NationStates Jolt Archive

This is mostly a question for Christians, but if you want to answer then plz do.

Most of you know how God knows everything, is all powerful, etc. and how Satan was thrown out of Heaven because he had disobeyed God. God is going to eventually win according to the Bible.

Now then, Satan has been trying many things to try to disrupt God's plan. Now my question is this: Why would he try to do it if he's going to lose in the end? He knows he's going to lose because he has access to and does read the Bible. I'll put down as many options as possible plus an other collumn. If you have an other then plz tell us what the other is. If you don't have the faintest clue then there'll be one there also.

Also, if you have only something negative to say about Christianity, or any other religion, then take it to another thread. Stay within the paramaters that there is a God and that there is a Satan and that what the Bible says is true if your going to post.

He knows he's lost, but he is evil. Because of that evilness he wants to take as many humans with him as he wants to make hell a hell for as many people as possible. I would say his evil nature somehow means he may enjoy there being more people suffering with him. I dont know for certian though.

Satan is non-existent.

Satan is non-existent.

Or is he? Still, start your own thread plz about that.

He's trying to prove he does not exist, so that many will not have the impetus to wish to be saved in the first place.

This is mostly a question for Christians, but if you want to answer then plz do.

Most of you know how God knows everything, is all powerful, etc. and how Satan was thrown out of Heaven because he had disobeyed God. God is going to eventually win according to the Bible.

Now then, Satan has been trying many things to try to disrupt God's plan. Now my question is this: Why would he try to do it if he's going to lose in the end? He knows he's going to lose because he has access to and does read the Bible. I'll put down as many options as possible plus an other collumn. If you have an other then plz tell us what the other is. If you don't have the faintest clue then there'll be one there also.

Also, if you have only something negative to say about Christianity, or any other religion, then take it to another thread. Stay within the paramaters that there is a God and that there is a Satan and that what the Bible says is true if your going to post.

If you read the Old Testament - it is clear that 'satan' is part of the plan... he only does what he is told to do... for example, the temptation of Job - where 'god' tells 'satan' to test Job's faith.

"HaSatan" is the 'adversary' of man, not of god. He is the 'prosecution' in the trial of humanity.

This is mostly a question for Christians, but if you want to answer then plz do.

Most of you know how God knows everything, is all powerful, etc. and how Satan was thrown out of Heaven because he had disobeyed God. God is going to eventually win according to the Bible.

Now then, Satan has been trying many things to try to disrupt God's plan. Now my question is this: Why would he try to do it if he's going to lose in the end? He knows he's going to lose because he has access to and does read the Bible. I'll put down as many options as possible plus an other collumn. If you have an other then plz tell us what the other is. If you don't have the faintest clue then there'll be one there also.

Also, if you have only something negative to say about Christianity, or any other religion, then take it to another thread. Stay within the paramaters that there is a God and that there is a Satan and that what the Bible says is true if your going to post.

Won't we have to stay within the parameter that John Milton's Paradise Lost is true? I don't recall some of the stuff you're talking about being in the Bible.

If you read the Old Testament - it is clear that 'satan' is part of the plan... he only does what he is told to do... for example, the temptation of Job - where 'god' tells 'satan' to test Job's faith.

"HaSatan" is the 'adversary' of man, not of god. He is the 'prosecution' in the trial of humanity.

No, in Job Satan challenged God that Job would not remain faithful to God if God would remove his blessing. So God allowed Satan to do with Job's life what he would as long as he did not kill Job.

No, in Job Satan challenged God that Job would not remain faithful to God if God would remove his blessing. So God allowed Satan to do with Job's life what he would as long as he did not kill Job.

HaSatan comes before 'god' and 'god' tells him of his wonderous viruous servant, Job. HaSatan says that the ONLY reason that Job pays lip-service to 'god', is because 'god' has made sure nice things happen to Job...

HaSatan then suggests that Job wouldn't make such claims, if 'god' were not such a benevolent force in his life... so 'god' instructs HaSatan to go forth and torture Job, just so long as he doesn't 'harm' Job.

(Note: this is only in translation... the Hebrew seems to suggest that 'god' actually tells HaSatan something more along the lines of "I give you the power to 'put forth your hand', and HaSatan went forth from Jehovah's presence")

But - sticking with the English version - it is quite clear that HaSatan is discussing with god, as a subordinate (he has to explain where he has been Job 1:7), that 'god' starts the debate about how perfect Job is (Job 1:8), that HaSatan pleads that Job is a flawed creature, and that he is only CLAIMING love for god (Job 1:9-10), that HaSatan believes Job would turn his back on 'god' (Job 1:11), and that HaSatan is working on the express order of 'god' to inflict suffering on Job (Job 1:12).

It isn't a matter of HaSatan being 'allowed' to 'work evil'.

HaSatan is ORDERED (as a subordinate) to be the tool of testing on Job, he is the 'Adversary' of man.

Neo Cannen and Grave N Idle are both right.

Misery loves company. He figures, if he's goin' down, he might as well take as many people as he can with him.
Also, Satan is pretty much the opposite of God, so while God loves everyone and wants them to be happy, Satan loves only himself and wants everyone else to suffer...the best place to suffer is hell.

There's also a key theme in the Bible, that is living 1) for others, and 2) for the future in heaven, NOT living for the moment.
Satan, naturally, lives only for himself and for the moment. So he wants to have as much fun as he possibly can before he goes to hell. And his idea of fun just happens to be screwing the rest of us over.

But God uses Satan. God does not tell Satan what to do, but he does allow him to do certain things. The Bible says quite clearly that God does not tempt us. But, he DOES allow us to be tempted.
He allows us to be tempted so we can grow stronger in faith. The big example that I like is gold. For gold to be purified, it has to be put through fire. If you never go through trials, you can never grow, both spiritually and mentally...even physically! I mean, what is exercising? It's putting strain on your body, so in enduring the strain, it becomes stronger. Your muscles get microscopic tears in them, miniscule holes, that are filled with more muscle cells...
Satan wants to do his own thing, but God uses him for good. God has a great plan to use us, but we need to be strengthened first, through temptation. God will NEVER let you be tempted beyond what you can handle. He always provides a way out. So when we sin, it is our own fault. Satan probably knows he's being used, but what can he do about it? He can only do what God allows him to do. He wants to separate us from God, and he can only do that if God allows us to be tempted. We ruin God's plan when we sin, and it makes Satan dance with elation.

And who or what is "HaSatan"?

Who is satan?

In Judaism, Satan is mankinds evil incination, not an actual being. Therefore, he's trying to push us into the road of DAMNATION :eek:

And who or what is "HaSatan"?

The Adversary... "Satan" isn't a 'name', in the Hebrew... it is a 'title'... like someone might be called "the King", or "the Judge", or the "Prosecution" in a law case...

HaSatan is 'the Satan', the "adversary".

Which is why I argue against the New Testament interpretation of 'satan' as a 'person', especially compounded in Revelation. Even Jesus (when using the phrase "Satan") is either addressing one of the people around them...(calling them an adversary, and "dismissing" them... 'get thee behind me, satan'), or 'talking to' his own uncertainties.

The 'satan' of Revelation is two thousand years of accumulated theological confusion, bears NO resemblence to the Old Testament 'HaSatan' (which is WHY I use the term HaSatan - to show what I am referring to, conceptually) - and is much more akin to the Dualistic religions of the time, than to any logical extension of contemporary Judaism or early 'christianity'.

Depends on your interpretation of Satan. As I have always understood, Satan isn't really trying to accomplish anything; he knows he can't defