about it, that's pretty easy to fool other people.

Answer to q4. No one knows yet--but judging from the general Christian attitude towards nudity, probably not the naked angels.

Answer to q5. He didn't betray him, per se, but rather he wanted the Earth existence to go his way, and then he wanted FULL CREDIT. A simple plan of greed.

Answer to q6. First of all, do the research. They ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and then they were cast out of the garden BEFORE they could eat of the tree of life (and become immortal). The penalty of death came of their knowledges of death, without taking the immortality-giving fruit as well. Jesus dying on the cross gives us an opportunity to live eternally in Heaven--but not on Earth.

Answer to q7. No one knows, but if you're a Latter-Day Saint (look it up), then you believe that heaven is located in our universe near the star Kolob (of course, we don't know where that is, so it still is moot).

Answer to q8. GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BOOK OF GENESIS, OR ANY BOOK OF THE BIBLE!!!!!! THEY WERE WRITTEN BY MEN (allegedly under the direction of God). Therefore, the Bible, Book of Mormon, Health & Key with Key to the Scriptures, WHATEVER, are COMPLETELY fake unless they have been translated according to the wills of God. And because there is no way to tell, then, Atheists get to have a field day.

Meanwhile, God told various prophets the Bible (didn't Moses write the first five books, I don't know?)

Answer to q9. Well, some people have the belief that Buddha was a reincarnation of Christ (again, you have to go with the whole reincarnation thing), or that Allah, YHWH (the Hebrew God, if I am not mistaken), and God (New Testament God) are the same. Therefore, there would be no false religions.

However, going the Christian route, the whole plan was that people would have free agency, but the goal was to see who, under their free agency would choose God. Satan's idea, after being banished, was to get as many people to do the wrong things, which INCLUDED making false religions. God could obliterate any and all false religions promptly, but that would be cheating to his own game--he is watching who is faithful ON THEIR OWN.

Answer to q10. Satanism doesn't refer to Satan being in hell, but the attitude that got him there--that people should not be restrained by others, and they should care for and about themselves; whatever is in their best interests.

The flaw here is the Satanism is PURELY REACTIONARY; it only works if someone REACTS to what they are doing. Pay no attention, and the religion fails.

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 04:52

Thank heavens that this is shorter than the other one...
I have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?
No, Satan went to Earth.
Job 1:7

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?
No. See above. Also, Luke 16:19-31. The man has left Earth, but is in hell. Earth is not hell.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?
Actually, I think that Satan and the Anti-Christ are different people, but don't quote me on that.
It's less of him being invisible and more us being blind. Just because blind people can't see, it doesn't mean that the light (or dark) isn't there.
Or, closer, just because someone's colorblind, it doesn't mean that there aren't colors.
Actually, there are people who can see angels and demons. There's a great story in the Bible: the Isrealites were facing an enormous army, far greater than there own. A soldier came to the prophet and asked how they could possibly win. He replied, "If you could see what I can see..." At that moment, the man's eyes were "opened" and he saw a huge army of angels and such.
There are also countless verses where people's eyes are "opened". Satan isn't invisble, we can't see him.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

Deuteronomy 28:12
Revelation 4, kind of.
Revelation 19, kind of.
And Revelation 21-22.
Also, as a friend of mine pointed out to me, heaven can also be something of your own idea of paradise.
Oh, and angels have no gender.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?
Satan didn't betray God, he wanted to BE God. Satan decided that he was better, and that he could do it his own way. So God kicked him out of heaven. Much the same as "My house, my rules," and since Satan didn't want to follow the rules, he got kicked out of the house.
6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?
Exactly! The penalty of death is gone, but you have to accept it first! Christ gives you the gift of salvation, but you must accept it his gift.
That is, however, spiritual death. Since we cannot eat of the tree of life, because it is lost (and guarded) in the Garden of Eden, we still die physically. But, not necessarily spiritually. You can accept Christ's gift and live forever in paradise, if you only accept it.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?
No one knows exactly. My guess is that it's outside of the known universe (which is, in fact, finite: it ends...It's very big, but it ends). A friend believes that Heaven is everything, while hell is nothing. Quite simply, heaven is where God is, hell is where he isn't.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?
God inspired someone to write it.
Or, he could have done what he did with the ten commandments and written it in stone, then gave it to someone.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?
Because that isn't the message of God. Why would he tell the Christians one thing, and Siddartha another? God isn't about that. This comes down to faith. I for one believe that God only says one thing, and that the Bible is it.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
Not being a Satanist: Couldn't tell ya. All I know is, they worship/follow Satan. Maybe they have grand dilusions of avoiding hell, maybe they think Satan can/will protect them (even if he could, he won't). Maybe they have no concept of what Hell is really like, or maybe they think that they deserve it. Anyway, ask one of them.

Loving Balance

13-08-2004, 05:19

Granted I'm a witch, but I took enough theology at Christian schools to know some of this....so I have two perspectives.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

This is an interesting point. Some people see Satan as the personification of all sin and Evil in which case he transends the boundaries of physical form. However, if you read the Old Testament, it clearly states that Adam and Eve were tempted by a SNAKE in their garden, NOT satan per se. This theory makes more sense to me, since God probably wanted to test the obedience of his new Creations by sending in a patsy....whooda thunkit?? We failed...shocker.

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

Once again if you use the more liberal Christian metaphor of Satan and Hell as all sin, temptation, and evil, I guess there is some Hell on earth. But anyone who reads the Bible as literal would say that earth isn't Hell....Satan and God both touch earth and each attempt to sway the free will of man. To the literal Christian reading Hell is a specific lake of fiery torment defined in scripture. To other more liberal readings, Hell is the torment of a soul turned away from God and all that is beautiful. This definition makes more sense to me, but since I don't believe in Hell it's a moot point.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

First of all, no one claims that Satan is invisible....he either assumes a corrupt human form or pervades the atmosphere through temptation depending on who you ask. Also, as another poster said Satan aka The Mourning Star was one of Gods highest choir of angels. So his power comes from.....GOD. Either he fell from grace because God lost control of him, or he was allowed to slip into corruption in order to test us as His snake tested Adam and Eve. I consider this more likely from a theological perspective, but keep in mind I don't believe in Satan.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

Once again, depends on who you ask. A literal definition of Heaven is found in the Bible, though many would say it is the ultimate joy of a soul close to God without suffering or sin. This rings more true to me, since as a witch, I believe my evolved soul will eventually become one with the Source....my less defined version of God.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

Unless Christians are willing to agree that God was fallible on this one and only point, God obviously allowed it. It's the only explanation...maybe if not to test us, because He enjoys chess...who knows??

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

Personally I agree with you...this looks like a loophole. My guess would be that Christians would get around this, however, by saying that Jesus didn't die for ALL of our sins...only for those who accept Him as the Lord and Saviour. (I don't understand this either BTW...if Jesus was Love and Mercy, why would He hold a simple-minded grudge against every non-Christian person on the planet?? But I digress.) By this logic, death is only a punishment for those of us who do not accept Him. Christians receive eternal life via Heaven.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

I have no idea...I'm no theology scholar. I don't think the Bible ever makes that crystal clear. I liked the answer that other poster gave about transcendent planes for souls though.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

Okay, for the last time, GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE!!!! Depending on who you ask, the Bible was either inspired by God or based on the words of God as spoken to various prophets. No one, no matter how Christian thinks God held the pen. Period.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

This is one of my biggest problems with Christianity...I just don't buy it. I mean why would God appear in only one form to only one group of people if He's so compassionate and wants to see every soul saved?? Every religion has some concept of it's followers as The Chosen...I think it's all bunk....we should all be able to hear God if He's as Good and Omnipresent as people say. I think Christians would argue though, that the Christian message is written into the world for those who choose to see it.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Satanism is all about yielding to pleasure and sin and selfishness, and was frankly defined in direct opposition to Christianity. As a side note, the Church called pagans Satanists and Devil Worshippers first, and this was totally inaccurrate. A frame up. The Devil was even drawn to resemble one of the pagan Gods Pan, who BY THE WAY IS NOT EVIL PEOPLE. Sorry, but it annoys me. The Pentagram is merely a version of our symbol of protection and the Goddess the Pentacle upsidedown. Pagans were called evil in order to keep Christians from dabbling in pagan rituals back in like the 17th Century. Before this even priests visited wise medicine women or witches. This is the myth and orgin of Satanic lore. Modern Satanists are pinheads who built a religion based on this Christian hysteria, and the main thing I hold against them is that people confuse them with pagans and they make me look bad. Also some more extreme sects of Satanists....NOT all SOME...practice rituals of human and animal sacrafice. I also picked up their Bible once when my friend became one and it contradicts itself in every paragraph. I doubt it's author is even sane. That said I completely blame fundementalist Christians for the entire Satanist idea and movement...nuff said.

Frohlich

13-08-2004, 05:30

Great questions, and some really great answers.

Yes, Satan was an angel who tried to put himself above God. God cast him out. Nobody knows where Heaven or Hell are, but we are given indications of what they are like.

Jesus DID pay the penelty for sin and He DID overcome death, but it was eternal death. Our bodies will still die, but our souls can spend eternity with God in Heaven because of this.

In answer to Loving Balance, God DOES want everyone to be saved. That's why we have the Bible, pastors, Christian teachers, and Christians willing to witness and spread Gods word. This is what we are charged by God to do. He has been speaking to people for centuries through the Bible. Yes, it is the Word of God. As it says in Timothy "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is useful for teaching and reproof." God keeps talking to everyone, the problem is not everyone is listening.

Jonasiana

13-08-2004, 05:53

Jonasiana

13-08-2004, 05:53

Aiera

13-08-2004, 06:05

Granted I'm a witch, but I took enough theology at Christian schools to know some of this....so I have two perspectives.

Perhaps then you'll permit the Christian Apologist to step in?

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

This is an interesting point. Some people see Satan as the personification of all sin and Evil in which case he transends the boundaries of physical form. However, if you read the Old Testament, it clearly states that Adam and Eve were tempted by a SNAKE in their garden, NOT satan per se. This theory makes more sense to me, since God probably wanted to test the obedience of his new Creations by sending in a patsy....whooda thunkit?? We failed...shocker.

However, if you read the New Testament, you see the snake back again, this time very clearly "the Devil in disguise" (sorry...couldn't resist the urge to quote Elvis), tempting Jesus in the desert during the 40 Days. So it is entirely possible that the snake in the garden was, in fact, the Devil.

However, I do agree that the Tree was put there for a purpose by God. But not necessarily to test us, per sé. The purpose of the Tree being placed in the garden, where it was accessible, was to give humanity a choice. For what is love, and what is faith, if it is lacking in the freedom to choose to love and have faith? God put the Tree so that God's love for humanity might be complete. God could easily have withheld the tree, but would that have been the loving thing to do...force us to believe, withhold the chance to have knowledge of right and wrong?

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

Once again if you use the more liberal Christian metaphor of Satan and Hell as all sin, temptation, and evil, I guess there is some Hell on earth. But anyone who reads the Bible as literal would say that earth isn't Hell....Satan and God both touch earth and each attempt to sway the free will of man. To the literal Christian reading Hell is a specific lake of fiery torment defined in scripture. To other more liberal readings, Hell is the torment of a soul turned away from God and all that is beautiful. This definition makes more sense to me, but since I don't believe in Hell it's a moot point.

That's a much better definition of Hell. Hell is not Earth, and there isn't really "Hell on Earth" either. Hell is torment, in a sense, but even this definition is lacking. What Hell is is a lack of God, a place devoid of God. It is a place that exists outside of...infinity, really, a place of true nothingness. Whether it is a lake of fire or merely infinite deprivation and a sense of being absolutely is beyond any of our abilities to say concretely. The exact form in which it manifests itself is less important than the concept of what it is.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

First of all, no one claims that Satan is invisible....he either assumes a corrupt human form or pervades the atmosphere through temptation depending on who you ask. Also, as another poster said Satan aka The Mourning Star was one of Gods highest choir of angels. So his power comes from.....GOD. Either he fell from grace because God lost control of him, or he was allowed to slip into corruption in order to test us as His snake tested Adam and Eve. I consider this more likely from a theological perspective, but keep in mind I don't believe in Satan.

Not just human form - the Devil assumes animal form as well.

As for the fall...you are somewhat misinformed. Satan was indeed once an angel, one of God's Host. However, Satan fell to greed and jealousy, and desired that power which was God's. There was war in Heaven, and Satan was cast out.

Remember: though divine in nature, angels are not perfect. Only God is thus, and angels are entirely able to "fall from grace".

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

Once again, depends on who you ask. A literal definition of Heaven is found in the Bible, though many would say it is the ultimate joy of a soul close to God without suffering or sin. This rings more true to me, since as a witch, I believe my evolved soul will eventually become one with the Source....my less defined version of God.

Heaven in a place of absolute truth and joy. Each person experiences truth and joy in different ways, and so it makes sense to say that Heaven is many things to different souls.

As for the "naked hot girls" bit...most of the angels mentioned in the Bible are male, and all angels mentioned in the Bible are adorned in white robes.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

Unless Christians are willing to agree that God was fallible on this one and only point, God obviously allowed it. It's the only explanation...maybe if not to test us, because He enjoys chess...who knows??

Of course God allowed it...God grants to angels the same freedom to choose that God grants to humanity, and does so because to deny us this would not be truly loving.

Satan sought the power that was God's...see above.

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

Personally I agree with you...this looks like a loophole. My guess would be that Christians would get around this, however, by saying that Jesus didn't die for ALL of our sins...only for those who accept Him as the Lord and Saviour. (I don't understand this either BTW...if Jesus was Love and Mercy, why would He hold a simple-minded grudge against every non-Christian person on the planet?? But I digress.) By this logic, death is only a punishment for those of us who do not accept Him. Christians receive eternal life via Heaven.

The sin of Adam and Eve seperated humanity from God, and made us mortal creatures of this world (this is all allegorical, of course). The death of Jesus re-united humanity to God, and restored life eternal to us, but life eternal with God, in the presence and home of God - not in this temporary world.

With regards to the "simple-minded grudge", think for a minute of being covered in dirt and standing in an otherwise blank room in which there is a single bathtub full of soapy water. Only by getting in the tub can you be washed of the dirt that covers you. If you refute, ignore, turn away from, or deny the existence of the bathtub...the dirt remains. Only by getting into the bathtub can you wash yourself clean.

So too with out sin. It is not "non-belief" that damns us, but our own sin - the selfish actions we take that hurt others. Only in Jesus, however, can we be cleansed of this sin and saved from it. Jesus died for everyone, just as the bathtub is there for everyone. But only the people who actually bother to get into the tub - accept Jesus - can actually get clean again.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

I have no idea...I'm no theology scholar. I don't think the Bible ever makes that crystal clear. I liked the answer that other poster gave about transcendent planes for souls though.

Hell exists outside all that is God, Hell exists apart from God. Hell exists in nothingness, in void.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

Okay, for the last time, GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE!!!! Depending on who you ask, the Bible was either inspired by God or based on the words of God as spoken to various prophets. No one, no matter how Christian thinks God held the pen. Period.

Indeed. The Christian belief is that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Bang on.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

This is one of my biggest problems with Christianity...I just don't buy it. I mean why would God appear in only one form to only one group of people if He's so compassionate and wants to see every soul saved?? Every religion has some concept of it's followers as The Chosen...I think it's all bunk....we should all be able to hear God if He's as Good and Omnipresent as people say. I think Christians would argue though, that the Christian message is written into the world for those who choose to see it.

Hence, I would guess, the mandate Jesus left to all his followers to spread the Word of God to all the world. And you are right...not all who hear it choose to listen. Most of us here are aware of the teachings...clearly not all of us are Christian.

What of it?

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
[QUOTE=Loving Balance]
Satanism is all about yielding to pleasure and sin and selfishness, and was frankly defined in direct opposition to Christianity. As a side note, the Church called pagans Satanists and Devil Worshippers first, and this was totally inaccurrate. A frame up. The Devil was even drawn to resemble one of the pagan Gods Pan, who BY THE WAY IS NOT EVIL PEOPLE. Sorry, but it annoys me. The Pentagram is merely a version of our symbol of protection and the Goddess the Pentacle upsidedown. Pagans were called evil in order to keep Christians from dabbling in pagan rituals back in like the 17th Century. Before this even priests visited wise medicine women or witches. This is the myth and orgin of Satanic lore. Modern Satanists are pinheads who built a religion based on this Christian hysteria, and the main thing I hold against them is that people confuse them with pagans and they make me look bad. Also some more extreme sects of Satanists....NOT all SOME...practice rituals of human and animal sacrafice. I also picked up their Bible once when my friend became one and it contradicts itself in every paragraph. I doubt it's author is even sane. That said I completely blame fundementalist Christians for the entire Satanist idea and movement...nuff said.

You sound like Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com)...the early (Catholic) church is to blame for all the evils of the world, including Communism and Satanism.

Have a read of that sight and have a laugh, by the way...and please understand that this misguided and insane cartoonist does NOT speak for anyone who can truthfully claim to be Christian. His form of "Christianity" is a lie, a mask...he puts on the claim of Christ as a justification for a hateful agenda.

Anyhow...I agree that the early Church made some errors regarding Pagan practice, for there is no evidence I can think of in the Bible that says that Satan is behind all other gods. Certain verses in the Bible even seem to point to the validity of other gods - though with the caveat that their powers are far inferior to that of God (which isn't actually all that hard to prove, if you take a look at how easily a supposedly mighty god such as Zeus was tricked by a mere human).

But to blame them for it all? That's rather extreme...not unlike blaming the Germans of today for the Germans who in the 1930s voted in the Nazis.

Your analysis of what has come to be known as Satanism is otherwise correct, however...it essentially exists as a glorification of what could be called the binary opposite to Christian principle. As to whether these people want to go to Hell...RhynoD is right. We can't speak to this. You'd have to ask them.

Where is Big Jim P when you need him?

:D Aiera

Triadia

13-08-2004, 06:06

Most of the other questions have been answered as well as they likely will be, so I'll only add thoughts about one of them...

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

That depends on who you ask and how willing some are to accept that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all connected (and no I'm not interested in debating that issue). In the Quran it is stated that all written scripture is the word of God, just that it was handed down to different people through prophets sent specifically to speak to those people. Any differences that exist between those scriptures were permitted by God for purposes known only to Him.

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 06:25

Most of the other questions have been answered as well as they likely will be, so I'll only add thoughts about one of them...

That depends on who you ask and how willing some are to accept that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all connected (and no I'm not interested in debating that issue). In the Quran it is stated that all written scripture is the word of God, just that it was handed down to different people through prophets sent specifically to speak to those people. Any differences that exist between those scriptures were permitted by God for purposes known only to Him.
Actually, it's hard to debate that they aren't connected. All three worship the same God. I shouldn't have to point out how Judiasm and Christianity are linked. As for Islam, Allah is the "God of Abraham." Also, they believe that Jesus was great prophet of God, just not the greatest.
It comes down to this: it's not that God can't have inspired other religions, it's simply that he didn't. The Bible, and many other religions say that God is not a liar. If he's not a liar, than he wouldn't have put out so many conflicting ideas.
So, you must either accept him in the form of one religion, or reject him completely. That being said: as to which is the right one, that comes down to faith.

Homocracy

13-08-2004, 06:50

In the Quran it is stated that all written scripture is the word of God, just that it was handed down to different people through prophets sent specifically to speak to those people. Any differences that exist between those scriptures were permitted by God for purposes known only to Him.

Presumably, God is aware of the idea of marketing- people won't really look at something if it's got no relevance to them, like I never considered reading the Bible until I found a Polari translation. God's probably also aware that any text has to be of manageable proportions, so, for example, the OT's food laws can't list every species in existance, just give some characteristics of what's allowed and some specific local examples.

As for the thing about the Antichrist, is this implying some sort of Unholy Trinity, like the Holy Trinity is thought to be implied? You have the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the Holy Trinity, and you have Satan, the fallen angel himself, the Antichrist, his earthly incarnation, and the Spirit of Evil, this power tempting people to do evil. Anyway, isn't the whole Revelations thing saying that one day it's going to get so bad that God's gonna have to come lay the smack down on Satan and his hordes? Isn't that a bit pessimistic?

Homocracy

13-08-2004, 06:52

It comes down to this: it's not that God can't have inspired other religions, it's simply that he didn't.

Can you cite Book, Chapter and Verse for that?

Banjo Players

13-08-2004, 07:00

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

Ans. Satan was not sent to hell. He was kicked out from the presence of God. Satan was the cherub angel that covereth. In other words, Lucifer was the lead angel of all the angels at one time, anointed and set apart as the priest of God. His position was so exaulted that even Michael the Archangel would not speak to him lowly (Jude v8,9). Lucifer got proud because of his perfect beauty that he thought he could dethrone God Himself and set himself as god. Satan went about recruiting other angels and succeeded in convincing a 1/3 of the angels. All this to say that when Lucifer sinned against God, he was kicked out and fell to the earth. Then Lucifer's name was changed to Satan. Ezekiel 28 gives a clearer story about what Satan did.

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

Ans. See above. Earth isn't hell. Actually, when satan deceived Adam and Eve, thier sin allowed satan to gain domain of the earth. Adam and Eve were in charge of the earth, and by sinning, they turned the "management" over to the devil.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

Ans. The anti-Christ isn't everywhere. According to Revelation, the anti-Christ is the second person of the unholy trinity, a bad fake of the Holy Trinity. The anti-Christ is/or will be a person who is against Jesus Christ. Some theologians believe that the anti-Christ will suffer a fatal wound to the head and satan himself will inhabit the body, make it seem that the anti-Christ was resurrected, another faking of the ressurection of Jesus Christ. Satan is a spirit that can inhabit unsaved men and women. Satan does not have a body like you and I do. God created satan and gave him free-will to chose.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

Ans. That's an interesting question. There are several references to Heaven, one in the account of Stephen (Acts), the account of Paul and in Revelation. It is believed that all angels are male because there is no mention of female angels in the Bible. Logically, that would make sense, since there are male and female animals, insects and humans solely for the purpose of procreation. Since angels are created spirit beings, existing before mankind, there wouldn't be a purpose to procreate among angels. The mention of angels in the Bible are only male, Michael, Gabriel and the fallen angels who inhabited men for the purpose of having sex with women. The joining of these "possessed" men and the women they bedded produced giants, one of which was Goliath (of the David and Goliath story).

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

Ans. Yes, Lucifer betrayed God by going against God's will and trying to win His throne in a attempted coup. Why? Because Satan got proud and thought he could be like God. The purpose was that satan wanted to be god.

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

Ans. Actually they didn't eat from the tree of life. They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The penalty was death, not because they ate, but because, like satan, they disobeyed God's will for them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God prevented them from eating from the tree of life in an act of mercy. The penalty of spiritual death that resulted from thier action was atoned or paid in full by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Now, if we believe Jesus Christ as Lord of us and Savior from the penalty of spiritual death, we are saved from the consequence, which is eternal damnation. John 3:16.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

Ans. Some theologians believe that hell is in the middle of the earth. I am not sure if the Bible speaks of the location of hell. However, in Revelation it speaks of the Lake of Fire. So there's two places the unsaved go when they die, Hell and after the Great White Throne Judgement, the lake of fire, for all eternity.

As far as Heaven is concerned, it is the 3rd heaven. The first heaven is the atmosphere, the 2nd heaven is space and the 3rd heaven is where God is, beyond the boundaries of space (or the great expanse, for you trekkers.) That is in the Bible. Google it and see for yourself. It makes for an interesting study on Heaven.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

Ans. God inspired Moses to write the book of Genesis.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

Wow, this would require a long answer but I'll try to make it short. God had already spoken to His people about Him. Most of the false religions came to being after Jesus Christ walked this earth. If you notice, some false religions speak of Christ in their texts but only as a wise man or a prophet but never as the Son of God. False religions are pretty much set up by satan to decieve people into believing in anything or anyone other that Christ.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Ans. I'm not sure how satanism was formed. Satan is the Devil but is not in hell. As far as going to hell, anyone who does not believe in Christ and dies without accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, will die the spiritual death mentioned since Genesis and after the Great White Throne Judgement, hell and the unsaved will be casted into the Lake of Fire along with Satan, the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet. I am not sure of the satanists perception of hell. I doubt if the would want to go to hell if they knew what it really is. Some people think hell is all the partying 24/7. The bottom line is the satan is a deciever. He wants alot of people to go with him when the time comes. And alot will go, unfortunately and unknowingly. That's why God gives everyone more than enough chances to accept Christ as Savior. Most will reject Christ without knowing fully the eternal consequences of thier choice.

I hope this helps. Anymore questions please send me a telegram to Banjo Players.

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 07:11

Can you cite Book, Chapter and Verse for that?
I'd have to look. It'll take a while.

There is one verse (will find it later) that says God will send false teachings to sort the true believers. That being said, that implies that the others are FALSE. Which makes the point moot.

Lagina

13-08-2004, 07:34

:D Aiera[/QUOTE]
Anyhow...I agree that the early Church made some errors regarding Pagan practice, for there is no evidence I can think of in the Bible that says that Satan is behind all other gods. Certain verses in the Bible even seem to point to the validity of other gods - though with the caveat that their powers are far inferior to that of God (which isn't actually all that hard to prove, if you take a look at how easily a supposedly mighty god such as Zeus was tricked by a mere human).

:D Aiera[/QUOTE]

If your up on your hellenistic/greek theology, youd know that one, mythology is view as allegory ( like some view the bible), or two, Zeus would only allow himself to be "tricked" or "betrayed." He does things for a reason, thats why hes the most powerful, protective, and destructive.
However, its nice to hear a Christian thats very open minded about the whole "pagans got a bad rap thing." Go Aiera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Oh yeah, on the persons questions.

I heard once that a reason for Satan to rebel was because he and other angels were jealous of Gods love for humans, is there any validity in this?

On satanism. I studied it briefly in an anthro class last spring: Satanists dont believe in an actual Satan ( that wouldt be lucifarians or however its spelled), Instead they are indeed a "reaction" to the so called "sins" of christianity. This sin would be attempting to control humans via greed, limiting natural desires and making humans feel as if the need salvation. In reaction to this, satanists attempt rebel my things such as a black mass, jealously, breaking those 10 commandments and what not.
The problem with satanism is this: The Black Mass is often used to "curse" those people who wrong a satanist... how can you be wronged if you dont believe in "laws" or limitations on human action? oopsy there LeVay

Kissingly

13-08-2004, 07:39

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 08:13

I am not trying to get into a huge argument or anything but I have a few more questions

1. How come most christians will quote leviticus concerning gay folk but then when you ask about the part that says stone those who have been raped because they didn't yell loud enough they say "well, the old testament is the old agreement and the new testament was the new agreement we got after Jesus died for our sins" Multiple people from different christian sects have told me this.
2. Have you ever played a game of telephone? Don't you think some things could be misdirected because God had to leave it in the hands of man to write it all down. We couldn't even not eat an apple to stay in paradise.
3. I don't quite understand how Jesus not committing any sins and then being crucified eleviates mine.
4. Why when God gave us free will to make choices and even loved the prostitute do we continue to impose our beliefs on others. It seems to me he would have wanted us to love each other (according to the new testament and not old) but let us make our own choices and take it up with God. I don't understand the point in trying to (easy examples) keep gay people from marrying etc. if God as the bible says, "knows what is in our heart"

These are honest questions and I haven't found one hard core christian who could answer them.

1. I personally use Leviticus to show that it's wrong, not that they should be condemned for all time. Now, about the rape thing...Does it ever say that the rape is ok? No. About screaming, I'd have to look that up...d'you know the verse?
2. This comes down to faith. I believe that since the Bible is inspired by God, he's smart enough to keep it from degrading. Now, just because man wrote it, it doesn't mean it's messed up. The NS server screwed up all the time, but it still managed to post for me. My computer screws up all the time, but it still managed to get this all typed up. Yeah, humans screw up, but they don't have to screw up ALL the time, eh?
3. This is a hard one for many people. Romans 6:23. The first half says that your sin has consequences, like any action. The consequences of sin are very bad: you end up in hell. Now, Jesus never sinned. He never had to face those consequences. But, he did anyway. He went to hell, for you. He took the blame, took hell, in your place. The consequences are now paid. It's been done. You sinned, and it had consequences, full circle. But, instead of the consequences happening to you, they happened to Jesus.
Now, all that being said, just because Jesus took the consequences, it doesn't mean you're automatically off the hook. You still did the crime. God can't forgive you if you don't ask him. He'd love to forgive you, he wants you forgive you, but you have to ask. See the thread "everyone".
4. Now, Christians mess up too. I mess up. They shouldn't be forcing you to be a Christian. That being said, why should they just let you do the things that get you thrown into hell? What kind of person would they be if they never said anything, never tried to help? Now, remember what I said about sin having consequences? Every action has consequences, not necessarily in the afterlife. Many of those consequences happen here on Earth: some are good, some are bad. Example, I stay up too late posting this. Good consequence, I might change someone's mind and make them a Christian. I might make a friend. Bad consequences, I'm too tired in the morning.
Now, gays can get married, but there's a consequence: they have to live somewhere else to do it. What Christians are trying to do is to make the Earthly consequences bad enough that no one will want to do them, and will avoid hell. Remember, you can break the law. You can do whatever the hell you want to do. But, there are consequences: you get thrown in jail. Christians are trying to make it so that, while you can do these things, you won't want to, because you will see that it isn't worth it. Christians already know it isn't worth it, we're just trying to show everyone else that.

BTW: any questions, AIM: insane3rhyno

Homocracy

13-08-2004, 08:17

I'd have to look. It'll take a while.

There is one verse (will find it later) that says God will send false teachings to sort the true believers. That being said, that implies that the others are FALSE. Which makes the point moot.

Some false teachings- it doesn't say ALL others are false.

Homocracy

13-08-2004, 08:20

Now, gays can get married, but there's a consequence: they have to live somewhere else to do it. What Christians are trying to do is to make the Earthly consequences bad enough that no one will want to do them, and will avoid hell. Remember, you can break the law. You can do whatever the hell you want to do. But, there are consequences: you get thrown in jail. Christians are trying to make it so that, while you can do these things, you won't want to, because you will see that it isn't worth it. Christians already know it isn't worth it, we're just trying to show everyone else that.

That is the most fucking awful pile of shite I've ever read. I don't worship your God, to each his own.

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 08:22

That is the most fucking awful pile of shite I've ever read. I don't worship your God, to each his own.

How is this any different from stopping prayer in school? Or making Big Bang required? Or making me read Fahrenheit 451?

But yes, to each their own. I'm glad you respect my decision.

Homocracy

13-08-2004, 08:32

How is this any different from stopping prayer in school? Or making Big Bang required? Or making me read Fahrenheit 451?

But yes, to each their own. I'm glad you respect my decision.

Stopping Gay Marriage impinges on my rights. Stopping prayer in schools allows people who aren't Christian to send their kids to school without worrying about them being converted. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not a religious one, and is dealt with in science. Texts that you study in Literature classes aren't there for indoctrination, they're to study the use of language to portray views and emotions. And you're not forced to move to Vatican City to have your faith officially recognised, which is the equivalent of what the post I quoted advocates.

Lumana

13-08-2004, 08:50

I have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

He did not. He is on earth.

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

Satan isn't in Hell according to any correct Christian doctrine. Hell (the place of eternal damnation) has no inhabitants until the events of Revelation 20/21 take place (which is when Satan will be cast into Hell as well as those who refused God).

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

I'm not sure what this is talking about, but the anti-Christ is a literal man who either has not been born or has not been revealed in the public light yet (which he will be; he's a leader, not a lurker).

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

No, this is one of the most misunderstood things in all of Christianity. People do not "go to" Heaven; Heaven is not even a physical place in the sense we understand; it's a place where God dwells and humans couldn't exist. Rather, we will be brought back to a physical existance and participate in a new Creation (Revelation 20/21, again) in which the effects of the fall of Adam and Eve have been taken away (no death or pain).

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

He sought glory for his greatness and rejected his role of giving glory to God. We can't really do a psychological case study on Satan since he wasn't human so it's not really worth a ton of thought.

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

Well, you're wrong twofold here. For one, there were two trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The latter is the one they sinned in eating of, and the former is the one which an angel guarded after they had done so so that they could not eat of it. Death was never a penalty. The word "death" in Hebrew literally means a seperation; it is simply seperating the spirit (the aphysical, immortal essence, our breath of life) from the flesh (our bodies, and the sinful nature inheritted by the corruption from the fruit). This is a good thing, because otherwise there would be no way to free man from sin; we would have all been forsaken to live eternally with pain and suffering and sin. Luckily we will receive new bodies lacking this sinful nature.

When the Bible speak of "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life" it is referring to spiritual death, e.g. eternal spiritual seperation from God.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

It is indicated to be down in a pit, and to be a lake of fire. By all scientific accounts, it would be the lake of molten rock that's beneath our feet right now (interesting that the Bible would talk about a lake of fire below us hundreds of years before anything close to that was scientifically known, isn't it?). Though it is empty for now, I don't see why it would be a stretch to say that it would certainly be a very unpleasant place to be thrown if you couldn't die.

Ultimately, that's just what seems to pop out at me, but to be precise the Bible does establish that it's a place of eternal suffering, a lake of fire, where Satan and those who defied God will be cast when Revelation 20/21 is fulfilled.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

God didn't, Moses did.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

Because they're listening to Satan already and the line's busy.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Satanism, at least in modern terms, has nothing to do with Satan. It was just a name made up to piss off Christians for a religion that's basically a formal practice of self-centered secularism (basically "Live life to the fullest and don't worry about others", which really isn't Satan's nature at all at least according to the Biblical Satan). If you're talking "Devil worship" or "worship of Satan" then it's just worship of Satan as a spiritual being on earth (who has not yet been sent to Hell; his followers don't recognize his defeat in the book of Revelation) and definitely is a great shortcut to Hell.

Lumana

13-08-2004, 09:10

I am not trying to get into a huge argument or anything but I have a few more questions

1. How come most christians will quote leviticus concerning gay folk but then when you ask about the part that says stone those who have been raped because they didn't yell loud enough they say "well, the old testament is the old agreement and the new testament was the new agreement we got after Jesus died for our sins" Multiple people from different christian sects have told me this.

Because the moral law of Leviticus still applies; the national laws of Israel do not (the church is not an organization in charge of enforcing law, in other words; punishments aren't for the church to carry out). A great many laws that people cite such as cleanliness laws and ceremonial sacrifice and the laws associated with priests simply aren't applicable since Jesus ended sacrifices and the concept of "ceremonial cleanliness" associated with it (furthermore Jesus explicitly said that food can't defile you directly). I've studied the Torah quite a bit and your passage about "not screaming loud enough during rape" doesn't ring a bell at all.

I find a lot of Christians don't know the minute details of how the Bible is structured: that's what scholars and apologists such as myself are for.

2. Have you ever played a game of telephone? Don't you think some things could be misdirected because God had to leave it in the hands of man to write it all down. We couldn't even not eat an apple to stay in paradise.

Of course, naturally I would most definitely think this. However, here is why logically it doesn't hold within the Christian doctrine. The most basic assumption of the Christian is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who lived without sin and died for their sins. Now, we have to realize that Jesus, as God, was all-knowing; thus there could be no way which He could say something was true which was in actuality not true. Jesus testified to the truth of all that was written in the Torah and to the witness of John (Biblical infallibility doctrine branches out from there, you get the idea). If any of these writings had error in them, then Jesus was bearing false witness, was sinful, etc. Since Jesus could not be sinful by basic assumption, these writings could not be errant at all if you are to really believe that Jesus was who He said He was.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is specified as the means by which men could write infallibly. If said man would write a lie (God can see their hearts) they would not be entrusted with writing such a thing.

3. I don't quite understand how Jesus not committing any sins and then being crucified eleviates mine.

The shedding of innocent blood cleanses sin; that is how it has worked from the beginning (in the days of Israel, said animals were a vital part of one's possessions). By an omnipotent, omnipresent being shedding His blood for us, there is infinite grace for those who accept it. This is the figurative level; on the realistic level, the act did nothing; the love that led to the act, that an omnipotent God would give His own Son's life, did everything. Interestingly enough, even though Jesus didn't come along for thousands of years later, the idea that sacrificing one's son is the ultimate showing of love was written about by Moses in Genesis through the account of Abraham and Isaac.

4. Why when God gave us free will to make choices and even loved the prostitute do we continue to impose our beliefs on others. It seems to me he would have wanted us to love each other (according to the new testament and not old) but let us make our own choices and take it up with God. I don't understand the point in trying to (easy examples) keep gay people from marrying etc. if God as the bible says, "knows what is in our heart"

Love isn't spoiling others. Love isn't letting others ruin their lives. Love isn't telling people it's okay to destroy themselves. Ask any parent if letting their kid wander unsupervised and unstopped is really love; it isn't, it's neglect. Love of God is obeying His commandments (Jesus Himself said this multiple times in John 14 starting at verse 15). A person who practices these things isn't showing love for God and is only hurting themselves and their own relationship with God. A person who condones such things is being neglectful, not helpful. If someone I loved was walking in front of a train, no matter if they knew about the train or not, I would do all I could to stop them from being hit. In the same way, if someone I care about is engaged in self-destructive behavior, I'll tell them so and do all I can to break them away from it.

Loving Balance

13-08-2004, 21:07

Agent 47

13-08-2004, 21:18

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power? - Satan used to be an angel ...

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose? - power

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone? - Jesus died so we could have life after death - not eternal life

That help??

Help me with some questions....[/QUOTE]

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 21:19

Stopping Gay Marriage impinges on my rights. Stopping prayer in schools allows people who aren't Christian to send their kids to school without worrying about them being converted. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not a religious one, and is dealt with in science. Texts that you study in Literature classes aren't there for indoctrination, they're to study the use of language to portray views and emotions. And you're not forced to move to Vatican City to have your faith officially recognised, which is the equivalent of what the post I quoted advocates.

First off, stopping prayer in school does impinge on my rights as well. I do, however, usually let that one go, since I know that I wouldn't want a Muslim or such praying, so I can understand how people don't want Christians praying either. That said, if it were allowed, I would not make a fuss when a Muslim did say a prayer.
Big Bang is no more scientifically feasible than Creation. I don't care that they teach BB, I care that they teach BB as truth, as the only possible explanation, and that Creation is completely impossible. Creation is just as likely as BB.
Have you read F451? It's crap! The characters are hollow, the plot is pathetic, there is almost no symbolization. The book has no depth, the characters have no personality: they're all stereotypical, generic characters. It takes no more talent to right F451 than it does to type the words. Now, whether you realize it or not, it is an attempt at indoctrinization. How could it not be? The only reason we read that was because of the theme, much like the only reason many people are going to see F-9/11 is because of the theme. I mean, the whole reason Bradbury wrote the book in the first place was for indoctrinization!
Lastly, if I did have to move to the Vatican, I would. And if you think that gays are persecuted and toubled and mocked more than Christians, you are utterly mistaken.

Davistania

13-08-2004, 22:03

First off, stopping prayer in school does impinge on my rights as well. I do, however, usually let that one go, since I know that I wouldn't want a Muslim or such praying, so I can understand how people don't want Christians praying either.

I don't understand what right is impinged. You have a right to force other people to pray? No. You have a right to make other people stop what they're doing so you can pray? No. You have a right to pray whenever you want, including in a school? Yes, and you can still do that.

I've always wondered about what rights people claim are being violated when you remove mandatory school prayer.

Dakini

13-08-2004, 22:05

Satanism is actually a mixture of philosophical egoism and strongly pleasure-positive views. It also glorifies hate.

last i checked it didn't glorify hate, it was simply hate those who deserve it and only love those who are deserving of your love and all, as opposed to the love everybody deal.

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 22:08

I don't understand what right is impinged. You have a right to force other people to pray? No. You have a right to make other people stop what they're doing so you can pray? No. You have a right to pray whenever you want, including in a school? Yes, and you can still do that.

I've always wondered about what rights people claim are being violated when you remove mandatory school prayer.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I understand what you're saying completely. No, I don't have the right to force them to pray, but, I do have the right to pray with those willing to pray. I have the right to pray at my desk. I've heard plenty of stories of teachers getting fired because they were praying privately and some kid said "HE WAS PRAYING IN SCHOOL I SAW HIM!"

Dakini

13-08-2004, 22:12

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

the buddha meditated his way to enlightenment. he never said anything about the existence of any diety whatsoever... and the philosophies of buddhism and christianity are very similar at any rate, the real difference is that in christianity, you get one crack at it and you need jesus to save you from your sins and in buddhism, you get to keep trying again and again until you save yourself from the cycle of birth and rebirth. well, buddhists don't seem to have any qualms with homosexuality or sex in general for that matter, so long as it's not promiscuous sex. i find buddhism more focused on love and more tolerant than christianity as well.

Davistania

13-08-2004, 22:14

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 22:16

Oh yeah. Now I remember you saying this in another thread.

And I *still* don't believe your anecdote. ;)

Eh...wish I had specifics. Oh well...
But, you can see how something like that is entirely possible, yes?

Dakini

13-08-2004, 22:19

Lastly, if I did have to move to the Vatican, I would. And if you think that gays are persecuted and toubled and mocked more than Christians, you are utterly mistaken.
i have never seen a christian being mocked for their religion. i used to be a christian and i was never mocked for being one. another christian called me a heretic once, but that's the closest i got to mockery.

however, i do get preached at on street corners by christians, have christians try to convince me to go to their youth services, lose a bar sundays during the day because my school gives it over to church services et c.

Dakini

13-08-2004, 22:22

But, you can see how something like that is entirely possible, yes?

no. removing prayer from public schools prevents teachers from conducting prayers or pressuring students into praying. if a teacher bows his or her head quitely at lunch before chowing down, they aren't doing any of that.

Lumana

13-08-2004, 22:27

If I am misguided on Christian theology I can buy that...or maybe my view is just a bit different...who knows?? The interesting thing about the New and Old Testaments is that they are different people's takes on Good and mythology and were written thousands of years apart. Just because the NEW Testament pictured the snake tempting Jesus Christ as Satan doesn't mean that this is what was intended by the original author. Christians can say that they use the Old Testament but it was written by Hebrews who may have had other ideas and intents.

I'm not sure what you mean. For one, if you study the OT, it's not written as a "mythology" book at all. It's a historical account, complete with census information about the nation of Israel. The Torah was traditionally cited as written by Moses, so much of it was firsthand account; there was no loss of "what was intended by the original author." We have thousands upon thousands of sources for both the OT and NT texts; they're well documented. The Gospels alone have 5,000 sources JUST in Greek, and over 35,000 in other languages. There's very little reason to suspect that there is some gross distortion that has occurred; they are by a fairly huge margin the most reliable historical documents in existance.

Satan never appeared to Christ as a snake that I recall. And the Gospels were all first and second-hand accounts, written within the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus (it would be the historical equivalent to writing about WW2 now; certainly we wouldn't say that it was so long ago that information was lost, since we can still contact eyewitnesses). Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew himself, and the book of John was written by the Apostle John; these were both firsthand accounts. Mark was written by Paul Mark, a good friend of Peter who Peter dictated to. Luke was written by a physician of Paul, as was Acts of the Apostles, and it seems indicative that they may have been written before Paul's death since they end while Paul is still in ministry. We still have Paul's letters to the early churches (the earlier books of the NT, Romans, 1/2 Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.) preserved to compare and contrast to; these were no more than 20-30 years after the event in the Gospels.

Also, I do NOT stand corrected on the Satan "falling from grace" thing. If God is all seeing and all knowing, he must have allowed it to happen. And unlike humans, angels are not imbued with free will so this cannot be used as an argument. You can't have it both ways...either God knows all and sees all and controls all, except for HUMAN free will as allowed by Him, or Satans turned the tables on God in a completely unanticipated coup...make up your mind.

Satan wasn't part of Creation which is where God has full omnipotence. And who said angels dont' have free will?

About Satanists: I stand by what I said absolutely. True the Catholics did not make some Satanists psycho, and I'd never balme them for the psycotics of the world. The Church was founded, however, to oppose the moral high horse Christianity adopted by SOME Catholics. Since these fundementalists lump me with the Satan worshippers and tend to blame me for their theology and existence I choose to turn the tables. Direct responsibility, of course falls on the founders themselves, but the Church and not us drove them to it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about at all. Are you talking about Satan worshippers or Satanists (you used both terms)? And how do they "lump you with them?" As far as Satanists go, they are a relatively new religion. And I have no idea what you mean saying "The Church was founded, however, to oppose the moral high horse Christianity adopted by SOME Catholics"; traditionally the Catholic (which means "all-encompassing") Church was the one and only church of Christ until the Protestant Reformation came around. This was to oppose distortions of Biblical teachings such as indulgences.

About God sending you Christians out to save the rest of us: still gotta ask why? Why wouldn't He appear to everyone and print His word in the languages of all people? How do we know He hasn't through the teachings of other faiths?

Free will. You can't have both free will and an overimposing God who makes it rationally impossible to not believe in His authority. His Word is going to the languages of all nations. And we know that the God of the Bible hasn't done so because He personally came down and told us "I am the way, and the truth, and the light; no one comes to the Father except through me." That's quite clear that there aren't other ways to the God of Christians that was manifest in Jesus.

Lumana

13-08-2004, 22:32

Eh...wish I had specifics. Oh well...
But, you can see how something like that is entirely possible, yes?

I don't think it's possible constitutionally. Said teacher should get a Christian organization to support them with legal advice and take it to the Supreme Court.

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 22:35

i have never seen a christian being mocked for their religion. i used to be a christian and i was never mocked for being one. another christian called me a heretic once, but that's the closest i got to mockery.

however, i do get preached at on street corners by christians, have christians try to convince me to go to their youth services, lose a bar sundays during the day because my school gives it over to church services et c.
You don't watch South Park, do you? Or the Simpsons, much of Comedy Central, and much of the news.
Also, you play NS and you've never seen it? Wow. I've been mocked in almost every Christian thread i've posted in, or else seen others mocked.

Joey P

13-08-2004, 22:38

I have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Help me with some questions....
1 Satan was cast out of heaven. Not confined to hell. He can walk on earth when he wants to.
2 Earth is not hell
3 The antichrist is not everywhere. He is one man who will rule the earth in the end times before jesus arrives and they have a no-holds-barred showdown.
4 The bible says that "the eye has not seen" what heaven is like, but jesus spoke about palaces.
5 Satan didn't betray god. Some religions say he sought to userp gods position, some say that he disobayed god by being envious of and not serving mankind.
6 Jesus' sacrifice on the cross paid the sins we actually commit. Not the stain of original sin. He bought our way into heaven.
7 Hell's location isn't revealed. Nor is heaven's.
8 God wrote nothing. Imaginary people have trouble holding pencils. Some guy who's name is lost to the ages wrote it, probably from the oral mythology and history of his tribe, and claimed it was divine.
9 The false religions are provided courtesy of satan. God lets him tempt humans because he thinks it's funny when we go to hell.
10 Anton Sandor LaVey formed the church of satan in 1967. (I think that was the year) Satanists don't beleive in the christian bible, nor do they beleive in hell. Unfortunately, they do beleive in magic and acting wacky.

Dakini

13-08-2004, 22:44

You don't watch South Park, do you? Or the Simpsons, much of Comedy Central, and much of the news.
Also, you play NS and you've never seen it? Wow. I've been mocked in almost every Christian thread i've posted in, or else seen others mocked.

oh please, south park and the simpsons make fun of everyone and anyone. don't act like you're beng singled out or something there. it's not even like they mean anything by it. you don't see me getting in a huff for how those shows depict canadians, do you?
i don't watch comedy central and i've never seen a christian mocked on the news.
and i was talking about real life mockery. this isn't real life, who really gives a damn about what anyone else on this board says about them?

Corennia

13-08-2004, 22:58

Chritianity is often 'mocked' so to speak because its most often the fundementalist religion in this country. Thats been proved here. THis is because by its nature in some interpretations, it requires that there is one and only one truth to the world. They have the answer, and we don't, and we'll be punished later for thinking differently.

Public or Guided Prayer is illiegal in Public Schools in the United States. Why? Because it impedes on a student's right to exercise his or her religion freely, thats why. If a Christian teacher (who is automaticly a rolemodel) leads the class in a Christain prayer, a Muslim child may feel left out or excluded, or even gilted. Not only this, but it gives the preconception that there is a god, and hes a Christian god (Who somehow is all-loving, and at the same time, vengeful and full of wrath).

Annnnd, as for the Big Bang being taught in school, and Evolution, heres the answer. Its called the Seperation of Church and State. It doesn't /matter/ if there mere theorys, and have the same amount or even less proof the Creationism. There /theroys/. Scientific thoerys that arn't based on any dogma or religios text. Savvy? :)

Corennia

13-08-2004, 22:59

And I apologize for my spelling. I relize that it makes me look unprofessional, and I deeply regret that.

Crawford Texas

13-08-2004, 23:01

Consult your local church

Loving Balance

13-08-2004, 23:22

First off, I don't disagree with anything you said about the Old Testament or the New.....a poster earlier on this thread told me that the snake in the Garden of Eden in the Old Testament WAS Satan because a similar snake pestered Jesus in the New Testament and refered to as Satan. That was where I disagreed that the New Testament could be used to reveal the original intent of what the snake was SUPPOSED to be in the Creation story. As to my views on Satanism, I did mean the Catholic Church of old was the point of opposition for the Satan Church...sorry I wasn't clear but it was the only Church at the time. By mythology, I only meant that early Catholics were taught to fear Satanists before they ever actually existed.
As for everything else: it's all a leap of faith one way or the other, and I can respect that. I do not expect you to see God as I do or frown on you if you do not. The question as to whether God exist in all faiths or only Christianity is a pure question of faith. If you believe that the New Testament and ONLY the Old or New Testament can speak for the Creator, then you are 100% correct. If this is not your belief...well that's another story. As for me, I see nothing wrong with the Christian faith besides the efforts of certain individuals, who to be fair are NOT Jesus's fault IMHO, pressuring me to accept their ways or using legislation to toy with the fine but critical line between Church and State.

BTW, to whoever (NOT Lumana) compared the harassment other faiths endure to the mild mockery of South Park and the Simpsons, I challenge this. I once got snow and ice thrown at my head by a whole group of Christian Baptist high school boys for a staging a peaceful protest near the spot where their much larger group was making their voices heard. I never threw anything in retaliation and was openly mocked when I dashed across a crowded street to escape the aggression. I know that this does not speak for the behavior of all Christians, but I do ask that poster, if he or she can, to name a comparable incident in their lives where they were under physical assault for their beliefs.

Rhyno D

13-08-2004, 23:23

oh please, south park and the simpsons make fun of everyone and anyone. don't act like you're beng singled out or something there. it's not even like they mean anything by it. you don't see me getting in a huff for how those shows depict canadians, do you?
i don't watch comedy central and i've never seen a christian mocked on the news.
and i was talking about real life mockery. this isn't real life, who really gives a damn about what anyone else on this board says about them?
Not real? I'm real. You're real, I hope. This is a real post.
And so what? SP does make fun of everything, including Christians. You said you never saw anyone ever make fun of Christians.

Lumana

14-08-2004, 00:19

That was where I disagreed that the New Testament could be used to reveal the original intent of what the snake was SUPPOSED to be in the Creation story.

Ah, I see. Well, the background of Satan (in the OT) comes mostly from a passage in Ezekiel (28:12-19) which was a word of prophecy to a man representing Satan, which spoke to Satan himself. It refers to him as there in Eden and as formerly being an angel. The passage reads...

"Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

" 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.' "

Also, in Isaiah 14 a prophesy was given to the king of Babylon (Babylon being usually considered to be servants of Satan in the most direct sense) which corroborates this (and also establishes the name Lucifer, which means "morning star"):

How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.

As to my views on Satanism, I did mean the Catholic Church of old was the point of opposition for the Satan Church...sorry I wasn't clear but it was the only Church at the time. By mythology, I only meant that early Catholics were taught to fear Satanists before they ever actually existed.

I don't believe there ever has been a really catholic church of worship to Satan, so yeah, that's a bit silly.

As for everything else: it's all a leap of faith one way or the other, and I can respect that.

Thanks. I recognize that not everyone will see things the way I do, experience the supernatural occurences, prophecies, etc. that I have and so I understand why I believe now and they do not. Having witnessed such things though, I stand as a false witness if I don't tell truthfully of them.

If you believe that the New Testament and ONLY the Old or New Testament can speak for the Creator, then you are 100% correct. If this is not your belief...well that's another story.

I'm not sure what you mean. Jesus said (on multiple occasions) that He came to fulfill the laws of the prophets and Moses, not to abolish them. You can't really believe the NT without believing the OT.

As for me, I see nothing wrong with the Christian faith besides the efforts of certain individuals, who to be fair are NOT Jesus's fault IMHO, pressuring me to accept their ways or using legislation to toy with the fine but critical line between Church and State.

Well, on certain issues it's a community thing. I live in a democracy. I do not want my children raised in an environment that says homosexuality is an equally acceptible lifestyle and saying that homosexual relationships should have the same *priviledges* as heterosexual ones. Civil unions I don't object to (even brothers could get such in order to be able to support each other in case of emergency; it's not inherently biased toward homosexuality) but marriage I do. I do not believe that homosexuality is an equally valid relationship style, nor do I believe that the government should give the same *priviledges* to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples. This isn't an issue of violating civil rights: homosexuality is a choice of actions, not a condition, regardless of "predisposition" or whatnot. Therefore it is neither unethical nor unconstitutional to discriminate (not loading it negatively) between them and heterosexuals. There is nothing unethical about discriminating between people based on their immoral actions; that is the basis of justice. Therefore, my democratic vote falls in not supporting homosexual marriage.

BTW, to whoever (NOT Lumana) compared the harassment other faiths endure to the mild mockery of South Park and the Simpsons, I challenge this. I once got snow and ice thrown at my head by a whole group of Christian Baptist high school boys for a staging a peaceful protest near the spot where their much larger group was making their voices heard.

How unfortunate. I would say one thing definitely needs to be kept in mind: there is no comparison between "churchgoers" and Christians. To be legitimately labelled as Christian one obviously cannot intentionally and willfully do things in knowing direct violation of the teachings of Christ. Should I deliberately stop acting according to the teachings of Christ, I would ask that you stop calling me Christian as well regardless of whether I walk to church every Sunday or not.

Corennia

14-08-2004, 07:09

Well, on certain issues it's a community thing. I live in a democracy. I do not want my children raised in an environment that says homosexuality is an equally acceptible lifestyle and saying that homosexual relationships should have the same *priviledges* as heterosexual ones. Civil unions I don't object to (even brothers could get such in order to be able to support each other in case of emergency; it's not inherently biased toward homosexuality) but marriage I do. I do not believe that homosexuality is an equally valid relationship style, nor do I believe that the government should give the same *priviledges* to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples. This isn't an issue of violating civil rights: homosexuality is a choice of actions, not a condition, regardless of "predisposition" or whatnot. Therefore it is neither unethical nor unconstitutional to discriminate (not loading it negatively) between them and heterosexuals. There is nothing unethical about discriminating between people based on their immoral actions; that is the basis of justice. Therefore, my democratic vote falls in not supporting homosexual marriage.

Yes, thats right, we do live in a democracy, but that does not mean that any majority has the right to oppress a minority. So you want to control what your kids think is proper... and to do this, you have to control what I or someone else think is proper? This isn't democracy. Its censorship, and its more akin to theocracy. Raise your kids how you want to, but it is profane and a preversion of our ideals to take rights away from two consenting adults just cause you or your religion believe something is wrong.

Your vote can not say I want to ban people from reading this book, or I want to stone this person, or I want to keep these people from expressing themselves, or I want to hold this person with out a trial. Democracy must be limited by civil rights. So keep your morals away from those that don't want them. Please.

Lumana

14-08-2004, 10:03

Yes, thats right, we do live in a democracy, but that does not mean that any majority has the right to oppress a minority. So you want to control what your kids think is proper... and to do this, you have to control what I or someone else think is proper? This isn't democracy. Its censorship, and its more akin to theocracy. Raise your kids how you want to, but it is profane and a preversion of our ideals to take rights away from two consenting adults just cause you or your religion believe something is wrong.

Your vote can not say I want to ban people from reading this book, or I want to stone this person, or I want to keep these people from expressing themselves, or I want to hold this person with out a trial. Democracy must be limited by civil rights. So keep your morals away from those that don't want them. Please.

I'm not oppressing anyone; ALL people have the same rights to marry a person of the opposite gender. This is an issue of redefining marriage, not of "civil rights." I'm not censoring anything that homosexuals want to say. I'm not censoring anything they want to do (albeit I am restricting the government from supporting them, since they have no "right" to government support and I don't feel my government should support them). I'm not censoring anyone from hearing a viewpoint. I'm not violating any of this person's Constitutional rights.

The government HAS THE FULL RIGHT TO JUDGE THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS ON UNEQUAL TERMS. It cannot judge their race, gender (where biologically applicable), or religion, but it CAN judge their actions. This is why this has nothing to do with civil rights (born qualities of a person) and everything to do with other moral issues such as trying to legalize prostitution or drug use or incest (actions of a person). In no way, shape, or form does it have to do with the "civil rights" that America has fought for in the last century.

Davistania

14-08-2004, 18:47

In no way, shape, or form does it have to do with the "civil rights" that America has fought for in the last century.

But according to the government, marriage is nothing more than a contract. You never need to get married in a church, you can do it at city hall. It is a contract in the same way I might sign a contract with a business partner, or a professional athlete might sign a contract to play for a team, or a city might commission a bridge from a company.

You are denying people the right to enter into a legal agreement based on gender. That's not cool. If you want to get married in a church, hooray. But don't take that away from somebody. Don't mess with the best idea we Americans have had for cheap political points.

Russkies

14-08-2004, 19:00

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?
2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?
5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

To answer all three of these questions... Lucifer was an archangel, he was the greatest, most powerful, and most beautiful of all the angels. He was so beautiful, in fact, and loved by so many, that he grew conceited. He came to believe that he was as beautiful and wonderful as God, no, even more so. When he believed this he fell. He drew apart from God. He gathered some angels to him which believed also that Lucifer was greater than God. With these angels he led a rebellion (and who knows how this was done. its wasn't necessarily like a war or anything, this isn't earth we're talking about) against the Lord, believing still that he would win. He was not, however, greater than God. If anything, when he believed that he was, it lessened his power against God. So... Hell was created by God for Lucifer and his fallen angels. (it was not meant to be for humans) And Lucifer and his filth further made Hell what ppl generally imagine it to be- horrible, tormenting, etc.
All anyone knows of the whereabouts of Heaven and Hell is that they are at opposite specturms. Hell is the farthest anyone can be from God. As for the Garden of Eden, that is on Earth. Supposedly, it is still here somewhere, kindof like in a parallel universe or something... wtv. But the Garden was on Earth, and Lucifer and his minions had influence over the earth. They do not command it, but they can walk freely upon it. So Lucifer/Satan fell into hell because he could not be near to God, but he was still able to tempt and meddle in things on earth (or in the Garden). Earth is not Hell!!!! Hell was created for those farthest from God. Earth, along with the Garden, was created for Human Beings.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

The Anti-Christ is not everywhere! Satan is not the Anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ is supposed to come to the Earth right before the world ends. This entity will be a person, one of us, and all religions will gather under him/her. (S)He will lead the people away from God, and many will follow. The Anti-Christ is supposed to come at the time of the Apocalyptic events. After he/she is done w/ watever they're gonna do, the world will end.
As for the whole Satan deal... who says he's invisible? who says he's not? who says its him???... in all this talk no one has really mentioned demons. (the other fallen angels) I am under the impression that it is not always the devil who tempts people, that it is usually his various minions that do 'the dirty work'. The idea is that they disguise themselves (as ppl or suggestions) and lead people into sin.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

lol. ppl aren't supposed to know what eitehr heaven or hell are like, we 'wouldn't understand'.... But i really think that the idea is that is something wonderful not in the earthly way- as in it looks wonderful, smells wonderful, tastes, feels, etc- but that the very essense of it is wonderful. I don't think its really supposed to matter if its fluffy clouds or erotic angels, watever it is, you'll love it. Its like trying to describe what happiness or love look like- you just can't imagine it.

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

First of all, Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. not life!!!!!!! The penalty was mortality and living in a world which had both. Free will, something we in America are quite proud of, was also a consequence. (ppl could only do the right thing before, now they could choose)
Second of all, Jesus did die for ALL the sins of ALL the ppl!!! I don't think u realise, between the time of Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ, no one went to Heaven. Thats the concept of Original Sin. That everyone of the decendants of Adam and Eve (everyone) had that sin on their record. Now don't get me wrong, not everyone of those ppl went to Hell, but they didn't go to Heaven when they died either. At the Last Judgement, it is said, all of those people will be judged differently from the rest of us, they will be judged according to their deeds, their life. Not according to their faith and love of God, (because many of them never knew Him). Dante called them the Virtuous Pagans.
Anyway, the people remained Mortal, but now they were "Saved". Able to go to Heaven. All humanity was forgiven their sins and was 'born anew'. Furthermore, it wasn't a one-time thing. I want to say in all Christian Faiths (im not sure about Protestants, im Orthodox myself) thats the beauty of Communion. Every single freakin time that one partakes of Holy Communion, and eats and drinks the body and blood of Christ, all the sins of that person are forgiven. Completely. Its a brand new slate every single time. Thats the beauty of Christianity, thats God in his Infinate Mercy. No one is doomed, no one is ommited. (except by your own free will)

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

God did not write any of the books of the bible, and no Christians that acutally know their own religion claim that it is so. God spoke through his Prophets, he sent Holy men visions. Men inspired by God wrote the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, that was written as an Eye Witness Account of the life and works of Jesus Christ. The Apostles are actually often called Witnesses of Christ.
Also as a little note, many Christian faiths, espcially Anglican and Catholic ones, put little emphasis on the Old Testament. When Jesus Christ came, he was God. The laws of the old testament (the 10 comandments) are the laws of men inspired by God (which is not bad, especially at the time), but the laws of the new testament (the Sermon of the Mount) are the laws of God, as directly heard and quoted by men.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

Just as with the Pagan Gods of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Chineese, anything really, there really is something to these 'false religions'. They are not all lies, not all trickery and deceit. They are not competely the stories made and spread by the ruling class of a society to oppress its people. There is real mystery and mysticisim in all of them, just as there is sometimes real power in fortune telling and (for all who've seen the Excorsist) ouja boards. Thing is though, that the visions and spirits that came to these people were not always clean and true. They may have began as messages form Heaven, who knowns, but the end result was the perversion of the truth by Satan and his demons. For all anyone knows, maybe the Pantheon of the Greeks really did exist... maybe the deeds of these 14 'Gods' was the battleground of angels and demons over humans.
Oh, Btw, even Christian religions today, those that still honor Saints and accept Visions from God are very careful with the stuff they deal with. Its not a big secret at all, many books will tell of the Fathers of the Early Church having false visions and being visited by demons disguised as angels... so yea, theres the explanation for off-base religions.

Grave_n_idle

14-08-2004, 19:42

However, if you read the New Testament, you see the snake back again, this time very clearly "the Devil in disguise" (sorry...couldn't resist the urge to quote Elvis), tempting Jesus in the desert during the 40 Days. So it is entirely possible that the snake in the garden was, in fact, the Devil.

However, I do agree that the Tree was put there for a purpose by God. But not necessarily to test us, per sé. The purpose of the Tree being placed in the garden, where it was accessible, was to give humanity a choice. For what is love, and what is faith, if it is lacking in the freedom to choose to love and have faith? God put the Tree so that God's love for humanity might be complete. God could easily have withheld the tree, but would that have been the loving thing to do...force us to believe, withhold the chance to have knowledge of right and wrong?

First: I have no real reason to suspect that the Snake and Satan are the same 'person'. It clearly says that the snake is going to be cursed: 'crawl upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat', right? That sounds like a snake, to me - and not even a very good snake, since I very much doubt many of them really EAT dust. Certainly doesn't sound much like the commonly accepted actions of angels - fallen or not.

That's a much better definition of Hell. Hell is not Earth, and there isn't really "Hell on Earth" either. Hell is torment, in a sense, but even this definition is lacking. What Hell is is a lack of God, a place devoid of God. It is a place that exists outside of...infinity, really, a place of true nothingness. Whether it is a lake of fire or merely infinite deprivation and a sense of being absolutely is beyond any of our abilities to say concretely. The exact form in which it manifests itself is less important than the concept of what it is.

A whole collection of assumptions and misreading of the text. The Old Testament refers to 'Sheol', for which the closest equivalance I can find is a place of absolute nothing - basically - you were dead, and then you were gone.

The New Testament talks of 'Gehenna' - which is the area where filth was cast and burned. This IS an actual geographic location, the Valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the citizens burned their trash.

It also referes to Tartarus and Hades - both Greek 'worlds' of the dead. One was an oblivion, the other a place of forgetful spirits.

Though all of these have been translated as 'hell', they are quite different concepts - and have fostered a misunderstanding among the bulk of modern christians.

Not just human form - the Devil assumes animal form as well.

As for the fall...you are somewhat misinformed. Satan was indeed once an angel, one of God's Host. However, Satan fell to greed and jealousy, and desired that power which was God's. There was war in Heaven, and Satan was cast out.

Remember: though divine in nature, angels are not perfect. Only God is thus, and angels are entirely able to "fall from grace".

The Old Testament mentions HaSatan - the adversary. This is a rank of angel, appointed to 'test' humanity. The 'testing' is entirely sanctioned by 'god' - see how 'satan' has to be ordered by god to torment Job, and how he has to seek permission for each action.

There is no link between Satan and the Snake in the text - one is an angel, working for god - the other is a reptile cursed to lose it's legs.

There is a further misunderstanding over 'Lucifer' - for which there is no textual evidence of linkage to Satan. Lucifer is taken from Mesopotamian myths about the 'star' that rises ahead of the sun, and therefore sets before it.

The New Testament story bares almost no resemblance to the Old Testament, and seems to have borrowed most of it's content from Egypt's Seth, and a desperate attempt to fudge together elements of disimilar scripture.

Heaven in a place of absolute truth and joy. Each person experiences truth and joy in different ways, and so it makes sense to say that Heaven is many things to different souls.

As for the "naked hot girls" bit...most of the angels mentioned in the Bible are male, and all angels mentioned in the Bible are adorned in white robes.

Heaven is another word butchered throughout the text. The Old Testament word "Shamayim" is translated 'heaven', although the text only actually necessarily refers to the observable sky (as in Genesis 1).

The New Testament uses 'Ouranos' to denote heaven - which misses most of the implications of the word. The world is Ouranos. The universe is Ouranos. The sky is Ouranos.

Of course God allowed it...God grants to angels the same freedom to choose that God grants to humanity, and does so because to deny us this would not be truly loving.

Satan sought the power that was God's...see above.

This is the point where we descend permenantly into fairy stories. The 'war in heaven' is a revelations attempt to ratify disperate threads - falling down on several points... the chief point being that, as a prophetic text, the fall of the 'dragon' from heaven is a future event - and so cannot be referring to a historical event... if the 'war in heaven' is true, it hasn't happened YET.

Secondly - the same abominable attempts to brush together unlinked story elements.... "...that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan...", which is nothing more than a desperate attempt.

The sin of Adam and Eve seperated humanity from God, and made us mortal creatures of this world (this is all allegorical, of course). The death of Jesus re-united humanity to God, and restored life eternal to us, but life eternal with God, in the presence and home of God - not in this temporary world.

With regards to the "simple-minded grudge", think for a minute of being covered in dirt and standing in an otherwise blank room in which there is a single bathtub full of soapy water. Only by getting in the tub can you be washed of the dirt that covers you. If you refute, ignore, turn away from, or deny the existence of the bathtub...the dirt remains. Only by getting into the bathtub can you wash yourself clean.

So too with out sin. It is not "non-belief" that damns us, but our own sin - the selfish actions we take that hurt others. Only in Jesus, however, can we be cleansed of this sin and saved from it. Jesus died for everyone, just as the bathtub is there for everyone. But only the people who actually bother to get into the tub - accept Jesus - can actually get clean again.

Actually - we are all damned before we start. Our existence is sin in the eyes of god, and the only way to 'survive' is through belief in god. In your example, we are born 'covered in dirt', and we are ONLY 'cleaned' through one route.

Hell exists outside all that is God, Hell exists apart from God. Hell exists in nothingness, in void.

Hell exists in the massed imagination of christians - there is no scriptural support for the version of hell preached in churches, even allowing for the abomination of the story that the translated bible maintains.

Indeed. The Christian belief is that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Bang on.

Only a very determined effort will allow someone to overlook the inconsistency, confusion and myriad errors that exist in the text. To believe that the text is somehow sanctioned by 'god' must be about as close to blasphemy as is possible.

Hence, I would guess, the mandate Jesus left to all his followers to spread the Word of God to all the world. And you are right...not all who hear it choose to listen. Most of us here are aware of the teachings...clearly not all of us are Christian.

What of it?

Another one of those confusions - of course. Since Jesus failed to match the required prophecies for Messiah, and so cannot be the 'anointed'. Since he is not the anointed, he is not christ... so those that follow his teachings are not 'christians', no matter what they call themselves.

You sound like Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com)...the early (Catholic) church is to blame for all the evils of the world, including Communism and Satanism.

Anyhow...I agree that the early Church made some errors regarding Pagan practice, for there is no evidence I can think of in the Bible that says that Satan is behind all other gods. Certain verses in the Bible even seem to point to the validity of other gods - though with the caveat that their powers are far inferior to that of God (which isn't actually all that hard to prove, if you take a look at how easily a supposedly mighty god such as Zeus was tricked by a mere human).

But to blame them for it all? That's rather extreme...not unlike blaming the Germans of today for the Germans who in the 1930s voted in the Nazis.

Your analysis of what has come to be known as Satanism is otherwise correct, however...it essentially exists as a glorification of what could be called the binary opposite to Christian principle. As to whether these people want to go to Hell...RhynoD is right. We can't speak to this. You'd have to ask them.

Satanism was a rebellion against church oppression, during the middle ages. Since the church was so oppressive to the populace, handing power, property, wealth to the church - and removing all the rights of the people. The practice started as a rebellion, and has grown into a church in it's own right.

Lumana

14-08-2004, 19:51

You are denying people the right to enter into a legal agreement based on gender.

Nope. Either gender may get a marriage contract. Though males seem less likely to want one.

Davistania

14-08-2004, 20:02

Nope. Either gender may get a marriage contract. Though males seem less likely to want one.

I refuse to believe you didn't know what I meant.

Lumana

14-08-2004, 20:30

First: I have no real reason to suspect that the Snake and Satan are the same 'person'. It clearly says that the snake is going to be cursed: 'crawl upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat', right? That sounds like a snake, to me - and not even a very good snake, since I very much doubt many of them really EAT dust. Certainly doesn't sound much like the commonly accepted actions of angels - fallen or not.

Prophesy in Isaiah/Ezekiel talks about Satan's role in Eden.

A whole collection of assumptions and misreading of the text. The Old Testament refers to 'Sheol', for which the closest equivalance I can find is a place of absolute nothing - basically - you were dead, and then you were gone.

Well, there you come to a level of distinction usually only gotten to by scholars: there are two places referred to in the Bible that in my circles they are affectionately call "hell" and "Hell." Lower-case hell is Sheol, it is a place where the spirit sleeps (not a physical place, not a place of punishment, not even a bad place...this is the "hell" that Jesus descends into to save those who came before Him) and when a person dies they sleep there until the resurrection and judgement (Rev 20/21). The lake of fire referred to there is what we call Hell and is the normative sense.

Though all of these have been translated as 'hell', they are quite different concepts - and have fostered a misunderstanding among the bulk of modern christians.

I agree, but generally I'm not disturbed too much by the fact that some people don't exactly know where the train is going since I do and I know it's fine; I'm more concerned with people jumping off the train and throwing others off of it. That's why you don't hear must preaching on the scholarly details of such things.

The Old Testament mentions HaSatan - the adversary. This is a rank of angel, appointed to 'test' humanity. The 'testing' is entirely sanctioned by 'god' - see how 'satan' has to be ordered by god to torment Job, and how he has to seek permission for each action.

No, Satan is under the authority of but not ruled by God and we already knew that. Doesn't mean he works for Him.

There is a further misunderstanding over 'Lucifer' - for which there is no textual evidence of linkage to Satan. Lucifer is taken from Mesopotamian myths about the 'star' that rises ahead of the sun, and therefore sets before it.

Lucifer, "the morning star", appears in Isaiah as applied to the king of Babylon (Babylon is commonly used to refer to Satan throughout Scripture). I've already pasted the passage in this topic so scroll back if you missed it.

The New Testament story bares almost no resemblance to the Old Testament

There seems to be a misunderstanding, because every origin story about Satan appears in the OT prophetic books. As mentioned I already quoted two in this topic.

Heaven is another word butchered throughout the text. The Old Testament word "Shamayim" is translated 'heaven', although the text only actually necessarily refers to the observable sky (as in Genesis 1).

We still use the term "heavens" to apply to stars, so it's a fair translation. "Heaven" is just a singular form of the same idea. But yes there is some mixing of terms which can get bothersome.

The New Testament uses 'Ouranos' to denote heaven - which misses most of the implications of the word. The world is Ouranos. The universe is Ouranos. The sky is Ouranos.

Usually He uses the phrase "basileia ouranos" which means "the kingdom in the heavens." It's just talking about where God resides which is figuratively above us and more importantly not on this world.

the fall of the 'dragon' from heaven is a future event - and so cannot be referring to a historical event... if the 'war in heaven' is true, it hasn't happened YET.

At that time the Christ is remanifest and Satan tries to kill him. God takes Him to Heaven where Satan cannot reach, but Satan tries to invade Heaven because he knows that the Christ is his demise. He fails and is cast back down. That is why once he is cast back down, he no longer is just a liar and a deceiver but becomes a brutal slaughterer of humanity in his rage against them, knowing he has lost.

Hell exists in the massed imagination of christians - there is no scriptural support for the version of hell preached in churches, even allowing for the abomination of the story that the translated bible maintains.

I would strongly disagree. There are a lot of misconceptions about Hell among Christians as to the exact details (not everyone is a scholar), but that doesn't negate what the Bible does say about it.

Another one of those confusions - of course. Since Jesus failed to match the required prophecies for Messiah, and so cannot be the 'anointed'. Since he is not the anointed, he is not christ... so those that follow his teachings are not 'christians', no matter what they call themselves.

In what was did He fail to match the Messainic prophecies? I've debated with several Jewish people about this and the main thing that is seen as unfulfilled is that they did not expect the Messiah to be God in flesh come to save their spirits, but rather they expected a human hero come to save their bodies and land. 2 Samuel 7 paints a rather good portrait, even saying that the Messiah would be His Son.

Corennia

15-08-2004, 03:11

The government HAS THE FULL RIGHT TO JUDGE THE ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS ON UNEQUAL TERMS. It cannot judge their race, gender (where biologically applicable), or religion, but it CAN judge their actions. This is why this has nothing to do with civil rights (born qualities of a person) and everything to do with other moral issues such as trying to legalize prostitution or drug use or incest (actions of a person). In no way, shape, or form does it have to do with the "civil rights" that America has fought for in the last century.

In many cases, the Government doesn't have full right to judge the actions of people. For example, since you have an implied right to privacy, the government can not judge things you do in the privacy of your own home, unless its the process of hurting someone else, as upheld in the recent supreme court case that nullified the sodemy laws. This being said, the government really has no right to legislate morality in the way that you want to say it. The government can't tell two people of whatever gender that they can't have sex in a certain way, speak this way, stitch little stick men into the Flag of Wisconson, or whatever. Two consenting adults are neutral, legally. The government can't judge on any 'born quality's of the person' in legal documentation, may it be race, creed, or /gender/.

Mabye not all of this is true right now... but I think some of it should be.

Arenestho

15-08-2004, 03:40

I was inclined to answer all of these questions from a Satanist's point of view, but considered otherwise since my knowledge is rather limited.

Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?
'Hell' in the classical sense doesn't exist. Hell is visible, if I remember correctly, you can see it near the center star of Orion's belt.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
True Satanism predates Christianity (and all other religions) by several millenia (some less so, but it was the original), there is no blood sacrifice or anything you've been told about it; the closest comparison I can think of is to Buddhism, only very materialistic. Satan is the Devil, he is also caused Lucifer and is in Hell, again not the classic sense of Hell, since Hell is paradise, not eternal torment ('Hell' was a Xian story to scare people into joining their ranks). As stated before True Satanists believe Hell is paradise, it is only natural they want to go there. If you mean the more modern LaVeyan Satanism, I have no idea.

It's not someplace specific... since nothing physical goes there (your soul is hardly physical)
Our soul is electrical in nature, so it is possible for it to be given physical form, we just don't know how.

Actually, there are people who can see angels and demons. There's a great story in the Bible: the Isrealites were facing an enormous army, far greater than there own. A soldier came to the prophet and asked how they could possibly win. He replied, "If you could see what I can see..." At that moment, the man's eyes were "opened" and he saw a huge army of angels and such.
There are also countless verses where people's eyes are "opened". Satan isn't invisble, we can't see him.
We can 'open our eyes' to Angels and Demons, the knowledge has simply been supressed by Jehova and the Church. Also note how in that passage Angels are counted as warriors, aiding an army in slaughtering it's enemies.

Not being a Satanist: Couldn't tell ya. All I know is, they worship/follow Satan. Maybe they have grand dilusions of avoiding hell, maybe they think Satan can/will protect them (even if he could, he won't). Maybe they have no concept of what Hell is really like, or maybe they think that they deserve it. Anyway, ask one of them
Does God protect you? No. Does he answer your prayers? Rarely. So whether one follows Lucifer's teaching or not, by your definition would be pointless there is no difference in 'super natural' interference. They have no dilusions of escaping Hell, they think Hell is completely different from what you been told.

I'm too lazy to try and make any of this make sense, since there is far too much difference between my and almost everyone else's beliefs. If you want to learn more go to Joy of Satan,com (http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/HOME.html)

Grave_n_idle

15-08-2004, 04:13

Ah, I see. Well, the background of Satan (in the OT) comes mostly from a passage in Ezekiel (28:12-19) which was a word of prophecy to a man representing Satan, which spoke to Satan himself. It refers to him as there in Eden and as formerly being an angel. The passage reads...

Ezekiel 28 specifically a) implies that it is metaphorical and b) states that it is being addressed to a specific, human man... in reference to his iniquity - that is the king of Tyrus (Tyre). You can't just CHOOSE to believe that it is a reference to ANYONE else - not even an Angel - unless you are also willing to grant that Jesus may be mere metaphor.

Also, in Isaiah 14 a prophesy was given to the king of Babylon (Babylon being usually considered to be servants of Satan in the most direct sense) which corroborates this (and also establishes the name Lucifer, which means "morning star"):

The "morning star" is, literally, the star that rises, and so, sets, before the sun. Babylonians were quite an educated people, with a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy - and the Lucifer reference is a specific reference to an astronomical body - it does not say, or even imply any kind of 'spiritualistic' interpretation.

Babylon was considered 'Satan' for the same reason Egypt was. They already had a thriving civilisation when the Jews arrived on the scene, and the Hebrews didn't like the way they did things... so they set out to discredit or destroy them - for a parallel, see the early Christian settlement of America.

Why the Jews and Christians have hated Babylon so much, apart from that, I have no idea... since the Old Testament was written in Babylon, steals most of Genesis and it's code of Laws from Babylon, and only were able to construct the Great Temple because of Babylon (Well, Cyrus - so a Persian, but he was ruler of Babylon).

_Susa_

15-08-2004, 04:23

Christianity Rocks.

Lumana

15-08-2004, 12:17

In many cases, the Government doesn't have full right to judge the actions of people. For example, since you have an implied right to privacy, the government can not judge things you do in the privacy of your own home, unless its the process of hurting someone else, as upheld in the recent supreme court case that nullified the sodemy laws. This being said, the government really has no right to legislate morality in the way that you want to say it.

None of this has any bearing on the fact that we're talking about regulation of a government-granted priviledge (marriage licenses), not a "right." No action, speech, or anything of the sort is being denied. If you took having a marriage license as an implicit right, then incest and polygamy could not be regulated either.

Lumana

15-08-2004, 12:33

Ezekiel 28 specifically a) implies that it is metaphorical and b) states that it is being addressed to a specific, human man... in reference to his iniquity - that is the king of Tyrus (Tyre). You can't just CHOOSE to believe that it is a reference to ANYONE else - not even an Angel - unless you are also willing to grant that Jesus may be mere metaphor.

Not at all. It says there explicitly that it was an angel. Jesus Himself spoke to Satan directly by name when his spirit was embodied through others ("Get behind me, Satan!") so there's no reason to really see why this is not Satan, especially considering these two accounts are in agreement. Both of these nations were known to deal with channelling spirits, so speaking to a spirit in authority over an individual doesn't seem all that ridiculous at all.

The "morning star" is, literally, the star that rises, and so, sets, before the sun. Babylonians were quite an educated people, with a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy - and the Lucifer reference is a specific reference to an astronomical body - it does not say, or even imply any kind of 'spiritualistic' interpretation.

Do you even know the reason why he was called the "morning star"? You don't seem to or you would understand that it wasn't "a specific reference to an astronomical body"; the Babylonians also knew the difference between a title and an object and could recognize the usage of the phrase in this context as a title given to a being, not an actual celestial object. For example, if I called you a sly fox, one would recognize that I wasn't meaning you're literally an animal nor talking about an animal; I'm just using the phrase as a title.

Babylon was considered 'Satan' for the same reason Egypt was. They already had a thriving civilisation when the Jews arrived on the scene, and the Hebrews didn't like the way they did things... so they set out to discredit or destroy them - for a parallel, see the early Christian settlement of America.

Of course the rampant idolatry and sorcery and lust for power had nothing to do with it.

You're birdwalking from observation to speculation here. This doesn't fit in with the prophetic works either, considering they referenced civilizations before their existance so this arguement doesn't really float at all upon a study of the culture of said civilizations. The reason why God cursed Babylon was quite obvious if you do some research on Nebucchadnezzar's deeds.

And the OT (specifically the Torah) wasn't written in Babylon, considering the original author for most of it was Moses who died long before then even settled as a nation. By the time the OT talks about the beginnings of Bablyon, the Torah was in wide circulation (see the prophetic works which reference them, specifically Daniel which begins at the beginning of the enslavement). The books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were firsthand accounts of these laws written while Israel was still a nomadic tribe. I don't know where you get claims about Babylon being associated with Genesis, but they are simply fallacious since Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were in circulation long before Babylon even met Israel.

Rotovia

15-08-2004, 17:15

I have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?
Satan was cast out of Heaven to Earth, he is yet to be sent to the Lake of Fire

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?
No, because Satan was sent to Earth. Not Hell

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?
The Anti-Christ is not everywhere. He has no real power, we give power.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?
Heaven is being in the presence of God, and eternity in worship

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?
Satan did not betray God, but his pride made him turn against Him

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?
The penalty for their knowledge of good and evil was not just death, it was having their eye's open to evil and therefore the capacity for sin and the punishments therein. Jesus died so we may have something to weigh against our sins.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?
It depends which part of Hell you are referring to. But suffice is to say it is not in any mortal place

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?
God did not write it. I have no idea where you go that idea from, the only thing God wrote personally was the Ten Commandments

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?
You just answered your own question, they are false religions.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
You will have to ask the Satanists this one. Satan is the Devil on Earth. Satanist believe the Devil is their God. I assume this means they will be pardoned from Hell, or that Hell isn't as bad as we say

Help me with some questions....
I hope that clears it up

Grave_n_idle

15-08-2004, 17:48

How is this any different from stopping prayer in school? Or making Big Bang required? Or making me read Fahrenheit 451?

But yes, to each their own. I'm glad you respect my decision.

You SHOULD read Fahrenheit 451. It's very good.

They should stop prayers in all non-denominational schools, because prayer sets up one god as 'official', or sets up 'gods' as official, if the prayer is non-denominational. You don't have the right to chose my religion for me - so your institution shouldn't have the right to mandate your church rituals for me.

If you can think of a decent argument against that, I'd like to hear it.

The Big Bang should be taught because it is an accepted theory. It should be taught AS a theory. We don't know for certain that it happened, we lack 'proof' that would make it irrefutable. So, teach the theory. And the theory of evolution. And show the evidence we have to support those theories. That should take up a couple of years of school. Then teach the theory of christian religion, and the theory of christian creation, and show the support for those theories... that should take up until about lunch time...

Grave_n_idle

15-08-2004, 18:15

Not at all. It says there explicitly that it was an angel. Jesus Himself spoke to Satan directly by name when his spirit was embodied through others ("Get behind me, Satan!") so there's no reason to really see why this is not Satan, especially considering these two accounts are in agreement. Both of these nations were known to deal with channelling spirits, so speaking to a spirit in authority over an individual doesn't seem all that ridiculous at all.

Like I said, there is an implication of metaphor - unless you really believe that the king of Tyre walked in the garden of Eden - which he wouldn't have been allowed to - what with the angels and the swords, and the exiled thing.

The passage is a speech to the King of Tyre. It says so. There is no GOOD reason, (other than buying into an established story) to believe that there is any connection between Tyre and any unearthly realm. Yes - it says the king of Tyre was a cherub in Eden - but it's metaphor... as with your 'sly fox' argument - he wasn't actually an angel... it's a description of how the mighty are brought low.

And, when Jesus says "get the behind me, Satan", or "Get thee hence, satan", that doesn't actually mean he is talking to someone NAMED satan. Satan (HaSatan in Hebrew) means adversary, as does Satanas in Greek. So - if someone opposes you, or questions you, or doubts you... setting themselves up as your adversary, they are 'satan'.

Do you even know the reason why he was called the "morning star"? You don't seem to or you would understand that it wasn't "a specific reference to an astronomical body"; the Babylonians also knew the difference between a title and an object and could recognize the usage of the phrase in this context as a title given to a being, not an actual celestial object. For example, if I called you a sly fox, one would recognize that I wasn't meaning you're literally an animal nor talking about an animal; I'm just using the phrase as a title.

Who was called the "morning star"? No-one, throughout the entire course of the bible, is CALLED "morning star" except for Christ (in Revelations 2:28 and Revelations 22:16) Or. do you think Jesus is 'satan'?

And there is only one reference to Lucifer, which is a reference to the king of Babylon - and means that he is a 'glorious' (i.e. wealthy and luxurious) ruler.

What was your point, exactly?

Of course the rampant idolatry and sorcery and lust for power had nothing to do with it.

You're birdwalking from observation to speculation here. This doesn't fit in with the prophetic works either, considering they referenced civilizations before their existance so this arguement doesn't really float at all upon a study of the culture of said civilizations. The reason why God cursed Babylon was quite obvious if you do some research on Nebucchadnezzar's deeds.

And the OT (specifically the Torah) wasn't written in Babylon, considering the original author for most of it was Moses who died long before then even settled as a nation. By the time the OT talks about the beginnings of Bablyon, the Torah was in wide circulation (see the prophetic works which reference them, specifically Daniel which begins at the beginning of the enslavement). The books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were firsthand accounts of these laws written while Israel was still a nomadic tribe. I don't know where you get claims about Babylon being associated with Genesis, but they are simply fallacious since Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were in circulation long before Babylon even met Israel.

How did the prophetic works reference civilisations before their creation? The bible says there was a flood that killed everyone except for Noah and his buddies - but the Egyptians, with their meticulous record keeping that goes back before the judeo-christian 'origin of the world' even, somehow failed to notice it... also - the Egyptian histories talked about the Hebrews (though they called them a phonetically similar 'Hapiru' when they were still cattle-herding nomads living in tents in the hills.

The only reason you would even think that the bible was 'prophetic' about Egypt, Babylon, etc. is because they say so in the Bible... but, unfortunately, the real world proves it untrue.

The Mosaic texts are about Moses, or are attributed to Moses - but the Hebrews only had an oral religious tradition until they entered Babylon, where their wisest theologians were trained as scribes to record the Babylonian histories and scripture. It is just way too coincidental that they wrote all that Babylonian scripture, and then somehow came up with their own scripture which so closely mirrors babylonian texts that it even has the same mathematical errors in it.

Maybe you should look into Mesopotamian history - and maybe educate yourself to the fact that not EVERYTHING you read in the bible is automatically true.

Grave_n_idle

15-08-2004, 18:32

True Satanism predates Christianity (and all other religions) by several millenia...

Who told you satanism predates all other religions? Where do you get your information from??? This is as bad as christians claiming their god started the world - but placing it at a date that other races were ALREADY recording history...

Show me evidence that Satanism stretched back more than 25,000 years.

Lumana

15-08-2004, 19:18

Like I said, there is an implication of metaphor - unless you really believe that the king of Tyre walked in the garden of Eden - which he wouldn't have been allowed to - what with the angels and the swords, and the exiled thing.

Of course he was not. Satan was the one there, not him physically. It's best seen why these passages are taken to both be talking about Satan when you compare the two prophesies side-by-side (in Ezekiel and Isaiah). You'll see they have the same core elements: A glorious angel, full of pride, who defied God and was cast from the heavens, and to be thrown to a fiery pit. The parallels are beyond obvious, and match the later account by John. They're not just metaphores; they're speaking to the spirit of Satan embodied in these men.

And, when Jesus says "get the behind me, Satan", or "Get thee hence, satan", that doesn't actually mean he is talking to someone NAMED satan. Satan (HaSatan in Hebrew) means adversary, as does Satanas in Greek. So - if someone opposes you, or questions you, or doubts you... setting themselves up as your adversary, they are 'satan'.

The word was a proper noun, a name, not a title. Jesus clearly talked of Satan by name several times, this being one of them.

Who was called the "morning star"? No-one, throughout the entire course of the bible, is CALLED "morning star" except for Christ (in Revelations 2:28 and Revelations 22:16) Or. do you think Jesus is 'satan'?

No, you still do not realize why the term "morning star" was originally used in Isaiah. It's sarcasm, a title given to shame Satan (not a proper title, as Jesus IS the true Morning Star; it is simply a label "bright morning star"), since he was once glorious and it mocks the fact that he no longer is. It describes the glory he once had in heaven and lost.

How did the prophetic works reference civilisations before their creation?

Do a study on the prophetic book of Daniel, it's pretty straightforward and you can do it (in reasonable sessions of a few chapters, just use a study guide since it's based heavily on metaphor) in a few days. It goes through from Babylon through Rome, specifies the time of the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. It even includes the early death of Alexander the Great and the splitting of his kingdom.

The Mosaic texts are about Moses, or are attributed to Moses - but the Hebrews only had an oral religious tradition until they entered Babylon, where their wisest theologians were trained as scribes to record the Babylonian histories and scripture.

That's simply not true. I already discussed when they were penned, and even if it were later there would be no way that it could be after the Babylonian conquest since the prophectic books during that time talked of the written law which was already in circulation. The law of Moses was written, and is very often throughout both the OT and NT labelled as "the written law"; being that it was Israel's first set of written laws penned by Moses.

Maybe you should look into Mesopotamian history - and maybe educate yourself to the fact that not EVERYTHING you read in the bible is automatically true.

I spend a great deal of my time on researching these things; I don't know of a fair challenge that has come to Mosaic authorship yet since records of his authorship go quite far back historically (the only ones I've heard are regarding four unfound "source documents" predating Moses written by Israelites buteven this is a matter of speculation). If you're going to make claims such as these at least give some evidence to support them.

Grave_n_idle

15-08-2004, 22:01

Of course he was not. Satan was the one there, not him physically. It's best seen why these passages are taken to both be talking about Satan when you compare the two prophesies side-by-side (in Ezekiel and Isaiah). You'll see they have the same core elements: A glorious angel, full of pride, who defied God and was cast from the heavens, and to be thrown to a fiery pit. The parallels are beyond obvious, and match the later account by John. They're not just metaphores; they're speaking to the spirit of Satan embodied in these men.

That's is WHY it is used... it IS a metaphor, and obviously not an uncommon one. You puff up full of sanctimonious pride... "Of course he was not"... but you were not there, were you? Your parents were not there. Their parents were not there. The best evidence you have is a translation (of politcal expedience) of a latin translation (created to obscure the christian teaching from the 'flock', to maintain power for the church) of the Hebrew versions of stories - written anywhere from 1700 to 3000 years ago. Do you read Hebrew? Do you read Latin? Aramaic or Greek?

Oh, and by the way, the whole 'indwelling' concept of which you speak, and which is used to refer to anti-christ, is an Egyptian concept, too.

The word was a proper noun, a name, not a title. Jesus clearly talked of Satan by name several times, this being one of them.

The 'word' is an amalgamation in Hebrew, and means "The Adversary". It is NOW considered to be a proper noun, but that is the RESULT of the misuse of the term, not the CAUSE of it. Go back to the original Hebrew - it is quite clear.

And the Greek term 'satanas' is also a generic term, and was borrowed from the Hebrew anyway - which was, in turn, probably stolen from Egypt, before the alleged 'exodus'.

No, you still do not realize why the term "morning star" was originally used in Isaiah. It's sarcasm, a title given to shame Satan (not a proper title, as Jesus IS the true Morning Star; it is simply a label "bright morning star"), since he was once glorious and it mocks the fact that he no longer is. It describes the glory he once had in heaven and lost.

I DO understand why the term was used. You, unfortunately, have become lost in the post-Augustine confusion, and believe whatever facts they program you to believe.

It's not a title given to satan at all, you are reading what you want to read into the text. It's probably not your fault, so I don't hold you directly responsible - since you are likely just a product of 1700 years of mis-education.

Do a study on the prophetic book of Daniel, it's pretty straightforward and you can do it (in reasonable sessions of a few chapters, just use a study guide since it's based heavily on metaphor) in a few days. It goes through from Babylon through Rome, specifies the time of the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. It even includes the early death of Alexander the Great and the splitting of his kingdom.

It does indeed contain many factors that could be attributed to great gifts of prophecy... but your 'faith' has blinded you to one obvious fact. It is easy to write a book of prophecy AFTER something has happened. I prophesise that Germany will invade Poland, leading to a second world war... am I messiah?

Since the canonisation of the Bible didn't occur till around 300 years after the alleged death of Christ, any book of prophecy included in the bible that deals with events happening BEFORE christ, or before the canonisation, can safely be ignored, as amending the facts after they occur.

Now, if the LAST bit of Daniel, dealing with the alleged 'anti-christ' were to come to pass, then we might have prophecy worth the title.

That's simply not true. I already discussed when they were penned, and even if it were later there would be no way that it could be after the Babylonian conquest since the prophectic books during that time talked of the written law which was already in circulation. The law of Moses was written, and is very often throughout both the OT and NT labelled as "the written law"; being that it was Israel's first set of written laws penned by Moses.

By 'written law', which was already in circulation, I assume you refer to the "code of laws" that form the bulk of Deuteronomy? You realise, of course, that even if they HAD been written by Moses, they would have had to have been written after the fact, right? You also realise that there is no way Moses himself could have written the laws? He didn't know Hebrew... oh, he may have been able to speak a few words (although even that is not certain, he was, after all recorded as having a speech impediment: Exodus 4:10 "I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue". But, being raised in Egpyt, as an Egyptian prince, he wouldn't even have been exposed to Hebrew, except maybe for overheard words. His brief sojourn out of Egypt may have given him a small smattering of Semitic languages, but not enough to have been the author of a code of laws.

Anyway - try looking at Hammurabi's "Code of Laws", which bears striking resemblence, but dates a thousand years earlier. Nice try, though.

I spend a great deal of my time on researching these things; I don't know of a fair challenge that has come to Mosaic authorship yet since records of his authorship go quite far back historically (the only ones I've heard are regarding four unfound "source documents" predating Moses written by Israelites buteven this is a matter of speculation). If you're going to make claims such as these at least give some evidence to support them.

You obviously spent a great deal of time researching these things WITHIN the bible, since you seem remarkably oblivious to a world of non-Hebrew acheivement... but then, I guess you don't believe that the earlier Babylonians existed - because the Bible said the world wasn't formed yet...

Seriously - go research Mesopotamian mythology. There are even places online that have the Sumerian and Babylonian epics from which the Flood story and the Loss of Eden stories are plagiarised, as well as Hammurabi's Laws. Go look. Spend a while really looking at what you are seeing.

If you still argue, fine - but at least then you will have a platform to argue from.

Grave_n_idle

15-08-2004, 22:11

Seriously - go research Mesopotamian mythology. There are even places online that have the Sumerian and Babylonian epics from which the Flood story and the Loss of Eden stories are plagiarised, as well as Hammurabi's Laws. Go look. Spend a while really looking at what you are seeing.

If you still argue, fine - but at least then you will have a platform to argue from.

Yes, Yes... I know I'm replying to myself...

http://members.aol.com/JAlw/flood_myth.html

Go look - a brief investigation into the flood plagiarism... just to get you started.... and since I'm thinking about it... this is one of the things that is inconsistent in the Bible... The bible actually states that the 'flood' was just a river bursting it's banks.... now pay attention, class:

First: Abram and his family set off from Ur, via Haran to Canaan. This takes them around the Euphrates: Genesis 11:31 "And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there."

Second: Terah is dead - but Abram continues his voyage to Canaan, around the Euphrates: Genesis 12:5 "And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came."

Third: Refering to the flight of Abram (now called Abraham, obviously) to Canaan, we have a description of the journey: Joshua 24:3 "And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

So - in the Book of Joshua, it is admitted that the 'flood' is merely the Euphrates.

A little off-topic perhaps, but it proves my point. The book isn't even consistent within itself. But - it does show the 'hammer-marks' from where all the different religions have been 'banged in', if you look closely enough.

Arenestho

16-08-2004, 00:09

Who told you satanism predates all other religions? Where do you get your information from??? This is as bad as christians claiming their god started the world - but placing it at a date that other races were ALREADY recording history...

Show me evidence that Satanism stretched back more than 25,000 years.
I can't give you evidence or a date.

The Christians stole many things, not just laws and stories. Prayer position, halos, holidays and clothing of high religious figures as examples.

You just answered your own question, they are false religions.
You didn't answer his question, his question was why didn't God speak to the founders of these 'false religions' and set them on the path of the 'proper religion'? To add to that why did God not make his presence absolute sooner, instead of allowing pagan and ancient religions to flourish for so long?

Lumana

16-08-2004, 01:09

That's is WHY it is used... it IS a metaphor, and obviously not an uncommon one.

The

You puff up full of sanctimonious pride... "Of course he was not"... but you were not there, were you? Your parents were not there. Their parents were not there. The best evidence you have is a translation (of politcal expedience) of a latin translation (created to obscure the christian teaching from the 'flock', to maintain power for the church) of the Hebrew versions of stories - written anywhere from 1700 to 3000 years ago. Do you read Hebrew? Do you read Latin? Aramaic or Greek?

I'm not sure what exactly you mean; the Hebrew texts can be directly accessed so we don't run into all of these ridiculous "copy of a copy" arguements trying to say "well it could mean anything." My father has a master's which contained several years of Hebrew/Greek, and what I can't figure out on my own he aids me with. I usually consult research by those who do know the original language and avoid those that don't.

Oh, and by the way, the whole 'indwelling' concept of which you speak, and which is used to refer to anti-christ, is an Egyptian concept, too.

I'm not sure what "concept" you're referring to, could you be more specific in defining it?

The 'word' is an amalgamation in Hebrew, and means "The Adversary". It is NOW considered to be a proper noun, but that is the RESULT of the misuse of the term, not the CAUSE of it. Go back to the original Hebrew - it is quite clear.

Just like you could say the "result of the misuse of the term 'david' made it into a name." That's a really ridiculous way to put it though. It became that way because it was used as a name.

It's not a title given to satan at all, you are reading what you want to read into the text. It's probably not your fault, so I don't hold you directly responsible - since you are likely just a product of 1700 years of mis-education.

I do my own research thank you very much, and I've heard both sides of most of these issues. You've failed to produce any evidence of your claims so far anyhow so I don't feel obliged to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It is easy to write a book of prophecy AFTER something has happened. I prophesise that Germany will invade Poland, leading to a second world war... am I messiah?

You're stating an arguement here but you're trying to pass it off as an assumed fact. The fact is, the prophet Daniel was around a long time before Rome, or even the Greek empire, which it speaks of, so your claims are completely fallacious.

Since the canonisation of the Bible didn't occur till around 300 years after the alleged death of Christ, any book of prophecy included in the bible that deals with events happening BEFORE christ, or before the canonisation, can safely be ignored, as amending the facts after they occur.

That's ridiculous. Jews have recognized the works of the prophets since long before Jesus. This is like saying just because my history book wasn't printed until 2000 we can only use it to refer to events in or after the year 2000. The compilation time has NOTHING to do with the dating and authenticity of the original sources.

[QUOE]Now, if the LAST bit of Daniel, dealing with the alleged 'anti-christ' were to come to pass, then we might have prophecy worth the title.[/QUOTE]

Of course, because covering the rise and fall of half a dozen empires, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction and reconstruction of the temple, etc. isn't noteworthy at all.

I'm going to pass on your rather ridiculous assertions that the ruler of the Jews couldn't find anyone to write Hebrew, as well as your continual barrage of plaguarism accusations without anything but presumption to back them up. On top of that you fail to recognize the fact that Genesis has far more than a "flood myth" to it. You criticize the Jewish people for having said myth, but why not Babylon? If you criticize the Jews based on Egypt not having one, why not Babylon too? Doesn't that then disprove Babylonian history?

Oh wait, I forgot, pulling examples of commonalities neither proves plaguarism nor invalidates the source. Common source (e.g. an actual event) seems just as feasible. And once again, whether you accept it or not, by the time that the Jewish people made contact with Babylon, the first five books were already in circulation; that's established fact even among the most basic historical records. Your only case then is that all of these texts were radically modified into something completely different and every record of said old document was completely lost. Nothing but idle speculation from a historical standpoint since there's no existing evidence that such a change occurred.

Grave_n_idle

16-08-2004, 19:01

The

I wonder if that was the whole argument.... "the".... it's kind of hard to argue with it.... what does it mean? It has no context....

I'm not sure what exactly you mean; the Hebrew texts can be directly accessed so we don't run into all of these ridiculous "copy of a copy" arguements trying to say "well it could mean anything." My father has a master's which contained several years of Hebrew/Greek, and what I can't figure out on my own he aids me with. I usually consult research by those who do know the original language and avoid those that don't.

Actually - most people still do run into those very same "copy of a copy" arguments. Leviticus 18:22 being a personal favourite Even in the face of overwhelming evidence - force of habit, and a political/moral agenda prevents this verse from being translated correctly.

And even if it were true that you translated all the sections yourself, or with a lttle help - that doesn't mean you are getting the whole picture, does it? Because you probably still only look at the 'bible' texts. Or have you translated Hanukh, also? The Book of Thomas? The Gospel of Mary Magdelene?

I'm not sure what "concept" you're referring to, could you be more specific in defining it?

If you are not familiar even with the concept of in-dwelling in the case of anti-christ, we may as well let this point rest.

Just like you could say the "result of the misuse of the term 'david' made it into a name." That's a really ridiculous way to put it though. It became that way because it was used as a name.

David was a term made into a name. It means "beloved", and there is example in the bible of that name being deliberately bestowed on a specific individual. The term "HaSatan" is obviously a title... (I wonder how many people you know who have the word 'the' in their names? The Hulk, maybe?). In the pre-christian time there was no desire, or need, for this term to be the 'name' of an individual. If you look at early Hebrew, HaSatan is SOLELY a term.

I do my own research thank you very much, and I've heard both sides of most of these issues. You've failed to produce any evidence of your claims so far anyhow so I don't feel obliged to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Both sides of most of these issues? Both Christian AND Babylonian AND Sumerian AND Akkadian AND Celtic AND Norse AND .... well - the point is that Christianity has borrowed elements from so many sources, it is ridiculous to a) refer to BOTH sides of the argument and b) even try to assert that the judeo-christian version of the story was earliest or original.

You're stating an arguement here but you're trying to pass it off as an assumed fact. The fact is, the prophet Daniel was around a long time before Rome, or even the Greek empire, which it speaks of, so your claims are completely fallacious.

The only thing that can be said of the book of Daniel with any real certainty, is that it PROBABLY was written before the New Testament books. So, it probably predates 300 AD and may have been written as early as, say, 30 AD. It doesn't take a college degree to understand that 300AD is still after the formation of the Roman and Greek empires. Once again - the only assertion for the validity or detail of Daniels prophetic text lies WITHIN the bible. Sure, the prophesised events took place - but you have yet to prove that Daniel wrote the book (If Daniel even wrote it, at all) BEFORE those events had transpired.

That's ridiculous. Jews have recognized the works of the prophets since long before Jesus. This is like saying just because my history book wasn't printed until 2000 we can only use it to refer to events in or after the year 2000. The compilation time has NOTHING to do with the dating and authenticity of the original sources.

No - it's like saying that I wrote a book of prophecy. I wrote it this year. And yet, it explains, in detail, the Axis invasion of Poland before World War Two.

Your example would be valid IF the book of Daniel admitted that it was written long after the events, rather than pretending to be some oracular document.

[QUOE]Now, if the LAST bit of Daniel, dealing with the alleged 'anti-christ' were to come to pass, then we might have prophecy worth the title.

Of course, because covering the rise and fall of half a dozen empires, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction and reconstruction of the temple, etc. isn't noteworthy at all.

Not when it has ALREADY happened when you write it.... if you claim that you are a prophet. A prophet that can only prophesise PAST events isn't much of a prophet.

I'm going to pass on your rather ridiculous assertions that the ruler of the Jews couldn't find anyone to write Hebrew, as well as your continual barrage of plaguarism accusations without anything but presumption to back them up. On top of that you fail to recognize the fact that Genesis has far more than a "flood myth" to it. You criticize the Jewish people for having said myth, but why not Babylon? If you criticize the Jews based on Egypt not having one, why not Babylon too? Doesn't that then disprove Babylonian history?

Oh wait, I forgot, pulling examples of commonalities neither proves plaguarism nor invalidates the source. Common source (e.g. an actual event) seems just as feasible. And once again, whether you accept it or not, by the time that the Jewish people made contact with Babylon, the first five books were already in circulation; that's established fact even among the most basic historical records. Your only case then is that all of these texts were radically modified into something completely different and every record of said old document was completely lost. Nothing but idle speculation from a historical standpoint since there's no existing evidence that such a change occurred.

So - you didn't go to the link I posted, huh?

Just like you have doubtless never ACTUALLY done ANY research that might shed light on your beliefs. What is it about christians that they cannot stand the idea that any of their religious ideas might have been less-than-original? I have met Jews who quite comfortably informed me that they believed HaSatan to have been an artifact of Egyptian mythology when the two races collided.

Do an online search for Babylonian flood myths. Or Sumerian. Or Akkadian. Hell, there are even tribal African myths you could explore.

Try doing an online research on Buddha? You will be surprised that Buddha was not only born 600 years BEFORE jesus, he was also born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, performed miracles of feeding the masses, taught against idolatry and was crucified, dwelling in Hell for three days before being resurrected and ascending to heaven.

If you are not willing to research the matter, don't pretend you have.

Salbania

16-08-2004, 19:08

Satanism is actually a mixture of philosophical egoism and strongly pleasure-positive views. It also glorifies hate.

Actually, no. During school, me and a friend went to a site about Satanists, and they don't glorify hate, they're allowed to hate, and they don't have to love everyone. Sure they have their wierd ceremonies, but other than that, they're pretty normal. They're probably pretty nice too.

Lumana

16-08-2004, 20:25

I wonder if that was the whole argument.... "the".... it's kind of hard to argue with it.... what does it mean? It has no context....

Sorry, apparently there was some cut-pasting and it got wiped out. Anyhow you failed to address how the reference to Eden, a literal place at a literal time, was "metaphorical."

And even if it were true that you translated all the sections yourself, or with a lttle help - that doesn't mean you are getting the whole picture, does it? Because you probably still only look at the 'bible' texts. Or have you translated Hanukh, also? The Book of Thomas? The Gospel of Mary Magdelene?

You don't have to translate every work one word at a time to get the general meaning. There are some cases where you miss a fair amount of meaning from a translation; these are the exception, not the rule, and I'd be glad to be corrected if I run into any. And why do you get the idea that I only read the Bible? I've had a full year of comparative religion courses this last year, my father's master's is in occult studies, and I've done a fair amount of research on most of the major religions. I'm familiar with the Apocryphal works. The Gospel of Thomas is just early Gnosticism, not Christianity.

If you are not familiar even with the concept of in-dwelling in the case of anti-christ, we may as well let this point rest.

I'm asking you to define it, tht's all. You're applying a label I haven't heard before to a concept I probably have. I'm just not familiar with the term you're using.

Both sides of most of these issues? Both Christian AND Babylonian AND Sumerian AND Akkadian AND Celtic AND Norse AND .... well - the point is that Christianity has borrowed elements from so many sources, it is ridiculous to a) refer to BOTH sides of the argument and b) even try to assert that the judeo-christian version of the story was earliest or original.

Norse and Celtic? You're spinning so fast that you just threw Christianity halfway to the north pole. By both sides, I'm talking about in the debate issue of plaguarism and the various cases presented in support and defense.

If you want to refer me to solid archeological evidence to support your case that would be nice. Thus far you still seem to be insisting that Moses didn't write the books of the Torah so you're disagreeing with even the most basic levels of archelogical knowledge we have about Judaism so I'm curious to see where you're getting this information from.

The only thing that can be said of the book of Daniel with any real certainty, is that it PROBABLY was written before the New Testament books. So, it probably predates 300 AD and may have been written as early as, say, 30 AD.

Where are you getting this sort of nonsense? Historically, the book of Daniel is dated at about 530 BC. The only dates later are ones assuming that anything that gives a date before 30 AD is a bad source; in other words, archeological studies which deny the possible existance of prophecy, a bias which obviously would lead them to the wrong conclusion if it's a prophetic work. The logic of dating it in that fashion then saying it can't be prophetic because of that is circular. If you read the book itself, the period in which it was written is obvious since there's a large amount of historical context around Daniel's life. Of course, since it's the Bible, that must be all fictional and wrong.

On top of this nonsensical obsurdity that Daniel could have been written after the death of Christ, CHRIST HIMSELF MENTIONED DANIEL'S WORKS IN HIS OWN MINISTRY; they were already in circulation. It's on the record. And on top of all of this, the prophetic work of Daniel has been kept by JEWISH scribes, not Christian ones; if they wrote the prophesy after the fact, they certainly wouldn't have had Jesus as the Messiah. By writing prophesies about Jesus into their own Scripture, Jews would have been more self-defeating than if they had written no prophesy at all!

Not when it has ALREADY happened when you write it.... if you claim that you are a prophet. A prophet that can only prophesise PAST events isn't much of a prophet.

Which isn't a valid arguement since we already know with no historical doubt that:
1) The work of Daniel predates Christ.
2) The work of Daniel has not been in Christian hands to modify.
3) There was DISINCENTIVE to write Messianic prophecy were it to be modified.

Like I said, the only arguements that yield any "evidence" to the works dating earlier are ones that assume that prophesy can't be true and thus throw out evidence left and right until they get what they want: a proof that prophecy didn't happen! The problem is that was their assumption in the first place.

What is it about christians that they cannot stand the idea that any of their religious ideas might have been less-than-original?

I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with you saying it was plaguarized. This is based on the assumption that there is no divine truth (and thus said myths, instead of coming from a TRUE event or source, had to have been copied), and you conclude from it that the work isn't divine truth. It's circular logic, once again.

flood myths

The fact that there are so many independently created flood myths from unconnected groups is highly suggestive of an actual event. Once again, the only way to resolve this for your case is a circular assumption. I'm familiar with flood myths.

Try doing an online research on Buddha? You will be surprised that Buddha was not only born 600 years BEFORE jesus, he was also born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, performed miracles of feeding the masses, taught against idolatry and was crucified, dwelling in Hell for three days before being resurrected and ascending to heaven.

I'm sure if you got that metaphorical you could say the same about Elvis too. Now you're just getting off into conspiracy theory; we don't have a single unnamed undated source giving these myths; we have multiple named and dated sources, several of whom are firsthand accounts. The Bible is one of the most historically verifiable documents in the world, both for textual accuracy and consistancy. These are eyewitness accounts, not fairy tales.

And I haven't insulted you by saying that you haven't researched even though you seem to not be familiar with many of the refutations for your ideas; I'd think it fair if you didn't cast such personal attacks at me either.

Sgurtzlandia

16-08-2004, 21:45

[QUOTE=Hawaiian Islands]I have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?
R.: He could, as he can do with you. he has been sent to hell but hell is not really a place. it's up to you to fight him or not.
2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?
R.: Maybe mankind try to make it a hell, upon Lucypher will.
3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?
R.: God gave US the power to choose between good and evill
4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?
R.: just staring at God's light, isn't it enough?
5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?
R.: the purpose was not opposing to God but to His project, i.e. the redemption of mankind.
6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?
R.: it's a good question but Jesus separate religion and politics. It's up to christian politicians to ask their own conscience.
7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?
R.: Hell or Heaven are not in our dimension. it's NEAR to or FAR from God
8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?
R.:SHEESH!!!!
9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?
R.: He came for whole mankind, why wondering where?
10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
R.: they do not, i guess, they just share Satan's despair. That's why all sins can be forgiven but despair of salvation (it's Satan's will for us in hatred to God's project). Despair equals soul death.

BAAWA

16-08-2004, 21:48

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I understand what you're saying completely. No, I don't have the right to force them to pray, but, I do have the right to pray with those willing to pray. I have the right to pray at my desk. I've heard plenty of stories of teachers getting fired because they were praying privately and some kid said "HE WAS PRAYING IN SCHOOL I SAW HIM!"
And none of those stories are true.

That's right. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

All of those stories are FALSE.

Any teacher who was reprimanded for prayer was so reprimanded for actively leading/coercing prayer. That's it. No one has ever been fired or suspended for praying in school qua silent prayer or for just doing it on his or her own. Any story to the contrary is a fabrication designed to drum up pity for those who were the ones who oppressed anyone who didn't believe like them in the first place.

Arenestho

16-08-2004, 22:04

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
R.: they do not, i guess, they just share Satan's despair. That's why all sins can be forgiven but despair of salvation (it's Satan's will for us in hatred to God's project). Despair equals soul death.
You have no concept of what Satanism is do you? That is horribly wrong, as I pointed out earlier.

Teachers who pray privately in the building shouldn't be reprimanded. The only time should be when they force children to pray or force religious teachings on them.

Rotovia

16-08-2004, 23:50

I can't give you evidence or a date.

The Christians stole many things, not just laws and stories. Prayer position, halos, holidays and clothing of high religious figures as examples.

You didn't answer his question, his question was why didn't God speak to the founders of these 'false religions' and set them on the path of the 'proper religion'? To add to that why did God not make his presence absolute sooner, instead of allowing pagan and ancient religions to flourish for so long?
1) Satanism cannot possibley have predated Christianity because the concept of Satan arose well after the establishment of Christianity. Furthermore all ancient religions are an evolution of an earlier religion, it is therefore likely Satanism is similar, but not the same as an earlier religion.

2) For evil to excist in the presence of God would result in death. If God had addressed them they would have perished and he could not send an sign because "the doubting crowd shall never see a miracle".

BAAWA

17-08-2004, 00:19

1) Satanism cannot possibley have predated Christianity because the concept of Satan arose well after the establishment of Christianity.
The christian version of satan, you mean.

Check out Numbers 22. You'll find an interesting word in there.

2) For evil to excist in the presence of God would result in death.
Then why did god create evil?

If God had addressed them they would have perished and he could not send an sign because "the doubting crowd shall never see a miracle".
Which is code for "you have to believe first, and then you will see, and the reason for this is otherwise we won't be able to fool you".

Corennia

17-08-2004, 01:02

If God had addressed them they would have perished and he could not send an sign because "the doubting crowd shall never see a miracle"

Yeeaaaah. That seems awfully convienent. If you don't believe unconditionally, you'll never be given any proof. Uh huh.

And on Gay Marraige (Total tangent. I was away for a little bit) What makes this a priviledge and not a right? Why can the government activly discriminate in this priviledge because of someones sexual orientation? (Note, that it hasn't been proven that homosexuality /isn't/ predetermined or genetic, and even it it was, it would be a legislation of morality to discriminate in this manner)

Wowcha wowcha land

17-08-2004, 01:25

I have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

Actually he was just cast out of Gods kingdom. Tecniqally hell does not really exist. Its a pit of fire at the end of the world. But Satan tempting Adam and Eve was the last straw. God kicked his red ass to hell.

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

Well, Yes and no. Hell isn't actually real but when the end time comes it will be on earth.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

Actually The Anti-Christ is not every where. If you have ever watched the omen he is the leader of the world during the end times. He eventualy is possedsed by Satan after being killed.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

Paradise.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

Originally, Satan was an arch angel and a pretty one at that. He thought he was hot stuff so he decided to lead a revolt in heaven because he deserved the tittle of god. In the Book of Job however, he is more like a lawyer who hates people because god liked them better even though God created the angelic race first.

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

Actually, I think it was the tree of knowledge. The penalty of death will be gone but only after the second comming. And you live on forever in heaven.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

Not sure, Tecnically heaven is just New Jerusilum. Which apears after the last battle after the second coming of Christ.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

The Bible is gods word written and interpreted by man.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

Because there false religions? It is based in another relgion of the world and started in a completly different region of the world.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Been answered but... Its more of a secular thing.
Help me with some questions....

Ha! Catholic perspective ;)

Grave_n_idle

17-08-2004, 04:25

[Before I start - I don't think you've done the research - that's why I said it. It's not to be rude, it's not an insult... it's just hard to believe that you could argue some of the points you make if you had EVER seriously looked into the documentary evidence supporting other myths.

By the way - I consider the fact that you over and over claim my findings to be 'absurd', etc - far more offensive than I would have thought you would find my allegations of research-lack.

Sorry, apparently there was some cut-pasting and it got wiped out. Anyhow you failed to address how the reference to Eden, a literal place at a literal time, was "metaphorical."

Eden is a literal place? Where do you get this stuff? Show me! Show me on a map. Oh, I know where it is supposed to be, at the meeting of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and all that.... but, well, it isn't, is it? It's not there. And, as for the literal time.... when exactly do you think the Eden thing was... and how about you show some evidence?

You can't because Eden is a storyline in a book. It's a metaphor for the transition of religion from hunter-gatherer communities to the first herder communities. That's why it cannot be located in the real world.

You don't have to translate every work one word at a time to get the general meaning. There are some cases where you miss a fair amount of meaning from a translation; these are the exception, not the rule, and I'd be glad to be corrected if I run into any. And why do you get the idea that I only read the Bible? I've had a full year of comparative religion courses this last year, my father's master's is in occult studies, and I've done a fair amount of research on most of the major religions. I'm familiar with the Apocryphal works. The Gospel of Thomas is just early Gnosticism, not Christianity.

So, what you're saying is that, you haven't translated them. I already mentioned one classic case of mistranslation, that TOTALLY misses the point of the Hebrew, and you've ignored it. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Try an actual translation - and see if the message is even vaguely like the current 'christianised' version.

And, I'm afraid you are wrong on the Book of Thomas. Maybe you classify it as Gnosticism, but since it was written concurrently with other testaments of Christ, and IS a testament of Christ: it really is Christianity - even if you would all rather be rid of it... which you have tried to be for nearly 2000 years, but still it keeps coming back and biting you in the ass...

Norse and Celtic? You're spinning so fast that you just threw Christianity halfway to the north pole. By both sides, I'm talking about in the debate issue of plaguarism and the various cases presented in support and defense.

If you want to refer me to solid archeological evidence to support your case that would be nice. Thus far you still seem to be insisting that Moses didn't write the books of the Torah so you're disagreeing with even the most basic levels of archelogical knowledge we have about Judaism so I'm curious to see where you're getting this information from.

First: there is NO archeological evidence of Moses. What - did I miss it, was it on the news? Moses found fossilised in rock? There is no archeological evidence of Moses. There is no archeological evidence of anyone even matching Moses in description. There is an Egyptian history of an adopted prince called Mousos who led the Egyptian army into Kush to slaughter the 'barbarians', but that was 600 years before the alleged life of Moses.
There is no archeological evidence of the 10 commandments.

There is so much plagiarism in the bible it would be impossible to know where to start... and there seem to be elements stolen from a world of religions. I've tried to start with the Buddha element and the flood myth... but you rubbish them with Elvis references, etc.

Where are you getting this sort of nonsense? Historically, the book of Daniel is dated at about 530 BC. The only dates later are ones assuming that anything that gives a date before 30 AD is a bad source; in other words, archeological studies which deny the possible existance of prophecy, a bias which obviously would lead them to the wrong conclusion if it's a prophetic work. The logic of dating it in that fashion then saying it can't be prophetic because of that is circular. If you read the book itself, the period in which it was written is obvious since there's a large amount of historical context around Daniel's life. Of course, since it's the Bible, that must be all fictional and wrong.

On top of this nonsensical obsurdity that Daniel could have been written after the death of Christ, CHRIST HIMSELF MENTIONED DANIEL'S WORKS IN HIS OWN MINISTRY; they were already in circulation. It's on the record. And on top of all of this, the prophetic work of Daniel has been kept by JEWISH scribes, not Christian ones; if they wrote the prophesy after the fact, they certainly wouldn't have had Jesus as the Messiah. By writing prophesies about Jesus into their own Scripture, Jews would have been more self-defeating than if they had written no prophesy at all!

Don't just make claims... show me where an independant source says that Daniel wrote his book in 530BC.
(And historical context is quite easy to insert AFTER the fact...)
And, with reference to Jesus... he also quoted from the Book of Enoch, and yet the christian church maintains that Enoch was written hundreds of years AD.

And, of course, the New Testament books were not written IN THE LIFETIME of jesus... they were written in the next 300 hundred years. So - there is no reason why the various texts shouldn't be edited to conform... since the whole thing was written over the course of 10 generations AFTER jesus is supposed to have died.

By the way... you may not have noticed... some of the Jews believed that jesus was messiah... and that would certainly explain how Jewish texts could 'appear' that supported the messianic prophecy.

Which isn't a valid arguement since we already know with no historical doubt that:
1) The work of Daniel predates Christ.
2) The work of Daniel has not been in Christian hands to modify.
3) There was DISINCENTIVE to write Messianic prophecy were it to be modified.

Like I said, the only arguements that yield any "evidence" to the works dating earlier are ones that assume that prophesy can't be true and thus throw out evidence left and right until they get what they want: a proof that prophecy didn't happen! The problem is that was their assumption in the first place.

I'm sorry... this really IS ridiculous. We do not know for certain that the WORK of Daniel predates christ... even if the man called Daniel didn't. Hell, we don't even know for sure that the Book of Daniel we have know bears any resemblences to the book of Daniel that MIGHT have been written earlier.

I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with you saying it was plaguarized. This is based on the assumption that there is no divine truth (and thus said myths, instead of coming from a TRUE event or source, had to have been copied), and you conclude from it that the work isn't divine truth. It's circular logic, once again.

No - not based on the assumption that there is NO divine truth... based on the EVIDENCE that stories appearing in the bible appeared EARLIER in other culture religions. Other cultures were writing religious histories containing elements that turn up in the bible, before the world was created... according to the biblical calender.

The fact that there are so many independently created flood myths from unconnected groups is highly suggestive of an actual event. Once again, the only way to resolve this for your case is a circular assumption. I'm familiar with flood myths.

Or evidence of lots of floods... none of which necessarily 'flooded the whole world'. You know what, there was flooding in Florida a couple of days ago... maybe a newspaper will have recorded it. In 4000 years, when some poor future archeologist uncovers that clipping that says "Flood water as far as the eye can see"... he's going to think the world flooded too... but it didn't, did it?

I'm sure if you got that metaphorical you could say the same about Elvis too. Now you're just getting off into conspiracy theory; we don't have a single unnamed undated source giving these myths; we have multiple named and dated sources, several of whom are firsthand accounts. The Bible is one of the most historically verifiable documents in the world, both for textual accuracy and consistancy. These are eyewitness accounts, not fairy tales.

And I haven't insulted you by saying that you haven't researched even though you seem to not be familiar with many of the refutations for your ideas; I'd think it fair if you didn't cast such personal attacks at me either.

The bible is not historically verified. Maybe some of the places existed, maybe some of the people were real. We know there actually was a Babylon and a Rome. But there is still no evidence for the hocus-pocus elements.

I could write a history that would be VERY consistent, that described the whole New Tesatament story as being about pink fluffy bunnies I could then provide evidence that pink is a real colour, that bunnies are real, and that some of them are fluffy. But my 'history' would still be a fiction.

I'll make it easy for you. Find some evidence of Exodus. From a non-Jewish, non-biblical source. We'll start there. Get back to me when you can prove that one event.

Lumana

17-08-2004, 21:38

Eden is a literal place? Where do you get this stuff?

You contend that the prophetic authors intended these writings to be metaphorical. They considered Eden a literal historical place. That's why I'm saying that Ezekiel wasn't talking metaphorically.

So, what you're saying is that, you haven't translated them. I already mentioned one classic case of mistranslation, that TOTALLY misses the point of the Hebrew, and you've ignored it. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Try an actual translation - and see if the message is even vaguely like the current 'christianised' version.

How does this miss the point of the Hebrew? That's one of the verses that has had the most focus on the original text in the OT from my experience; I've gone and translated it myself and done background research on the Hebrew involved with it, and it seems rather clear as to what the law is saying. Would you care to submit your interpretation and an explanation of it?

And, I'm afraid you are wrong on the Book of Thomas. Maybe you classify it as Gnosticism, but since it was written concurrently with other testaments of Christ, and IS a testament of Christ

It was thrown out because it is essentially a collection of quotes with no background, and several of the quotes disagree with multiple independent sources (the Gospels). The particular twist in these quotes is Gnostic; hence why it is considered to be one of the earlier Gnostic texts. If Thomas isn't Gnostic, I don't know what WOULD be! And the Apocrypha haven't "come back to bite Christianity in the ass"; they're just as easily disprovable now as they have always been; they've just been sensationalized now because those out to disprove Christianity are scraping the bottom of the barrel, bringing up cases finalized hundreds of years ago and preying on people who aren't familiar with them.

First: there is NO archeological evidence of Moses. What - did I miss it, was it on the news? Moses found fossilised in rock?

So unless we find a person's grave, they don't exist? Please. Moses died while they were wandering in the desert; it's unlikely that his grave would have survived anyhow.

There is no archeological evidence of the 10 commandments.

I find it interesting that you don't consider the Bible to be archeological evidence, considering it's one of the best preserved pieces of text in human history. And yet you throw it out because you assume it's unreliable. And then, what is your conclusion? You conclude that the Bible is unreliable! Once again, circular logic at its best.

There is so much plagiarism in the bible it would be impossible to know where to start... and there seem to be elements stolen from a world of religions. I've tried to start with the Buddha element and the flood myth... but you rubbish them with Elvis references, etc.

The fact is, to claim that the life of Jesus was a plaguarized myth is as ridiculous as theories that we didn't land on the moon. We have solid links to dozens of historical figures directly associated with these accounts. We have extra-Biblical references to the Christ Himself, and to Paul. And the fact is, the church itself began IMMEDIATELY after said events; there was no gap of silence during which fact turned into myth. The Gospels were written within the lifespan of those who saw Christ themselves; were they fictional in nature, it would have been called out a mile away.

The flood myth I maintain as an actual event. Therefore it's completely expected that it would be present in other cultures. The Buddha element doesn't hold because regardless of said things, these elements were recorded by eyewitnesses; the twelve disciples were named and we can follow the lives of each one historically, the Resurrection was documented. These aren't unverifiable myths.

Don't just make claims... show me where an independant source says that Daniel wrote his book in 530BC.

Here's a very nice research paper that compiles quite a bit of the evidence and addresses multiple counter-arguements: http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/daniel.html

(And historical context is quite easy to insert AFTER the fact...)

It's doubtful that in 100 AD they would have had a great deal of historical information about ancient Babylon just lying around.

And, with reference to Jesus... he also quoted from the Book of Enoch, and yet the christian church maintains that Enoch was written hundreds of years AD.

What are you referring to as a quote from Enoch specifically?

And, of course, the New Testament books were not written IN THE LIFETIME of jesus... they were written in the next 300 hundred years.

What? Even the MOST liberal scholars can't place the Gospel of John (the latest) past about 130-150 AD since it was in wide circulation by 170 AD (letters such as by Irenaeus of Lyons confirm this). I've read quite a few essays on both sides on the dating of the Gospels, and I've never heard the number 300 years pop up.

By the way... you may not have noticed... some of the Jews believed that jesus was messiah... and that would certainly explain how Jewish texts could 'appear' that supported the messianic prophecy.

The book of Daniel was kept by the Jewish leadership, who certainly didn't accept Jesus.

I'm sorry... this really IS ridiculous. We do not know for certain that the WORK of Daniel predates christ... even if the man called Daniel didn't. Hell, we don't even know for sure that the Book of Daniel we have know bears any resemblences to the book of Daniel that MIGHT have been written earlier.

Except for the fact that Jesus directly quotes Daniel and refers to said prophets several times?

Other cultures were writing religious histories containing elements that turn up in the bible, before the world was created... according to the biblical calender.

As far as I've seen there aren't any solid historical records coming even close to the Biblical dating of Creation (about 10,000 years ago).

The bible is not historically verified. Maybe some of the places existed, maybe some of the people were real. We know there actually was a Babylon and a Rome. But there is still no evidence for the hocus-pocus elements.

The fact is, there have been hundreds of archeological finds in agreement with the Bible long before we knew about them. On top of that, there has been not a single archeological disproof.

I could write a history that would be VERY consistent, that described the whole New Tesatament story as being about pink fluffy bunnies I could then provide evidence that pink is a real colour, that bunnies are real, and that some of them are fluffy. But my 'history' would still be a fiction.

Go ahead and do it. We'll see if you have a few million followers the world over, including a good portion of the world's brightest scholars. I doubt it. Christianity has that though. Why?

I'll make it easy for you. Find some evidence of Exodus. From a non-Jewish, non-biblical source. We'll start there. Get back to me when you can prove that one event.

Because you know, there were a lot of other civilizations wandering out in the desert. It seems self-evident that the Israelites would hold the only record of themselves during said time. On top of that it seems logical that the Egyptian Pharoh would want to edit out the record of the Israelite escape. So tell me, since Exodus is false, how did Israel become freed from slavery? I assume Egypt has the real story, right?

Oh, I forgot, they just left a gap there.

Arenestho

17-08-2004, 21:46

1) Satanism cannot possibley have predated Christianity because the concept of Satan arose well after the establishment of Christianity. Furthermore all ancient religions are an evolution of an earlier religion, it is therefore likely Satanism is similar, but not the same as an earlier religion.

2) For evil to excist in the presence of God would result in death. If God had addressed them they would have perished and he could not send an sign because "the doubting crowd shall never see a miracle".
1) I'm not talking about Modern LaVeyan Satanism, which was founded in the 1960's. I'm talking about True Satanism, which is completely different. The closest thing I can think of to it, is Buddhism, except materialistic. You also fail to include a reason as to why other ancient religions couldn't have stemmed from it. However Einstein said it, if we can't prove it isn't, it is.

2) That makes no sense. If he created humanity he easily could have told them from the beginning that Christianity was the right and proper path, instead of waiting for 10 000 years.

Grave_n_idle

18-08-2004, 00:49

You contend that the prophetic authors intended these writings to be metaphorical. They considered Eden a literal historical place. That's why I'm saying that Ezekiel wasn't talking metaphorically.

Just because some half-starved freak with epilepsy says Eden is a real place, that doesn't make it a real place... Like I said... there's no evidence for Eden... so, it's a metaphor. I'd still like to see you prove that it was a real place, and you won't, because you can't.

How does this miss the point of the Hebrew? That's one of the verses that has had the most focus on the original text in the OT from my experience; I've gone and translated it myself and done background research on the Hebrew involved with it, and it seems rather clear as to what the law is saying. Would you care to submit your interpretation and an explanation of it?

I'm getting quite tired of it, you know. You still haven't presented shred one of evidence that you ever did any of the research. And now, you can't even bring a translation to bear on what you yourself call a verse that has had the 'most focus'...

Suffice it to say, if you think that that passage has anything at all to do with homosexuality... you are either not as bright as you think, lacking in research, or just plain lying.

It was thrown out because it is essentially a collection of quotes with no background, and several of the quotes disagree with multiple independent sources (the Gospels). The particular twist in these quotes is Gnostic; hence why it is considered to be one of the earlier Gnostic texts. If Thomas isn't Gnostic, I don't know what WOULD be! And the Apocrypha haven't "come back to bite Christianity in the ass"; they're just as easily disprovable now as they have always been; they've just been sensationalized now because those out to disprove Christianity are scraping the bottom of the barrel, bringing up cases finalized hundreds of years ago and preying on people who aren't familiar with them.

Interesting... the one Gospel that is almost certainly the actual words of the man you call Christ, and you consider it non-christian. What is this with 'scraping the bottom of the barrel?' There is a reason why the christian church had to supress knowledge... Just as easily disproved as ever? The disprove it?

So unless we find a person's grave, they don't exist? Please. Moses died while they were wandering in the desert; it's unlikely that his grave would have survived anyhow.

Not at all... I'm just saying there is no archeological evidence. Not even a grave. What other remains would we really be expecting to find? His fossilised speech-impediment?

I find it interesting that you don't consider the Bible to be archeological evidence, considering it's one of the best preserved pieces of text in human history. And yet you throw it out because you assume it's unreliable. And then, what is your conclusion? You conclude that the Bible is unreliable! Once again, circular logic at its best.

The Bible isn't archeological evidence. It is a second-hand history, at best. The parchment pages might be evidence, the Qum'ran scripts might be evidence. But the story IN the bible is just that. It is a recording of events - which may or may not be true. I'd be more inclined to put store in them if anyone else at the time was documenting the same things...

The fact is, to claim that the life of Jesus was a plaguarized myth is as ridiculous as theories that we didn't land on the moon. We have solid links to dozens of historical figures directly associated with these accounts. We have extra-Biblical references to the Christ Himself, and to Paul. And the fact is, the church itself began IMMEDIATELY after said events; there was no gap of silence during which fact turned into myth. The Gospels were written within the lifespan of those who saw Christ themselves; were they fictional in nature, it would have been called out a mile away.

The flood myth I maintain as an actual event. Therefore it's completely expected that it would be present in other cultures. The Buddha element doesn't hold because regardless of said things, these elements were recorded by eyewitnesses; the twelve disciples were named and we can follow the lives of each one historically, the Resurrection was documented. These aren't unverifiable myths.

The church was not immediately started. It says that much in scripture. Sure, they began ministering, but they did not canonise the scripture, or formalise a doctrine at that point.

And of course real people turn up... we have OTHER documentary proof that Pilate was real, for example. What we don't have is ANY evidence of Jesus, any evidence of miracles, any evidence of the son of god thing, any evidence of the crucifixion, any evidence of the resurrection.

And the Buddha thing was recorded by eye witnesses - 600 years before your supposed messiah was a glint in the holy ghosts immaterial eye.

Show me evidence of the flood! Show me evidence that all life was wiped out, less than 10,000 years ago (by your reckoning).

Lots of people recorded floods (some said the whole world, but most just say floods) - but that doesn't add up to one world-size flood.

There are floods all over the place at the moment... literally, this week. That doesn't mean the world is being flooded.

Here's a very nice research paper that compiles quite a bit of the evidence and addresses multiple counter-arguements: http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/daniel.html

I'll check it later...

It's doubtful that in 100 AD they would have had a great deal of historical information about ancient Babylon just lying around.

Why not? Before the christians burned all the libraries (Alexandria, for example), there was a wealth of material, I'm sure.

What? Even the MOST liberal scholars can't place the Gospel of John (the latest) past about 130-150 AD since it was in wide circulation by 170 AD (letters such as by Irenaeus of Lyons confirm this). I've read quite a few essays on both sides on the dating of the Gospels, and I've never heard the number 300 years pop up.

Just because YOU don't know it, isn't making a whole lot of difference to my confidence at the moment...

Except for the fact that Jesus directly quotes Daniel and refers to said prophets several times?

a) That doesn't actually make it the same text... just a couple of the same lines.
b) The only records of what jesus said were recorded afterwards, obviously... so they were more than open to edit.
c) So you can accept jesus quoting Daniel, but not Enoch... now that interests me... and makes me wonder if you get fed all your information... whether you've ever had a single idea on your own.

As far as I've seen there aren't any solid historical records coming even close to the Biblical dating of Creation (about 10,000 years ago).

As far as you've seen. Your argument rests.

I've seen so much evidence.... but you've seen 'none'.

I'd like to know where you got the 10,000 number from.

The fact is, there have been hundreds of archeological finds in agreement with the Bible long before we knew about them. On top of that, there has been not a single archeological disproof.

Archeological disproof? like they found god, and it turns out he was made of marzipan.... what do you mean exactly? How would archeologists dig up a disproof? Or - do you just mean like the "Hi - Jesus - Really dead" thing... in which case that's a pretty poor argument... the bible must be true because we have misplaced the body?

Go ahead and do it. We'll see if you have a few million followers the world over, including a good portion of the world's brightest scholars. I doubt it. Christianity has that though. Why?

Size is no guarantee of quality.

Christianity has so many followers because most people live sad little lives of hopelessness and dejection, unless someone can take the pressure away, and make it all all right.

Because you know, there were a lot of other civilizations wandering out in the desert. It seems self-evident that the Israelites would hold the only record of themselves during said time. On top of that it seems logical that the Egyptian Pharoh would want to edit out the record of the Israelite escape. So tell me, since Exodus is false, how did Israel become freed from slavery? I assume Egypt has the real story, right?

Oh, I forgot, they just left a gap there.

So - there is no evidence, because the Israelites were a long way away? Or, of course, there is another suggestion that could be made... you know, that it was made up?

Actually, Egypt does have a possible explanation. But you already know that, don't you. Like you said... you already did the research.

Come down off your high horse.
Admit that almost everything you know was packaged into you in religion class, and that you may have had a fleeting fancy, but you've never really put ny serious research into it.

Admit that your only real source of evidence is the bible, and that you have never really thought to look outside it.

Challenge - since you failed the last one...: You tell me what I am talking about... the 'Egyptian version' of the exodus story. I'll give you a clue - Ramses wasn't the Pharaoh at the time, they are talking about the city of Pi-Ramses. They fled THROUGH Ramses, not from Ramses.

Lumana

18-08-2004, 09:18

Just because some half-starved freak with epilepsy says Eden is a real place, that doesn't make it a real place... Like I said... there's no evidence for Eden... so, it's a metaphor.

You're apparently not listening. We're not debating the existance of Eden; it doesn't matter in this context. You are arguing the AUTHOR wrote this passage as a metaphor. The AUTHOR believed Eden to be a real place. Therefore the AUTHOR was writing literally. Your personal belief about Eden has nothing to do with this.

And now, you can't even bring a translation to bear on what you yourself call a verse that has had the 'most focus'...

I agree with that translation as accurate to a sufficient degree, from what personal research of Hebrew and consulting of authorities in it that I have done.

Suffice it to say, if you think that that passage has anything at all to do with homosexuality... you are either not as bright as you think, lacking in research, or just plain lying.

This wasn't an explanation of your "proper translation of it" nor did you give any reasons for said translation. I'm listening and interested to hear your side of it.

Interesting... the one Gospel that is almost certainly the actual words of the man you call Christ, and you consider it non-christian.

How do you suppose such a claim? We have three agreeing sources that are dated long before the Gospel of Thomas (which dates to 140 AD at VERY earliest; many of the pro-Thomas sources even say 200 AD). Moreover these sources were firsthand eyewitnesses or secondhand scribes; the Gospel of Thomas was written by a man who called himself Judas Thomas; we have no historical or traditional reference on who this was, where they got said information, etc. (this book was not even discovered, much less in circulation, until 1945). We have a single manuscript. This is next to over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the Gospels not to mention other documents supporting the authorship of them. There's absolutely no contest as to which texts are the more historically reliable.

The Bible isn't archeological evidence. It is a second-hand history, at best. The parchment pages might be evidence, the Qum'ran scripts might be evidence. But the story IN the bible is just that. It is a recording of events - which may or may not be true. I'd be more inclined to put store in them if anyone else at the time was documenting the same things...

Like say, if FOUR firsthand sources were documenting the ministry of Christ?

The church was not immediately started. It says that much in scripture. Sure, they began ministering, but they did not canonise the scripture, or formalise a doctrine at that point.

The doctrine of the church was already being formalized by the Apostles within 20 years after the death of Christ; this we know from the early writings of Paul in his Epistles. Acts of the Apostles records the trail of ministry that began immediately after the death of Christ and Paul confirms it in his letters. Already in Paul's writings we see early creeds and refutations of false doctrine. The church today uses the very writings of Paul that inspired the early church as a basis for chosing which books are inspired and which are not.

What we don't have is ANY evidence of Jesus, any evidence of miracles, any evidence of the son of god thing, any evidence of the crucifixion, any evidence of the resurrection.

For one thing, Josephus, in his work "Antiquities," records about Jesus (this is not from the traditional 11th century manuscripts that we know were tampered with; this is another earlier Arabic one from the 10th century one that is free from said tamperings):

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

Tacitus in his work "Annals" also wrote of Pilate's punishment of Jesus and the results:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Pliny the Younger also speak of Christianity within the first century (you can see the letters at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html ).

Show me evidence of the flood! Show me evidence that all life was wiped out, less than 10,000 years ago (by your reckoning).

We can see mass extinctions of sea life in the fossil record. We can see the dinosaurs wiped out rather rapidly without much plausible explanation. We can see mammoths flash-frozen in polar ice which previously did not exist, considering the contents of the stomaches of said mammoths were of warm-climate plants. The oldest current living beings on record are Bristlecone pine trees in the White Mountains in California, which incidentally date to about 4,000 years ago, when the flood would have taken place. We see flood myths constant throughout early cultures.

Just because YOU don't know it, isn't making a whole lot of difference to my confidence at the moment...

Okay, drop me a good case for the date of 300 AD. I contend it's crap since we have references to the Gospel of John as the fourth Gospel in letters dated in 170 AD which refer to it casually as being in common circulation.

c) So you can accept jesus quoting Daniel, but not Enoch... now that interests me... and makes me wonder if you get fed all your information... whether you've ever had a single idea on your own.

You still haven't given me this quote which I am willing to listen to and research if you would give me it.

I'd like to know where you got the 10,000 number from.

That's the approximate date of Creation on the Biblical timeline (various calculations have been done and most come within a few hundred years of that). The flood is traditionally dated by scholars as about 4,400 BC.

How would archeologists dig up a disproof?

If someone claims a document was written in 1900 AD, and I find an original manuscript which is dated with fair reliability at 1800 AD, we have a disproof of the 1900 AD date. If we come to a city where the Bible talks about city walls and it turns out the city had no walls, it's a disproof of that fact. If we hear the Roman currency had the face of Caesar on it but find through other sources and archeological finds that all Roman currency had an olive branch on it, we have a disproof. There are hundreds of possibilities considering the number of details present in the Bible.

Christianity has so many followers because most people live sad little lives of hopelessness and dejection, unless someone can take the pressure away, and make it all all right.

That's completely inductive. On top of that, it's completely bogus since for several generations after Christ's death, Christians were slaughtered, tortured, and chased from house and home; it didn't take any pressure away at all. What happened? They grew in numbers.

So - there is no evidence, because the Israelites were a long way away? Or, of course, there is another suggestion that could be made... you know, that it was made up?

So, what do you contend did happen to Israel since you don't think that the source was accurate? I'm sure since you're throwing out this source you have a better one that disproves it. Especially since, you know, the Israelites had a lot of incentive to display themselves as a disobedient, stubborn, and desolate nation. Isn't it rather common throughout history that when you make up stories you make yourself look stupid, ignorant, dishonorable, and blasphemous and in fact record that your own God curses you multiple times? Oh, I guess not.

Admit that almost everything you know was packaged into you in religion class

I've never taken a formal Christian class. I've taken several classes on comparative religion (which tend to be highly critical of Christianity). Beyond that I've done my own research independently.

Admit that your only real source of evidence is the bible, and that you have never really thought to look outside it.

In the last post, I cited you at least three solid sources outside of the Bible. In this one I've come closer to a half dozen or more. Give me a break.

Challenge - since you failed the last one...: You tell me what I am talking about... the 'Egyptian version' of the exodus story. I'll give you a clue - Ramses wasn't the Pharaoh at the time, they are talking about the city of Pi-Ramses. They fled THROUGH Ramses, not from Ramses.

I haven't done such a thorough study of Egyptian history, frankly because the evidence from said times is very sketchy and requires a great deal of extrapolation (historians still disagree when many of the rulers during that time were ruling, or even if they overlapped reigns). So make your case, I'll listen. I've read over several articles which compare and constrast Biblical evidence with Egyptian history, one that pops to mind as rather thorough which I have bookmarked is this one (posted on a Christian website, written by an archeologist and published in an archeological magazine): http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/chronology_of_egypt_and_israel.html

Rotovia

21-08-2004, 08:27

The christian version of satan, you mean.

Check out Numbers 22. You'll find an interesting word in there.

Then why did god create evil?

Which is code for "you have to believe first, and then you will see, and the reason for this is otherwise we won't be able to fool you".
1) Of course I mean the Christian version of Satan. Would you rather I talk about the Zaroasterian evil deity that is the opposite of their good deity? There are many similar concepts of evil. But when you say Satan, you are refering to the uniquely Christian concept of a being that has fallen from grace to be consumed with evil.

2) God created Lucifer, the leader of heavenly worship. But he did not create Satan, the deceiver who spreads evil.

3) I'm not saying it isn't convienent. But that's the explaination given in the bible, if you want to know why Christians believe that then look at the text upon which the belief is based. You cannot apply secular understanding to Christian Faith, just as you cannot apply Theology to Science.

Grave_n_idle

21-08-2004, 19:59

1) Of course I mean the Christian version of Satan. Would you rather I talk about the Zaroasterian evil deity that is the opposite of their good deity? There are many similar concepts of evil. But when you say Satan, you are refering to the uniquely Christian concept of a being that has fallen from grace to be consumed with evil.

2) God created Lucifer, the leader of heavenly worship. But he did not create Satan, the deceiver who spreads evil.

3) I'm not saying it isn't convienent. But that's the explaination given in the bible, if you want to know why Christians believe that then look at the text upon which the belief is based. You cannot apply secular understanding to Christian Faith, just as you cannot apply Theology to Science.

What is it around here? Why do people come along making ridiculous claims without ever doing the research?

Satan is uniquely Christian??? So, who is HaSatan in the Old Testament? And Shaitan? Perhaps you have heard of Seth (Set)???

I'd actually agree with you on the HaSatan thing, if you were not arguing the wrong reasons... but, the point is that Satan is a misreading of HaSatan, who in turn seems to have been 'stolen' from Set. Shaitan is an 'update' of Satan, and all are linked by a connective progression.

I really HOPE you are not a Satanist....

Rotovia

23-08-2004, 12:25

What is it around here? Why do people come along making ridiculous claims without ever doing the research?

Satan is uniquely Christian??? So, who is HaSatan in the Old Testament? And Shaitan? Perhaps you have heard of Seth (Set)???

I'd actually agree with you on the HaSatan thing, if you were not arguing the wrong reasons... but, the point is that Satan is a misreading of HaSatan, who in turn seems to have been 'stolen' from Set. Shaitan is an 'update' of Satan, and all are linked by a connective progression.

I really HOPE you are not a Satanist....
Actually I researched this for my Comparitive History assignment. Seth is a very diffrent concept that has no logical linkage. HaSatan is also unrelated, the name may not be unique but the concept and ideology is.

Hawaiian Islands

23-08-2004, 18:35

One more question.

If Satan used to be an angel, well, was Satan a female angel?

Onion Pirates

23-08-2004, 19:36

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

Flippant: round trip ticket.
Straight: He wasn't there yet. Remember he was still pretty to look at, not a snake, so the temptation could have preceded the damnation.

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

F:Ask Gotama Buddha.
S: I agree with Buddha. Life sucks. Existence is pain.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

F:Sounds like ChickenMan.
S: His flight was delayed; seriusly, he's not here yet. Clue: He's supposed to seem very righteous and be very popular. Doesn't sound like anyone I know. The righteous people are outcasts and the popular ones are filth.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

F: Who knows?
S: Who knows? I had a dream it was full of transparent crystal castles and bright colorful birdlike spirits, but I've had lots of weird dreams.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

F: Huh?
S: He rebelled but God cannot be betrayed.

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

F: You take a free drop but add two strokes.
S: Orthodox theology says this is just what happened. People used to die twice, now they just die once.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?

F: Government, school, military all have a piece.
S: CS Lewis agrees with that! Otherwise, it gotta be not up or down but an internal self-relationship. Jesus says damned souls are those who reject the light and so are left outside in the dark "where is is wailing and gnashing of teeth". Like a self-imposed exile.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

F: "if"?
S: God dictated and Moses wrote. So it didn't get written for a long time. (Probably a bunch of rabbis wrote it and gave Moses the credit, actually).

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

F:Who says he didn't?
S:Yeh, who? Doesn't Jesus say: "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold"? I like and respect other religions, especially Buddhism, Shinto, and some Hindu/Vedic philosophy. I'd include Judaism but Genesis is Judaic so I don't know how to handle that.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

F: Look it up in your Funk'n Wagnalls.
S: Google it. There's a whole variety of philosophy that can be or chooses to be called Satanism; some is funny, some weird, some simple paganism, some fairly sophisticated and thoughtful.

Brutanion

23-08-2004, 19:42

One more question.

If Satan used to be an angel, well, was Satan a female angel?

Angels don't have gender.

Aren't Angels a different race to humans?

Peaonusahl

23-08-2004, 19:46

BTW, God allowed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life. The forbidden fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge.

Onion Pirates

23-08-2004, 19:46

Grave 'n idle claims the Gospel of Thomas is early and reliable. I disagree, and here is why (cut and pasted, but good solid stuff):

Question....
..........What about the Gospel of Thomas?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created: 8/24/96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas comes up in different ways and in different places. For example, this question that came into the Tank...

Recently, and quite by accident, I stumbled across a version of the Apocryphal(sp?) Gospel of Thomas. After reading it, and being quite amazed by the similarities to the Synoptic Gospels and John, I have the following question:

What is the great "theological argument" against this Gospel? At least 60% of it has direct correlations in Scripture and some rather inspiring extra sayings. I understand there is a good deal, I estimate 40%, of the Gospel that is clearly Gnostic, but does that discredit a valuable (in my mind) resource of early Christianity?
GTh also is important to discussions of the "Jesus Seminar" and those dependent upon that stream of argument (e.g. James Stills' web-writings). Some of the claims are quite exorbitant--that it represents the oldest Jesus material available, much older than our canonical gospels. This material needs careful analysis, since so much is made of it.

What is the Gospel of Thomas?

The GTh is "an anthology of 114 'obscure sayings' of Jesus, which according to its prologue, were collected and transmitted by St. Didymus Jude Thomas. The sayings do not appear within a biological narrative about Jesus, although some of them individually contain elements of dialogue or an abbreviated setting. Instead, Jesus' sayings in Gth are unconnected and in no particular order." [GS:376] It is part of a collection of Gnostic writings known as the Nag Hammadi Library.

The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of Coptic documents, found in Upper Egypt in 1945, dated late fourth century AD:

The most important collection of Gnostic writings are the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC). Thirteen codices, containing fifty-two tractates, were discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. Six of these tractates were duplicates. Six others were already extant. The remaining forty represented wholly new finds. [Evans, in NWNTI:164]
All [texts] were found together in a large jar sealed by a bowl and buried beneath a boulder at the base of cliffs on the right bank of the Nile, some six miles northeast of the town of Nag Hammadi and within sight of the ruins of the Pachomian monastery at Phbow. [BREC:171]
The texts are a varied lot: some are Christian, some are gnostic, some are Christian-gnostic, some are Hermetic, and two are philosophical--the Sentences of Sextus and a fragment of Plato's Republic.[BREC:171]
[TankNote: When Egyptian was written in the Greek alphabet, it was called "Coptic". The NHC was written in TWO different Coptic dialects, and reflect the handwriting styles of several different scribes (NHL:13ff)]

How old is this library (including the GTh)?

The manuscripts are dated to the late 4th century, on several grounds, the two strongest are (NHL:16):

First, there is a reference in Codex VI (containing The Concept of our Great Power) to the heresy of the Anomoeans--which briefly flourished in the region in the late 350's.

Second, some of the 'packing materials' in the jar are literary pieces themselves (like we might use newspaper to pack a box of delicate objects). There are three dates that show up in these packing materials of Codex VII: 341, 346, 348 ad. "This indicates that the cover of Codex VII was manufactured no earlier than the latest date [348ad], but perhaps as much as a generation after these dates."

This, of course, describes only the age of the manuscripts themselves--NOT the literary content of those mss.

What does the GTh contain?

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was translated from the Greek. Fragments of this gospel in the original Greek version are extant in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1, 654 and 655, which had been discovered and published at the beginning of this century, but were identified as parts of The Gospel of Thomas only after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library. The first of these Greek papyri contains sayings 26-30, 77, 31-33 (in this order!), the other two the sayings 1-7 and 36-40, respectively. At least one of these Greek fragments comes from a manuscript that was written before 200 C.E.; thus the Greek version of this gospel was used in Egypt as early as the second century. [Koester , in NHL:124]
A large number of the sayings of The Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the gospels of the New Testament, in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as the Gospel of John (parallels with the latter are especially striking: cf., e.g., sayings 13, 19, 24, 38, 49, 92). Some of the sayings are known to occur also in noncanonical gospels, especially in the Gospel According to the Hebrews (cf. saying 2) and the Gospel of the Egyptians (cf. saying 22), which are both attested for the second century by Clement of Alexandria (floruit 180-200).[Koester, in NHL:124-125]
How old IS the GTh itself?

If we have Greek mss with fragments of Gth that can be dated to pre-200 AD, then clearly the GTh must be at least that old. But some highly visible minority (i.e. the Jesus Seminar) have claimed that it can be dated to 50-60ad, BEFORE the canonical gospels, so we need to see exactly what evidence exists by which to date the Gth.

In other words, do we have any HARD evidence by which to date GTh so early?

"The only firm evidence for dating this document is its earliest Greek fragments (P. Oxy. 1), which was written no later than about A.D. 200." (TJQ:49)

"The first reference to the document by name occurs no earlier than Hippolytus, who was writing between A.D. 222 and 235." (TJQ:49)

The author of Gth shows a decided dependence on the canonical Gospels (see below for the evidence), demonstrating a later date for its composition than they.

The scholarly community is generally (apart from the Jesus Seminar minority) in agreement as to a mid-2nd century date:

But how early that Gospel was composed is debated. Although some seek to place its origins in the first century, the view that it was actually composed near the middle of the second century (ca. A.D. 140) is more commonly held. [RNC:11]
Hultgren (op.cit.) lists the "early-daters" as Koester, S. Davies, Cameron; and for the majority view Guillaumont, Puech, Cullmann, Quispel, R. McL. Wilson, Gartner, Frend, Fieger, Hengel.

The early-daters are all closely associated with two schools: Claremont and Harvard (homes of Koester and Robinson). All of these early daters are either colleagues or students of these (with the exception of Crossan).

Richard Hayes, a non-evangelical teaching at Duke, wrote an article demonstrating how the Jesus Seminar did NOT represent a cross-section or consensus view of non-evangelical scholarship in "The Corrected Jesus", First Things 43 (1994). He called the seminar's dating of GTh "an extraordinarily early dating, " a highly controversial claim," and a "shaky element in their methodological foundation." (cited by Bock, in JUF:90).

And Blomberg sums it up thus: "In other words, the document may have first been written as early as about A.D. 150, but no actual evidence permits us to push that date a century earlier as the Jesus Seminar does." [JUF:23]

[It should be mentioned that an important, specialist work on the Syrian area, where GTh was possibly written, argues that GTh is dependent on Tatian's Diatessaron, which would dates it after 180ad--see H.J.W. Drijvers, in "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity", The Second Century, 2 (1982), pp.157-175.]

So, we get a range of 150-180ad for its composition. The implication of this, obviously, is that at such a date it CANNOT be chronologically prior to the canonical gospels--all of which were in their final form LONG BEFORE this date.

THE BIG QUESTION: Was GTh dependent on the Gospels? [arguments summarized in MJ:1.128]

This is the major question. If the GTh was dependent on the canonical gospels, then its value for research into the origins of Christian literature is limited (its value for research into early Gnosticism is already significant).

The main "arguments FOR" the chronological priority of the GTh material over the canonical gospels:

Some of these sayings, when translated back into Aramaic, reflect a rhythm and rhetoric scholars associate with the authentic sayings of Jesus;

If the Synoptics WERE being followed, we would expect to find such an order in GTh. We do NOT find such an order. Therefore, it is unlikely that GTh WAS dependent on the Synoptics.

The stories that are paralleled in GTh and the Gospels, generally reveal that GTh has a more streamlined or less elaborate version. The Jesus Seminar believes that these simpler forms indicate an earlier form of the tradition, and that the canonical gospels elaborated and developed upon these.

The main arguments AGAINST the "arguments FOR" the chronological priority of the GTh material over the canonical gospels.

These arguments FOR are easily shown to be irrelevant, questionable, or simply wrong.

The one, about being re-translated into Aramaic is, of course true, but, if the GTh was written in Syria (as most scholars believe) this point is totally irrelevant [MJ:1.158n99]

The one about the order of the sayings is simply an assumption, that runs counter to the author's 'right to redact' as well as the mss. witness itself.

Gnostic writers of the 2nd-century customarily arranged material around themes/catchwords:
Grant (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 185) notes that one of the striking features of the Gospel of Thomas is its tendency to combine sayings found separately in the Synoptic Gospels and to change the order of the sayings: "Such combinations and alterations were common among Christian writers of the second century, but they were especially characteristic of Gnostics." [cited in MJ1.161n.116]
For example, we know of one place where the Coptic redactor CHANGED the order from the "older" Greek version (POxy.1) for usage in his Coptic version, so as to organize it around catch-words. The saying on "spitting the wood" which in POxy1 is at the end of saying 30, becomes part of the 2nd half of saying 77 in the Coptic version. This creates a link-word between 77a+b; both halves of the spliced verse contain the Coptic verb meaning "attain" or "split" [Tucker, cited in MJ:1.161n.117]

"According to Jean-Marie Sevrin, GThom 63, 64, and 65 have been clustered as part of the writer's polemic against wealth and materialism." [SHJ:499]

But even with this license and pattern, the Synoptic order DOES SEEM to "show through" sometimes.
Some sayings in Thomas seem to follow each other for no reason other than that is their sequence in the Synoptic Gospels. For example, Saying 65 gives a version of the parable of the wicked tenants (cf. Mark 12.1-8 pars.), which Saying 66 follows up with a version of Jesus' teaching about the 'cornerstone' (cf. Mark 12.10-11). But without anything corresponding to Mark 12.9 to connect the two sayings, no one would guess they were related. It is more probable, therefore, that Thomas knew the Synoptics but omitted the connection (as this work does throughout in listing sayings in isolation from each other) than that Mark or someone else created a connected narrative out of two originally independent thoughts.[JUF:24]
The survival of the Synoptic order in a few places is especially striking since--as we have seen--Thomas reorders the Synoptic sayings around clusters of similar motifs and catchwords. For example, the order of Luke 10:8-9 peeks through in part of saying 14: "If you fast you will acquire sin...And when you go into any land, when they receive you, eat whatever they will set before you (= Luke 10:8). Heal those among them who are sick (= Luke 10:9). For nothing that enters your mouth will defile you...." Thomas has gathered these diverse sayings around the leitmotif of eating (fasting, eating what is set before you, what enters yours mouth). The reference to healing is completely intrusive in Thomas' context; it plays no function, comes from nowhere, and goes nowhere. Or rather, it comes clearly from Luke 10:9, where it makes sense within Luke's missionary discourse, following Luke 10:8 and introducing the proclamation of the coming of the kingdom in Luke 10:9b. Indeed, so closely does Luke 10:9 follow upon Luke 10:8 that it has followed it straight into the Gospel of Thomas, even though it makes no sense there, given the leitmotif Thomas has chosen for his cluster. [MJ:1.137-138// Meier also adduces sayings 65 and 66 as an example.]
The NET: The authors of the 2nd century routinely re-arranged material, explaining much of the groupings in GTh, and, in spite of this, sometimes the Synoptic order DOES show through. The 'argument for' turns out to be an assumption that is inappropriate to the situation.

The MAIN one--that of 'simpler is earlier; more elaborate is later' is HIGHLY questionable--esp. in written literary productions.

For example, even within the Synoptics this is not true--irrespective of Markan or Matthean priority positions!

Assuming the majority view of Markan priority, Meier can say:

It is no means invariably true in the Gospel tradition that the shorter text is earlier than and independent of the longer text containing the same material. Matthew usually shortens and streamlines Mark's miracle stories, but he is no less dependent on Mark for all the brevity. In fact, it is quite possible that a tradition may not develop along a straight line of shorter to longer or longer to shorter, but may meander back and forth. [MJ.1.132]
Meier cites a Matthean abbreviation example (non-miracle): the divorce passage in Mark 10.11-12--containing a two-part clause relevant to Mark's Greco-Roman setting--is shortened to a one-part clause in Matthew (19.9), relevant to HIS Jewish-Christian setting.

Charlesworth and Evans can point out the problem in the argument as well, using examples of Luke's abbreviation [SHJ:501]:

Advocates of Thomas' independence of the intracanonical Gospels often point to the abbreviated form that many of the parables and sayings have in the former. One of the best known examples is the Parable of the Wicked Tenant Farmers (Matt 21:33-41 = Mark 12:1-9 = Luke 20:9-16 = GThom 65). In the opening verse of the Marcan version approximately eleven words are drawn from Isa 5:1-7 to form the backdrop of the parable. Most of these words do not appear in Thomas. For Crossan this is a telling indication that the older form of the parable has been preserved in Thomas, not in Mark. However, in Luke's opening verse only two words (ephuteusen ampelona) remain. Assuming Marcan priority, we have here a clear example of abbreviation of the tradition. Other scholars have concluded that the version in Thomas is an edited and abridged form of the Lukan version. The same possibly applies to the rejected stone saying (Matt 21:42 = Mark 12:10-11 = Luke 20:17 = GThom 66). Mark's longer version quotes Ps 118:22-23. But Luke only quotes Ps 118:22. Once again Luke, who is further removed from the original form of the tradition, has abbreviated the tradition. The shorter form also appears in Thomas. Thus, it is risky to draw firm conclusions relating to priority on the basis of which form of the tradition is the shortest.
And, if one does NOT assume Markan priority (but rather Matthean), then much of Mark is an obvious abbreviation of Matthew (as some of the Church Fathers held).

In the case of GTh, we see also one tendency of the redactor to deliberately make clear traditions into 'hidden' or 'secret' sayings--in keeping with his theology stated at the beginning of his work. So Meier [MJ.1.133]:
The upshot of this hermeneutic is that the redactor of the Gospel of Thomas will purposely drop from the tradition anything that makes Jesus' sayings too clear or univocal, or anything that employs the general saying to highlight one specific (often moral or ecclesial) application. Thus, the redactor naturally undoes what the four canonical evangelists have struggled so hard to do: for, by allegory or other redactional additions and reformulations, the four evangelists often explain the meaning of Jesus' statements or apply them to concrete issues in the church.
It is these clarifying additions that Thomas systematically drops, thus creating a shorter, tighter version of a saying or a parable. The whole gnostic approach of Thomas makes him favor a laconic, "collapsed," streamlined form of the tradition. This form may indeed, at times, approximate by coincidence what form critics imagine the primitive tradition to have looked like.
Thomas ALSO tends to shorten the traditions for theological reasons. The gnostic system as a whole had no place for the deeds of Jesus', nor generally of His words that spoke of revelation and salvation in history. Salvation for the gnostic was through self-knowledge. I want to quote Meier here on this, for even though the quote is long, it not only shows the basic motive behind much of the GTh redaction, but also illustrates the basic structures of gnosticism (for readers perhaps less familiar with the system of thought) [MJ:1.134]
Thomas' gnostic vision has no room for a multi-stage history of salvation, with its early phase in the OT (replete with prophecies), its midpoint in Jesus' earthly ministry, death, and resurrection, its continuation in a Church settling down in the world and proclaiming the gospel equally to all men and women, and its climax in a glorious coming of Jesus the Son of Man to close out the old world and create a new one--in other words, so much of what the Four Gospels teach as they related the words and deeds of Jesus. Thomas' rejection of the material world as evil also means a rejection of salvation history, of a privileged place in that history for Israel, of the significance of OT prophecies, of any real importance given to the "enfleshed" earthly ministry of Jesus leading to his saving death and bodily resurrection, of a universal mission of the Church to all people (instead of only to a spiritual elite), and of a future coming of Jesus to inaugurate a new heaven and a new earth.
In other words, Thomas' view of salvation is ahistorical, atemporal, amaterial, and so he regularly removes from the Four Gospels anything that contradicts his view. Severin, for instance, demonstrates convincingly how Thomas pulls together three diverse parables in sayings 63, 64, and 65 (the parables of the rich man who dies suddenly, of the great supper, and of the murderous tenants of the vineyard) to develop his own gnostic polemic against "capitalism," while rigorously censoring out of the parables any allegory, any reference to salvation history, and any eschatological perspective. The result is a dehistoricized, timeless message of self-salvation through self-knowledge and ascetic detachment from this material world. At times, Thomas will introduce amplification into the tradition, but they always serve his theological program.
The NET: the argument from 'simple to early; elaborate to late' is just too simplistic, and doesn't even hold up among the Synoptics (where there is STRONG evidence of inter-dependence).

SUMMARY: the "arguments FOR" the chronological priority of GTh over the canonical gospels just don't work. They either are irrelevant, inappropriate, or simply contradicted by the textual data of the GTh and canonical gospels.

The "argument FOR" the dependence of GTh on the canonical gospels.

It is one thing to shoot down the opposition's arguments; it is also important to give some affirmative data for your own position. What I would like to do here is to summarize the main lines of evidence that show the dependence of GTh on the canonical gospels as we have them today.

How could we determine if the GTh was dependent on the "final editions" of the gospels as opposed to some more ancient traditions BEHIND those gospels?

There are a couple of 'places to look':

You would check to see if parallels in GTh match material UNIQUE in a specific gospel (other than Mark). This would indicate close familiarity with either (1) a stream of oral tradition associated with a specific community; or (2) the literary product (i.e. gospel) from that community. If this type of material surfaces for MORE THAN ONE gospel (reducing the probability that the redactor was in touch with the ORAL traditions of multiple communities), then the claim of the GTh to be an 'independent stream of tradition' is weakened considerably, and the assurance of dependence on these final-form written gospels (as opposed to oral traditions BEHIND those gospels) is confirmed.

Further, if GTh included elements that were redactional elements by the gospel authors, then the conclusion is much more certain. In other words, if GTh includes references to elements that were 'last minute changes' of the evangelists (e.g. word substitutions, omissions) that would ONLY exist in the final literary product, then it will be obvious that the GTh redactor was working from those final documents.

The more of these (presumably) disparate traditions that are used by GTh, the greater the likelihood that he drew from a "consolidated source" of these multiple-streams. The only such sources available were a collection of the documents themselves (i.e. written gospels, all generally available) or documents based on them (e.g. Tatian's Diatessaron).

Further, if GTh included elements that showed up in the post-canonical literary transmission process (e.g. textual elements in 2nd century writings, compilations, and Coptic translations), this would show its dependence on the literary products--not just the oral tradition.

So, let's see what we can find of these...

Usage of passages (traditions) UNIQUE to an individual gospel. [data from SHJ:498]

The material unique to Matthew is called "special M" in the literature. It refers to material available to Matthew (and used by him) that does NOT show up in Mark, Luke, or John. There are many passages in GTh that cite/refer to this Special M:

Matt 5.10--GTh 69a
Matt 5.14--GTh 32 (=POxy1.7)
Matt 6.2-4--GTh 6,14 (= POxy654.6)
Matt 6.3--GTh 62
Matt 7.6--GTh 93
Matt 10.16--GTh 39
Matt 11.30--GTh 90
Matt 13.24-30--GTh 57
Matt 13.44--GTh 109
Matt 13.45-46--GTh 76
Matt 13.47-50--GTh 8
Matt 15.13--GTh 40
Matt 18.20--GTh 30 (= POxy1.5)
Matt 23.13--GTh 39, 102 (= POxy655.2)

This represents a close familiarity with Matthean tradition--either oral or written!

The material unique to Luke is called "special L" in the literature. It refers to material available to Luke (and used by him) that does NOT show up in Mark, Matthew, or John. There are several passages in GTh that cite/refer to this Special L:

Luke 11.27-28 + 23:29--GTh 79
Luke 12.13-14--GTh 72
Luke 12.16-21--GTh 63
Luke 12.49--GTh 10
Luke 17.20-21--GTh 3 (= POxy654.2), 113

This represents close familiarity with Lukan tradition--either oral or written.

There are also several passages in GTh that cite/refer to material in John :

John 1.9--GTh 24 (= POxy655.24)
John 1.14--GTh 28 (= POxy1.28)
John 4.13-15--GTh 13
John 7.32-36--GTh 38 (= POxy655.38)
John 8.12; 9.5--GTh 77

This represents close familiarity with Johannine tradition--probably written [so R. E. Brown and Meier, MJ:1.136-137].

"A major problem with viewing the Gospel of Thomas as independent of the intracanonical Gospels is the presence of a significant amount of material that is distinctive to Matthew ("M"), Luke ("L"), and John...If Thomas really does represent an early, independent collection of material, then how is one to explain the presence of so much M, L, and Johannine material?...It is much more likely that the presence of M, L, and Johannine elements in Thomas indicates that the latter, at least in its extant Coptic form, has been influenced by the New Testament Gospels." [SHJ:498-499].

THE NET: the presence of M, L, and Johannine elements is strong evidence for literary dependence on the canonical gospel writings!

The use of the gospel authors' redactional elements by the GTh. [data: SHJ.499ff; MJ:1.135f]

These elements look like idiosyncrasies of the individual authors in how that 'modified' the sources they used. Word changes, omissions, etc. illustrate this redactional process.

GTh's use of Matthean redactional elements.

Matt 15.13--GTh 40 (may be a redaction; listed above as well)
Matt 13.24-30--GTh 57 (may be a redaction; listed above as well)
(Similarly, Mt 11.28-30 and 7.6 above)
GTh 34b uses Matthew's wording in Matt 15.11(instead of Mark's) in the Triple-Tradition passage.
GTh 99 uses Matthew's wording in Matt 12.50 (instead of Mark's) in the Triple-Tradition passage.
Matthew's unique juxtaposition of alms, prayer, fasting (6.1-8) appears to be echoed in GTh 6 ( = POxy654.6), 14.
GTh 33 uses Matthew's precise wording of a Marcan or Q tradition (on preaching from housetops)

This argues that GTh was familiar with the FINAL literary form of Matthew's gospel!

GTh's use of Lukan redactional elements.

Luke 8.17 "redacts" Mark 4.22, and this final form shows up in GTh 5-6, with the Greek parallel in POxy654.5 matching Luke's exactly.
GTh 10 influenced by Luke 12.49
GTh 14 influenced by Luke 10.8-9
GTh 16 influenced by Luke 12.51-53
GTh 55 and 101 influenced by Luke 14.26-27
GTh 73-75 influenced by Luke 10.2

This argues that GTh was familiar with the FINAL literary form of Luke's gospel!

Together, this data argues quite powerfully that GTh drew heavily and widely from the final literary products of Matthew and Luke.

The WIDE and VARIED usage of all the sources.

Thus, the GTh cites/refers to/is influenced by the following sources/traditions:

Q (obviously)
special M
special L
written John
Matthean redactional elements
Lukan redactional elements
Triple-Tradition (material shared in all three Synoptics)
parable of the sower (Saying 9)
parable of the mustard seed (Saying 20)
parable of the murderous tenants of the vineyard (Saying 65)

The force of this wide a range of reference is staggering. Meier states it pointedly [MJ:1. 137]:
We arrive, then, at an intriguing picture: the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that resemble sayings found in the canonical Gospels are not simply parallels to the Q material. Besides many Q sayings, there is a good deal of special M material, a fair representation of special L material, indications of Matthean and Lucan redactional traits, some pericopes from the triple tradition (though not necessarily in the specific Marcan form), some possible redactional traits from Mk, and a few parallels to statements in John's Gospel. This broad "spread" of Jesus' sayings over so many different streams of canonical Gospel tradition (and redaction!) forces us to face a fundamental question: Is it likely that the very early source of Jesus' sayings that the Gospel of Thomas supposedly drew upon contained within itself material belonging to such diverse branches of 1st-century Christian tradition as Q, special M, special L, Matthean and Lucan redaction, the triple tradition, and possibly the Johannine tradition? What were the source, locus, and composition of this incredibly broad yet very early tradition? Who were its bearers? Is it really conceivable that there was some early Christian source that embraced within itself all these different strands of what became the canonical Gospels? Or is it more likely that the Gospel of Thomas has conflated material from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, with possible use of Mark and John as well? Of the two hypotheses I find the second much more probable, especially given all we have seen of such conflating tendencies in other 2d-century Christian documents. Indeed, it may even be that the Gospel of Thomas is directly dependent not on the four canonical Gospels, but on some conflation of them that had already been composed in Greek.
Blomberg is more succinct, but no less forceful in drawing the implications of this [JUF:23]:
Parallels emerged in Thomas to every one of the four Gospels and to every "layer" of the Gospel tradition--that is, to material common to all three Synoptic Gospels, information from "Q"..., and traditions unique to each of the four Gospels. It seems unlikely that every Gospel and every Gospel source would independently use Thomas at an early date; rather, it is far more probable that Thomas knew and relied upon the later fourfold Gospel collection.
This WIDE and VARIED use of the Gospel sources argues powerfully for literary dependence on the ENTIRE collection of canonical gospel writings.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the Coptic version of GTh SEEMS to reflect the 2nd-century milieu in many ways (arguing that it was a post-canon phenomenon).

The distinctives of the Coptic version parallels alterations of the Gospel tradition found in later 2nd- through 4th-century documents, including Coptic translations of the Gospels. [JUF:24]

Other distinctives parallel the development of the Diatessaron in the late 2nd century [JUF:24]

The freedom of citation and interpretation fits the 2nd-century tendency to produce the Christian equivalent to Jewish targum and midrashim (MJ:1.131)

"Indeed, if the Gospel of Thomas used all Four Gospels, the frequency with which each Gospel is used would roughly mirror what we see throughout the rest of 2d-century Christian literature: of the Synoptics, Matthew is used most often, then Luke, and least of all Mark. Before the time of Irenaeus, John stands to one side, and in some writings we have at best weak echoes rather that clear citations or allusions. The tendency to conflate, reorder, and paraphrase Gospel sayings is likewise common to the 2d century. Thus, rather than diverging from the common pattern of 2d-century Christian literature, Thomas by and large conforms to it." [MJ:1.139]

The NET: the GTh looks like a 2nd-century document--in content, provenance, usage of sources.

The cumulative weight of the above is formidable! The evidence for GTh's dependence on the finished literary works (and maybe even subsequent derivative works like the Diatessaron) of the Gospels is so strong as to render all speculation to the contrary rather vacuous.

Just to finish this off, let me cite a few summary statements of modern scholars who hold this mainstream position...

Summary statements by scholars/reviewers:

The standard assessment until recently has been that GosThom is essentially dependent upon the canonical Gospels and thus does not represent a significant independent source for new knowledge about Jesus (Boyd in CSSG:53)
No doubt there is independent tradition in Thomas as well, but the bulk of the material seems to have its origin in the canonical Gospels. (Snodgrass, cited in CSSG:134)
...ever since the 1964 landmark study of Wolfgang Schrage, much of German scholarship has been convinced that Thomas is largely dependent upon the canonical gospels. (CSSG:134)
Since I think that the Synoptic-like sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are in fact dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and that the other sayings stem from 2nd-century Christian gnosticism, the Gospel of Thomas will not be used in our quest as an independent source for the historical Jesus. [ Meier, in A Marginal Jew, MJ1:139.
...it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the author of the Gospel of Thomas knew the New Testament gospels as they now stand, even though he may have quoted them fairly loosely. [BLOM:211]
To these may be added the impressive names of Chilton, Craig Evans, Charlesworth, Dehandshutter, Menard, Neirynck, Tuckett [for biblio, see CSSG: 333n19] and Grant, Gartner, Haenchen, Lindemann [for biblio, see SHJ:501n.53].

.................................................................................................... ..........................

Conclusions:

The GTh is late (150-200ad), not early (50-75ad). It dates from AFTER the completion and collation of the FourFold gospel.

The GTh may contain an authentic extra-biblical tradition or two (a subject we did NOT discuss here--for discussion, see JUF:217ff, Hofius in GAG:336-360), but by and large is dependent on ALL the canonical gospels in their finished form.

Since it appears in history 100-150 years later than the alleged Sayings Document called "Q", its value to demonstrate the existence of such a genre as "Sayings Document" is negligible. As a late document, is looks more like popular theme books of today--"The Parables of Jesus" or "The Gaililean Miracles"--subsets of the Gospel data for specific purposes, as opposed to a comprehensive statement of the "gospel". (The use of "gospel" at the end of the document carries precious little weight in this regard, since by this time the gospel genre had been so stretched by the flood of apocryphal gospels as to be meaningless.)

The fact that this single document can witness to the general availability of the Fourfold gospel in the mid-late 2nd century has implications for canonical studies. It demonstrates that the Fourfold gospel was accepted as the ONLY authoritative source for teaching--by the very fact that its citations were predominantly from those gospels! And the fact that the four gospels were available to a single redactor at that time confirms the rather rapid and frequent distribution and exchange of Christian literature in the period (cf. BREC:82ff).

To the Christian, this bare-bones gnostic "How to work your way to heaven" document should remind us vividly of the completeness of God's provision for our salvation in Christ. He broke into history, joined our "matter" in solidarity, and MADE a way--not just SHOWED a way! He "shrank not back from death" and did MORE than just reveal truth; He also unleashed grace (John 1!).

Glenn Miller, 8/24/96

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian ThinkTank...[http://www.christian-thinktank.com] (Reference Abbreviations)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAAWA

23-08-2004, 19:47

The christian version of satan, you mean.
Of course I mean the Christian version of Satan. Would you rather I talk about the Zaroasterian evil deity that is the opposite of their good deity? There are many similar concepts of evil. But when you say Satan, you are refering to the uniquely Christian concept of a being that has fallen from grace to be consumed with evil.
No, the jews have satan as well. It's just not the christian version. Again...

Check out Numbers 22. You'll find an interesting word in there.
God created Lucifer, the leader of heavenly worship. But he did not create Satan, the deceiver who spreads evil.
If god didn't create satan, then god didn't create everything, which violates xer doctrine.

Then we have, again, Numbers 22.

Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel
22 God's anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the road as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23The donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; so the donkey turned off the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the donkey, to turn it back onto the road. 24Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. 25When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it scraped against the wall, and scraped Balaam's foot against the wall; so he struck it again. 26Then the angel of the LORD went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. 27When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it lay down under Balaam; and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. 28Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?
Tell me, do you know the word used in hebrew for that angel of the lord that stood as an adversary?

I'll give you a hint: begins with an "S" and ends with an "N" and has "ATA" in the middle.

Then why did god create evil?
Which is code for "you have to believe first, and then you will see, and the reason for this is otherwise we won't be able to fool you".
I'm not saying it isn't convienent. But that's the explaination given in the bible,
So what?

if you want to know why Christians believe that then look at the text upon which the belief is based. You cannot apply secular understanding to Christian Faith, just as you cannot apply Theology to Science.
Bullshit. You can apply secular understanding to the xer faith and realize that the xer faith is a load of dingo's kidneys.

BAAWA

23-08-2004, 19:48

BTW, God allowed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life. The forbidden fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge.
...of Good and Evil.

Brutanion

23-08-2004, 19:53

...of Good and Evil.

Either way, it's a metaphor for sentience.

Arenestho

23-08-2004, 19:54

1) Of course I mean the Christian version of Satan. Would you rather I talk about the Zaroasterian evil deity that is the opposite of their good deity? There are many similar concepts of evil. But when you say Satan, you are refering to the uniquely Christian concept of a being that has fallen from grace to be consumed with evil.
When I say Satan I refer to the Spiritual Satanist's view of Satan, the Bringer of Knowledge and good. You cannot say definately that God created anything or anyone, you can say it is your belief, but you can't say definately that your faith is the right one. Since there are many faiths that can't be proven definately all are right until they are proven wrong.

Satan is uniquely Christian??? So, who is HaSatan in the Old Testament? And Shaitan? Perhaps you have heard of Seth (Set)???
'Evil' deities exist in every single religion. Name similarities can be explained through Christianity's constant theft of other religions' practices.

...of Good and Evil.
Life is not necassarily Good and Knowledge is not Evil.

BAAWA

23-08-2004, 20:02

How do you suppose such a claim? We have three agreeing sources that are dated long before the Gospel of Thomas (which dates to 140 AD at VERY earliest; many of the pro-Thomas sources even say 200 AD). Moreover these sources were firsthand eyewitnesses or secondhand scribes; the Gospel of Thomas was written by a man who called himself Judas Thomas; we have no historical or traditional reference on who this was, where they got said information, etc. (this book was not even discovered, much less in circulation, until 1945). We have a single manuscript. This is next to over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the Gospels not to mention other documents supporting the authorship of them. There's absolutely no contest as to which texts are the more historically reliable.
The number of manuscripts of something means NOTHING.

Like say, if FOUR firsthand sources were documenting the ministry of Christ?
And where would those books be? Certainly you're not referring to the gospels, are you? None of them were written by firsthand sources.

The doctrine of the church was already being formalized by the Apostles within 20 years after the death of Christ; this we know from the early writings of Paul in his Epistles. Acts of the Apostles records the trail of ministry that began immediately after the death of Christ and Paul confirms it in his letters.
The trail of Paul's ministry.

Already in Paul's writings we see early creeds and refutations of false doctrine.
Like the doctrines the other apostles wanted, but Paul didn't like because he wanted to meld Mithraism with Judaism and preach to the gentiles, which the other apostles wanted none of.

For one thing, Josephus, in his work "Antiquities," records about Jesus (this is not from the traditional 11th century manuscripts that we know were tampered with; this is another earlier Arabic one from the 10th century one that is free from said tamperings):

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."
He's recording what xers told him. So what?

Tacitus in his work "Annals" also wrote of Pilate's punishment of Jesus and the results:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
So what?

Pliny the Younger also speak of Christianity within the first century (you can see the letters at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html ).
So what? He asks what to do about them.

(regarding the flood) We can see mass extinctions of sea life in the fossil record.
Yep. Doesn't show a flood.

We can see the dinosaurs wiped out rather rapidly without much plausible explanation.
Except for that large impact crator in the Yucatan.

We can see mammoths flash-frozen in polar ice which previously did not exist, considering the contents of the stomaches of said mammoths were of warm-climate plants.
Wrong.

The oldest current living beings on record are Bristlecone pine trees in the White Mountains in California, which incidentally date to about 4,000 years ago, when the flood would have taken place. We see flood myths constant throughout early cultures.
So what? Why do the Egyptian and Chinese flood stories speak of good and not a worldwide flood? Don't you also think that there would be flood stories given that most civilizations started by rivers?

That's the approximate date of Creation on the Biblical timeline (various calculations have been done and most come within a few hundred years of that). The flood is traditionally dated by scholars as about 4,400 BC.
By biblical scholars. Of course, archaeology records no such flood like that, save for the flooding of the Black Sea when the Bosporous and Dardenelles broke.

I haven't done such a thorough study of Egyptian history, frankly because the evidence from said times is very sketchy and requires a great deal of extrapolation (historians still disagree when many of the rulers during that time were ruling, or even if they overlapped reigns). So make your case, I'll listen. I've read over several articles which compare and constrast Biblical evidence with Egyptian history, one that pops to mind as rather thorough which I have bookmarked is this one (posted on a Christian website, written by an archeologist and published in an archeological magazine): http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/chronology_of_egypt_and_israel.html
No evidence of the plagues, flood, or nation of habiru being held as slaves in Egypt has ever been found. Read Israel Finklestein.

BAAWA

23-08-2004, 20:03

Either way, it's a metaphor for sentience.
No, it's about morality. Adam and Eve were created without a moral code, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents gaining a moral code.

BAAWA

23-08-2004, 20:05

Life is not necassarily Good and Knowledge is not Evil.
I was completing the name of the tree. Most people think it's just the Tree of Knowledge, but it's the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Neccesitie

23-08-2004, 20:07

have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?
Satans not allowed in heaven, but Christians believe that in the end days he will be forced to stay in hell..

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?
Earth is a fallen place, but it isn't hell.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?
The anti-christ will come up in the end times.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?
Heaven is being close to God's presense.. It's a place...Streets of Gold.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?
Satan was prideful, and wanted to be better than God, and rebelled against God.
6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?
We don't have to be eternally separated from God, and death isn't the end if you believe in Jesus.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?
God didn't write it with his owns hands, it was divenly inspired.. The stories were passed down verbally.. until someone wrote them down.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
He's not just in hell now... but I can't answer this one or #9

Help me with some questions

Peaonusahl

23-08-2004, 20:08

There is no good or evil. Thinking makes it so. -Hamlet

BastardSword

23-08-2004, 20:57

QUOTE=Arenestho]When I say Satan I refer to the Spiritual Satanist's view of Satan, the Bringer of Knowledge and good. You cannot say definately that God created anything or anyone, you can say it is your belief, but you can't say definately that your faith is the right one. Since there are many faiths that can't be proven definately all are right until they are proven wrong.

'Evil' deities exist in every single religion. Name similarities can be explained through Christianity's constant theft of other religions' practices.

Life is not necassarily Good and Knowledge is not Evil.[/QUOTE]
Actually I definately can say it is the right one.
That is not taking way from other religions, all of them have a bit of truth and things that come from God. It is just we have the most knowledge and peices of truth.
Sorry, it is the way it is.
It doesn't mean you are going to "hell" for following your church, far from it.
But it does mean you can't reach highest level of heaven without a lot of work since you don't even know rules you need to follow.
Don't worry Jesus is close enough looking to Heavenly Father, he will visit you in Terestrial or if you get the lower kingdom Telestrial.
Just think Sea Turtle (Celestrial, terestrial, telestrial.)

Knowledge is not evil, knowledge is truth, it is light, it is what Jesus was about.

Christian did not steal the "evil' diety or things like that: they stole them from Heavenly Father when he sent them down. Fragments of Heavenly Father's plan stuck in them and so they came up with a close replica in their own ways.

Christianity has lately gotten very bad and has fallen from its high horse. Filled with Right-wing people and other extremeist who are hypocrits like Pat Robersons Diamond mines (he attained illegally).
But that isn't to say its a bad religion, the ideals are good its the people who are doing them now that need a reformation of the original ideals of Jesus's Teaches and religion.
And yes, he made a religion.
Jesus according to Ephesians 4:11
And he gave apostles; some prophets; and some evangelist; and some, pastors and teachers.

There are those that believe Peter's successor as president of the Church that Christ had organized was Linus. In A.D. 79 Cletus succeed Linus, and then Clemt became the bishop of rome and the next successor in A.D. 90.

The most important question for the Catholioc Church is and was always:
Was the apostolic power transferred from Peter to Linus?
It is significant to notw that not all od the original Tweleve Apostles had died by this time. John the Beloved, for example, was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. While there, John recieved the Book of Revelation- a standard book n all Christian bibles -- which raises the an interesting and fundamental crucial question: If Linus was the head of the Churchand if he Succeeded Peter, why wasn't the Book of Revelation revealed through him? Why did it come through John, an Apostle in exile.
The answer is clear. The revealation came through John because he was the last living Apostle, the last man holding the keys and authority, as designated by the Savior Himself, of Apostleship. When God spoke to the Church, he thereforwe did so through His Apostle, John, on the Isle of Patmos. We do not belive the Lord would bypass John, who clearly has apostolic power, when speaking to the Church.
As significant as the individual ministries of Linus, Cletus, and Clement doubtless were, there is no evidence to suggest that these men continued to function as an authoritative Council of Twelve Apostles-- the administrative body that the Lord placed at the head of the earthly church He Himself organized. without authority and direction of the Council of Twelve Apostles, men began looking to other sources for doctrinal understanding, and asa result many plain and precious truths were lost.
Next Nicaea Creed and you know that was messed up.

The Dark Ages was the Great Apostofy spoken of by the bible that would come. It was through the Catholic Church forgetful mind (hopefullt good intenions though) that this was possible, Crusades, Inquisition, etc.
The light of the Fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including the authority of His holy Priesthood, was gone.

I know my church is the restitution of all things spoken in Acts 3:21,
Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints

Hawaiian Islands

26-08-2004, 07:08

Another question.

Who wrote the book of Genesis? Did some random hand fall from the sky and handed humans a book titled GENESIS?

Grave_n_idle

26-08-2004, 17:59

Another question.

Who wrote the book of Genesis? Did some random hand fall from the sky and handed humans a book titled GENESIS?

Or, and I realise this is going to sound wildly unlikely... maybe some religious scholar who wanted to record the oral traditions of his people?

Grave_n_idle

26-08-2004, 18:07

Grave 'n idle claims the Gospel of Thomas is early and reliable. I disagree, and here is why (cut and pasted, but good solid stuff):

Sorry about the massive excision... why didn't you just paste the link?

Copiosa Scotia

26-08-2004, 18:18

Dacowookies

26-08-2004, 18:22

why does everyone care so much?...nothing better to do with your lives..

Grave_n_idle

26-08-2004, 18:26

I don't claim to really know the answers to any of these questions, but I'll give them my best shot, based on what I've studied and heard.

1. Satan was not sent to Hell, as such. Rather, he was sent out of Heaven. He is in this world, and has power in it.

2. See above.

3. Once again, Satan has the power to affect this world. See the story of Job.

4. We can only hope that's what it's like. ;) No, seriously, I won't even try to guess what Heaven is like, as it's probably far beyond the comprehension of anyone on this planet.

5. Power and arrogance. Satan wanted to be God.

6. Yes. That's the gospel in a nutshell.

7. Hell is technically "where God is not," while Heaven is God's immediate presence. Where those two places are, geographically speaking, is anyone's guess.

8. God didn't literally write the book of Genesis, or any other book of the Bible. Rather, He inspired the authors of those books.

9. Who's to say He didn't? All of those other religions have some truth in them. Not the whole truth, but certainly some.

10. I don't know anything about Satanism.

While I am willing to accept Christianity as a religion - this is where we head into 'fairytale' land again... collecting disparate paragraphs about different people, and cobbling them together to create one super-ego 'baddy' for a religion that calims to be monotheistic, but desperately seeks duality.

Cast out of heaven? Sin of pride? No doubt talking snakes and singing stars are next...

Man, this 'abuse' of earlier scripture started when the early christians raped the Judaic texts, got more incestuous when the recently Mithraic later christians bastardised the canonical texts to date, plunged from gutter to sewer with the abortion-surgery of canonisation (upto) 300 years later - and continues with this "But-What-They-Really-Mean" wannabe christianity two millenia later.

Which verses did you have to patch together to get this story?

Or have you secretly been reading the book of Enoch?

Oh - and revelation contains a very detailed description of the geography of heaven - and it's all as mad as a barrel-full-of-monkeys.

Grave_n_idle

26-08-2004, 18:27

why does everyone care so much?...nothing better to do with your lives..

And that is like the 6th time I've seen you post in one of these 'christian' threads....

The Phoenix Rising

26-08-2004, 18:41

I have some question... Some are unanswered.

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?

The serpent tempted Adam and Eve influenced by Satan. Satan had not yet been cast into Hell

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

See above answer

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?

The Antichrist is not everywhere nor is it claimed in the Bible that he is.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?

No one knows for sure. It is described as Paradise - a perfect place.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?

Satan was jealous and wanted more power and recognition. He organized a rebellion against God and lost.

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

The sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. They were expelled to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life. Christ died for our sins - but you must believe He was the Savior to be forgiven. The Eternal Life gained from faith is the Eternal Life in Paradise and the Presence of God.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?{/quote]

Again, no one knows. Hell is described as a lake of fire and eternal torment in the Bible. I suspect both are on a different plane of existence.

[QUOTE=Hawaiian Islands]8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?

God did not write Genesis nor any other book of the Bible. God inspired Man to write down the history of creation and His Word.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?

God gave everyone free will - the choice to believe His Word or not. His Word was taught and spread around the world. One either chooses to believe or not. God only spoke with believers.

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?

Satanism is not really an organized religion. Those who claim to be such are kooks. And yes, those who turn away from God and embrace Satan will go to Hell. Anyone wishing to do so is an idiot.

Help me with some questions....

Hope that helped.

Leylsh

26-08-2004, 18:43

The Phoenix Rising

26-08-2004, 18:44

why does everyone care so much?...nothing better to do with your lives..

Because faith and religion are a big part of the lives of the majority of people on this planet.

Why do you care that we care so much? Nothing better to do with your life? :rolleyes:

No one here is pressuring you to convert or believe. If you don't believe - that is your choice. Just as it is ours to believe without snide, snotty-ass remarks from you.

Grave_n_idle

26-08-2004, 18:53

The serpent tempted Adam and Eve influenced by Satan. Satan had not yet been cast into Hell

See above answer

The Antichrist is not everywhere nor is it claimed in the Bible that he is.

No one knows for sure. It is described as Paradise - a perfect place.

Satan was jealous and wanted more power and recognition. He organized a rebellion against God and lost.

The sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. They were expelled to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life. Christ died for our sins - but you must believe He was the Savior to be forgiven. The Eternal Life gained from faith is the Eternal Life in Paradise and the Presence of God.

God did not write Genesis nor any other book of the Bible. God inspired Man to write down the history of creation and His Word.

God gave everyone free will - the choice to believe His Word or not. His Word was taught and spread around the world. One either chooses to believe or not. God only spoke with believers.

Satanism is not really an organized religion. Those who claim to be such are kooks. And yes, those who turn away from God and embrace Satan will go to Hell. Anyone wishing to do so is an idiot.

Hope that helped.

Out of interest, where did you get "Satan was jealous and wanted more power and recognition. He organized a rebellion against God and lost" from?

Satanism is not "Really an organized religion"..?

http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

Perhaps if you did the tiniest amount of research before you posted...

Christianity is not really an organised religion... I mean, the Baptists can't even agree with the Methodists, and they BOTH think the Catholics are crazy...

Grave_n_idle

26-08-2004, 18:58

The Phoenix Rising

26-08-2004, 21:18

http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

Perhaps if you did the tiniest amount of research before you posted...

First of all there is no reason for you to be such a snotty jerk. I did nothing nor did I say anything to YOU to deserve it. Your condescending attitude does not make you look intelligent nor cool.

I have done research. A bunch of idiots proclaiming something to be a religion does not make it so. There is a church of the twinkie as well - doesn't make it real. http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pointe/6500. And let's not forget the religion founded on a wager - Scientology. There are many people who claim to be founders, creators, etc. of "religions" and they even get tax exempt status. Regardless, they are not true religions as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Asatru and Buddism.

Anton le Vey was a crackpot. People have been "worshipping" Satan as long as there have been people.

As for my information on Satan, Christianity, etc - maybe you should do the tiniest bit of research. I recommend you try the Nag Hammadi library, the Torah and the Gnostic writings in addition to the Bible for the true histories of the Judaic and Christian religions.

The Phoenix Rising

26-08-2004, 21:34

I'll make it easy for you. Find some evidence of Exodus. From a non-Jewish, non-biblical source. We'll start there. Get back to me when you can prove that one event.

http://www.mahoneymedia.com/exodus/AboutSeries/Index.html

Watch this documentary - or read the book. Archaeological and scientific evidence - not theories from unbiased sources - that the Exodus did happen and Moses did exist.

Also, if you bothered to do any research on Egypt, you would know that when a ruler or member of the royal family (as Moses was when adopted by the Pharoah's sister) was loved and then vilified by the ruling family and populace, all traces of them were destroyed. All monuments, all hieroglyphics referring to them, statues - everything - as if they never existed.

imported_NightHawk

26-08-2004, 21:44

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?
A-Satan hasnt been sent to hell yet, he has been kicked out of heaven for the time being, he wont be sent to hell until after Jesus has ruled the world for 1000 years.(see the last couple of chapters of Revelation

2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?
A- See above answer. Satan has been banished to the earth for a time

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?
A- we dont know who Antichrist is yet, but he will be a world leader

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?
A- See the last chapters of Revelation to know what heaven will be like

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?
A- Pride

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?
A-You have to make the decision to accept Jesus

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?
Good question, i dont know

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?
A- Technically the person who actually put the book of Genesis onto paper(or tablets i guess)was Moses.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?
A-Because he didnt

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
A-Satanists think sin is a good thing and so they indulge in many worldy pleasures. A little know fact is that many Satanists are unhappy and suicide rates are high among Satanists

I hope this answers your questions. If you have anymore questions. Email me at RTHAWK12@aol.com with the title of the email being bible questions

Poetic Moose

27-08-2004, 03:18

Nice going Rhyno D

Hawian Islands: good job asking all these questions! Ryhno D knows what he/shes talking about. Still, you need to read the Bible and find a church to help you figure Christianity out. Some people on this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, so i would strongly advise you to read the scriptures provided, and check out everything people say, without just accepting it as true. Hey, send me a telegram sometime!

Thanks.
Yeah, you need to read through the bible, and actually read the verses people reference to. Mainly, you need to find a church. Now, that won't help you as much as you'd think, because of the many many different interpretations. My suggestion to you would be to try out a few churches, and do some reading of the Bible, maybe some other books (I recommend C.S. Lewis).
Now, if you're going to do this, you MUST keep an open mind. There will be churches that will make human sacrifices look decent and humane, but we're all human, so just know that not all places are like that. And when you read the Bible, know that it probably won't make sense to you. The Bible was written mainly for those who have already accepted it. In fact, I think there's a verse that says that the Bible doesn't make sense to nonbelievers. That being said, you can still get some stuff out of it, if only answers to the easier questions. If you are really interested, you need to talk to Christians. AIM: insane3rhyno if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them if I can. If you don't have AIM or just don't like it, email me, telegram me, whatever.
Again, the key here is open mind. If you come with the mindset of only trying to debunk and punch holes, then you won't get anything out of it. I'm not telling you to accept everything instantly and without question, but just know that if you don't want to accept it, you're not going to, so just be open minded.

BTW, Oops, posted with the wrong nation...

Grave_n_idle

27-08-2004, 03:31

First of all there is no reason for you to be such a snotty jerk. I did nothing nor did I say anything to YOU to deserve it. Your condescending attitude does not make you look intelligent nor cool.

I do not consider that I was a snotty jerk. I consider that you set yourself up as some kind of expert, proceded to run roughshod over the questions without any evidence, and with considerable evidence against you... and then, to top it all off, argued that anyone who followed a 'different path' to you was a "kook" or "idiot"

<Those who claim to be such are kooks. And yes, those who turn away from God and embrace Satan will go to Hell. Anyone wishing to do so is an idiot.>

I have done research. A bunch of idiots proclaiming something to be a religion does not make it so. There is a church of the twinkie as well - doesn't make it real. http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pointe/6500. And let's not forget the religion founded on a wager - Scientology. There are many people who claim to be founders, creators, etc. of "religions" and they even get tax exempt status. Regardless, they are not true religions as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Asatru and Buddism.

Actually - I believe a bunch of idiots claiming something is a religion DOES make it so. Once you get that 'tax exempt' status, you are an official religion - even without it - you can still be a religion if you have a religious belief.

Incidentally - as a bastardised offspring of the Judaic faith, and - considering that Jesus dd not even fulfill the requirements of 'messiah', I would argue that Christianity isn't a 'real' religion either. I guess the same goes for Islam - although at least they don't claim the whole 'zombie king' thing.

Anton le Vey was a crackpot. People have been "worshipping" Satan as long as there have been people.

Well done. First - 'satan' is a christian artifact, so cannot have been being worshipped "as long as there have been people" - but, more importantly, you have just validated satanism as a religion.

As for my information on Satan, Christianity, etc - maybe you should do the tiniest bit of research. I recommend you try the Nag Hammadi library, the Torah and the Gnostic writings in addition to the Bible for the true histories of the Judaic and Christian religions.

Interesting that you assume that I haven't already seen those sources.

You do realise that there were other religions before Christianity, right? Before Judaism, even? Stop looking at such a tiny fraction and pretending it's the whole picture.

Poetic Moose

27-08-2004, 03:31

I just had a thought about this, so:
6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?

Death here, as I, and others have said, is not just a physical death, but a spiritual death.
Now, either way, death is not a penalty, per se, it is just the way things are. We take for granted that all things die. It just happens. It's like saying the sky is blue...it just is.
Now, in Genesis, there were two trees, the Tree of Knowledge... and the Tree of Life. The life tree was what gave them eternal physical life. They were thrown from the garden, so they couldn't eat from the tree, so now they die.
Now, spiritual death: many people think that hell is a sort of "or else." They think that God is saying "Love me, or else!!!" But that's not how it is. Hell is not a punishment, it is simply the other choice. You have a choice to follow God, or a choice not to. God respects that. But, in making the choice to not follow God, that means that when you die physically, you can never be with God, which puts you in hell. Aiera, a friend who helped with the one uberlong questions thread, described hell as basically being away from God. There is this torment of knowing that you can never, ever, be with God. This is true. In any case, hell is not punishment, it simply is a place that you go when you don't go to Heaven.
So, going to heaven is a gift. It isn't something you deserve, it isn't your natural right, it is a gift. You should go to hell. But, God is gracious, and is trying to give you the gift of heaven. Thing is, you can only get a gift if you are willing to accept it. You have the option to not go to hell, but you have to chose to not go to hell.
Now, to do that, you must accept Jesus, and his sacrifice. And that means fully accepting him. You can't just say, "Yeah, don't want to go to hell, so yeah, Jesus, come forgive me." You have to want to be forgiven. You have to actually be sorry. This is connected to the faith/works arguement. You can claim to have faith all you want, but you can't back it up with actions (which speak louder than words), than what does your faith mean? You can't just claim to believe Jesus, you have to prove to him that you do, by accepting him into your life, and giving it to him.

Grave_n_idle

27-08-2004, 03:36

Thanks.
Yeah, you need to read through the bible, and actually read the verses people reference to. Mainly, you need to find a church. Now, that won't help you as much as you'd think, because of the many many different interpretations. My suggestion to you would be to try out a few churches, and do some reading of the Bible, maybe some other books (I recommend C.S. Lewis).
Now, if you're going to do this, you MUST keep an open mind. There will be churches that will make human sacrifices look decent and humane, but we're all human, so just know that not all places are like that. And when you read the Bible, know that it probably won't make sense to you. The Bible was written mainly for those who have already accepted it. In fact, I think there's a verse that says that the Bible doesn't make sense to nonbelievers. That being said, you can still get some stuff out of it, if only answers to the easier questions. If you are really interested, you need to talk to Christians. AIM: insane3rhyno if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them if I can. If you don't have AIM or just don't like it, email me, telegram me, whatever.
Again, the key here is open mind. If you come with the mindset of only trying to debunk and punch holes, then you won't get anything out of it. I'm not telling you to accept everything instantly and without question, but just know that if you don't want to accept it, you're not going to, so just be open minded.

BTW, Oops, posted with the wrong nation...

Just can't stop preaching... so, you're actually using the forum here SPECIFICALLY to witness and save souls? Just checking...

BAAWA

27-08-2004, 03:42

The sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

They "sinned" by doing what was necessary to learn what sin is. They gained a moral code, and in doing so apparently caused god to be angry. Now why would god be angry over adam and eve learning right from wrong?

Grave_n_idle

27-08-2004, 03:46

http://www.mahoneymedia.com/exodus/AboutSeries/Index.html

Watch this documentary - or read the book. Archaeological and scientific evidence - not theories from unbiased sources - that the Exodus did happen and Moses did exist.

Also, if you bothered to do any research on Egypt, you would know that when a ruler or member of the royal family (as Moses was when adopted by the Pharoah's sister) was loved and then vilified by the ruling family and populace, all traces of them were destroyed. All monuments, all hieroglyphics referring to them, statues - everything - as if they never existed.

Well, I've not read the book or seen the show - but the advertisement itself says that it is hypothetical, and you have to make your own decision whether or not his 'evidence' is fictional.

Preaching to the choir, my friend. I have done the research... but you are subtly wrong, aren't you... only the names were defiled - most of the time - since they believed that you would live forever so long as your name was remembered. And even then, it was usually only on physical objects like statues or wall inscriptions.

Ever questioned the fact that Moses isn't an Egyptian name? The Hebrew supposedly raised by Egyptians wouldn't have had a Hebrew name. And if you assume that the name came later (i.e. the Hebrews stole the name from Egypt, from an already established figure) then the Egyptian parallel would most likely by {M'ses} - which just means "Born".

The Hebrews perpetuated a history of fiction because they couldn't read heiroglyphic writing, and they assumed no-one else ever would. And for nearly 3000 years, they were right.

The most likely basis for 'Exodus' is very different to the Bible version - try looking into the Hyksos dynasty.

Grave_n_idle

27-08-2004, 03:50

I just had a thought about this, so:

Death here, as I, and others have said, is not just a physical death, but a spiritual death.

The Hebrew word used is 'Muwth', which means "To die, kill, or have one executed" - and can be used especially to refer to someone dying early.

According to the text, that's a physical death. make up your own interpretation if you want, but you can't argue with the text.

Arenestho

27-08-2004, 05:31

The Phoenix Rising, Satanism is an organised religion, there is a Satanic Bible (several actually), entire cultures who follow Lucifer (the Yezidi, who existed long before Christianity was born), I can call Christianity a cult, there is nothing to say it is a true religion by what you've said; we are not kooks; we embrace Hell as paradise, not the illusion created by God to scare people into becoming Christian sheeps. LaVey was a good man, he missed a lot of Satanism, but he wasn't a crackpot either. You are right that people have been following Satan since the beginning of time, but not the Christian Satan who is a fabrication and a lie, to again scare people into becoming Christian sheeps. Who is to say that the Bible is the indefinite truth? According to that Christians are a bunch of genocidal, sinful, animal, virgin and other blood sacrificing death cultists.

A-Satanists think sin is a good thing and so they indulge in many worldy pleasures. A little know fact is that many Satanists are unhappy and suicide rates are high among Satanists
Right at the beginning. Wrong on the other. Suicide rates are not high among real Satanists, who frown heavily on suicide, we aren't a death cult like Christianity. Many Satanists enter unhappy, we become happy as we break the shackles of abstinence and embrace all that life has to offer. I say this from experience, I was a pathetic wreck before following Lucifer's teachings, I feel much more confident, powerful and in general happier now.

Willamena

27-08-2004, 05:33

I have some question... Some are unanswered.

Well, it's good to know you quizzed us knowing at least some of the answers. ;-)

1. I thought Satan was sent to Hell... How did he deceive Adam and Eve?
2. If Satan was sent to Hell and was able to deceive Adam and Eve... Is Earth, Hell?

It was the serpent entwined in the tree, not Satan, who brought enlightenment to mankind by encouraging them to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and so raise their level of consciousness. The tree was a great pillar that united Heaven and Earth. The serpent lived within the tree, an animating spirit and guardian of the treasure (fruit) it contained.

The story of Adam and Eve's adventure in the garden is a metaphor for mankind's evolution from a state of harmony with nature to a duality that places mankind apart from nature. Before they ate the fruit, mankind was not conscious of themselves as anything more than a part of nature. Afterwards they had self-awareness and thoughts arose --thoughts of life and physical love (sex), and thoughts of pure love (god). They were able to make value judgements and, more importantly, choices. Their consciousness was animated; they came to life. ("Eve" means "life".)

Hell isn't a part of this story.

3. If the Anti-Christ is every where, and does not want to be seen... Who gave him the power to 'not be seen'? If Satan did, then who gave him his power?
It is mankind who gives these concepts their power over him.

4. What is heaven actually like?! Fluffy clouds, with Naked Hot Girls in Wings (angels)?
Heaven, like the Garden of Eden, is a frame of mind, one in which we experience eternal bliss.

5. Why would Satan betray God? Did Satan betray him for a purpose?
Actually, it was God who betrayed Satan by sending Michael to kill it so that he could initiate a new order of creation. You see, Satan, the serpent, the dragon, is the equivalent of Tiamat, the Babylonian version of the Neolithic Mother Goddess (albeit with a gender change). I guess you could say, Satan is God's mother. ;-) Substituting Michael for Marduk, Satan for Tiamat, and a host of fallen angels for her host of demons, you get the same story as was told in Babylon, in another form...

"And there was a war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his demons; And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven.
"And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev 12:7-9)"

6. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the Tree of Life, and the penalty is Death. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, wouldn't the penalty of Death be gone?
Death is not a penalty but a fact of life. Remember, it was Eve ("life") who "brought about" death for mankind in the story of Adam and Eve --Eve is an aspect of the Mother Goddess of Life and Death, a remanent of the earlier Neolithic religion where life and death are a unity, inseparable. Life is born from death, and in turn dies so that new life can be born, just like the serpent (one of her icons) crawls out of its skin and is "born" again.

"Sin" is defined by Catholics as a turning away from God. If we understand God as an aspect of ourselves, a concept of mind/heart/soul, then "sin" is turning ourselves away from our conscience --this equates to doing things that cause us to feel guilt, that cause grief, that are contrary to a healthy mind. Jesus died for our sins, taking the burden of all our guilt onto himself --in essence, forgiving us so that we can move past the guilt and get on with fixing the things we did wrong, that caused us to feel guilty in the first place --make amends, as it were.

7. Where is Hell, exactly? Down there? How about Heaven? UP there?
Heaven and Hell are states of mind. They are in each of us. I guess you could say Heaven is bliss, and Hell is being tormented by guilt.

8. If God wrote the book of Genesis, how'd if get into our hands?
God is in us.

9. If God had communicated to some people on Earth, why didn't he do that to Siddartha (Founder of Buddism) or the rest of the 'false' religions?
Buddha-consciousness is the awareness of self. "Worlds above, worlds below --there is no one in the world like me."

10. How was the religion of Satanism formed? I thought Satan was the Devil and is in Hell. So does that mean Satanists want to go to HELL?
I don't know. Satan was banished to Earth, though, not Hell.

Arenestho

27-08-2004, 05:42

"Sin" is defined by Catholics as a turning away from God. If we understand God as an aspect of ourselves, a concept of mind/heart/soul, then "sin" is turning ourselves away from our conscience --this equates to doing things that cause us to feel guilt, that cause grief, that are contrary to a healthy mind. Jesus died for our sins, taking the burden of all our guilt onto himself --in essence, forgiving us so that we can move past the guilt and get on with fixing the things we did wrong, that caused us to feel guilty in the first place --make amends, as it were.
Then why is lust viewed as being sinful, it is something that we are meant to do, it goes against our conscience to not be lusty. Same with pride, envy, gluttony, greed and anger/wrath. I still view Sloth as a sin.

Other than that I find what you say reasonable. I'm glad you decided not to comment on Satanism, I have no idea how many times I had to repeat myself.

Willamena

27-08-2004, 06:25

Then why is lust viewed as being sinful, it is something that we are meant to do, it goes against our conscience to not be lusty. Same with pride, envy, gluttony, greed and anger/wrath. I still view Sloth as a sin.

Other than that I find what you say reasonable. I'm glad you decided not to comment on Satanism, I have no idea how many times I had to repeat myself.
It doesn't go against my conscience not to be lusty, but that's just me. :-)

One explanation is that lust is sinful because it is a hold-over from the Mother Goddess religion of "free love", where priestesses were prostitutes and temples were brothels. Can't have any of that old-time religion hanging around. It was a religion where life (and the propagation of it) was exalted, and the old ways had to be negated so that people would turn to the "true" religion. The old "gods" were to be repressed in favour of one God (one ring to rule them all).

Lust is natural, you are right. After the rise of the pantheons, the paegan religions worshipped aspects of nature as deities. Let's see what the old gods represented (I'll use their familiar Roman names and their astrological symbolism): there was Venus (body/love) and Mars (intent/assertion), the Sun (ego/self/life) and the Moon (soul/death), Jupiter (expansion), Saturn (inhibition) and your old pal Lucifer-Mercury (mind/intellect). The seven "deadly" sins just happen to match the down-side of the planetary symbolism: Venus (lust), Mars (anger/wrath), the Sun (pride) and the Moon (envy), Jupiter (gluttony), Saturn (sloth), and Mercury (greed). These down-sides, too, are active astrological symbolism for the planets. It is all in an effort to repress the old ways, in this case astrology-divination.

Oddly enough lust, anger, pride, greed, envy, gluttony and sloth are all things that were contrary to conscience in the old religion, too. For example lust, in the form of rape: life-forms, those who brought about life, were respected, cherished and nurtured. And wrath, in the form of hatred: there is every indication, in both myth and archaeological evidence, that Mediterranean Neolithic cultures lived lives of peace and relative harmony with their neighbours. The Greeks refer to it as the "Golden Age" when Titans ruled, before the Gods were born.

Willamena

27-08-2004, 23:40

Lust is natural, you are right. After the rise of the pantheons, the paegan religions worshipped aspects of nature as deities. Let's see what the old gods represented (I'll use their familiar Roman names and their astrological symbolism): there was Venus (body/love) and Mars (intent/assertion), the Sun (ego/self/life) and the Moon (soul/death), Jupiter (expansion), Saturn (inhibition) and your old pal Lucifer-Mercury (mind/intellect).
Before any Satanist or such jump on me and point out that Lucifer is the planet Venus, I'll just point out that I am speaking of astrological planetary symbolism, not the actual planets in the sky. Yes, Lucifer was Venus, but symbolically Lucifer and Mercury were identical. Here is a site on alchemy that explains the symbolism of the 'animated spirit' spiritus sapiens quite well.
http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/alchemy%202.htm

Rhyno D

28-08-2004, 00:20

Just can't stop preaching... so, you're actually using the forum here SPECIFICALLY to witness and save souls? Just checking...

No, but I might as well do what I can. Check my other posts dude, I don't always preach. But should I just let people believe lies about the Bible and about God? Should I just let people go to hell when I have a perfectly good means of communicating the gospel to them?
And is there any reason why I shouldn't use the forum here SPECIFICALLY to witness and save souls?

Rhyno D

28-08-2004, 00:24

The Hebrew word used is 'Muwth', which means "To die, kill, or have one executed" - and can be used especially to refer to someone dying early.

According to the text, that's a physical death. make up your own interpretation if you want, but you can't argue with the text.
If you're going to live forever, wouldn't any death at all be premature?

Rhyno D

28-08-2004, 00:26

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

They "sinned" by doing what was necessary to learn what sin is. They gained a moral code, and in doing so apparently caused god to be angry. Now why would god be angry over adam and eve learning right from wrong?
He wasn't angry at them for learning right from wrong, he was angry because he told them not to.
And, it's not like it's a good thing. "Ignorance is bliss" and such. By knowing the difference, they can be held accountable, and would thus be sent to hell.

Rhyno D

28-08-2004, 00:27

It doesn't go against my conscience not to be lusty, but that's just me. :-)

One explanation is that lust is sinful because it is a hold-over from the Mother Goddess religion of "free love", where priestesses were prostitutes and temples were brothels. Can't have any of that old-time religion hanging around. It was a religion where life (and the propagation of it) was exalted, and the old ways had to be negated so that people would turn to the "true" religion. The old "gods" were to be repressed in favour of one God (one ring to rule them all).

Lust is natural, you are right. After the rise of the pantheons, the paegan religions worshipped aspects of nature as deities. Let's see what the old gods represented (I'll use their familiar Roman names and their astrological symbolism): there was Venus (body/love) and Mars (intent/assertion), the Sun (ego/self/life) and the Moon (soul/death), Jupiter (expansion), Saturn (inhibition) and your old pal Lucifer-Mercury (mind/intellect). The seven "deadly" sins just happen to match the down-side of the planetary symbolism: Venus (lust), Mars (anger/wrath), the Sun (pride) and the Moon (envy), Jupiter (gluttony), Saturn (sloth), and Mercury (greed). These down-sides, too, are active astrological symbolism for the planets. It is all in an effort to repress the old ways, in this case astrology-divination.

Oddly enough lust, anger, pride, greed, envy, gluttony and sloth are all things that were contrary to conscience in the old religion, too. For example lust, in the form of rape: life-forms, those who brought about life, were respected, cherished and nurtured. And wrath, in the form of hatred: there is every indication, in both myth and archaeological evidence, that Mediterranean Neolithic cultures lived lives of peace and relative harmony with their neighbours. The Greeks refer to it as the "Golden Age" when Titans ruled, before the Gods were born.

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Lust is natural like sin is natural. Just because everyone does it, it doesn't make it right. The whole "if everyone jumped off a bridge" thing.
To prove the point:
1 Corinthians 10:23
"Everything is permissible"–but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"–but not everything is constructive.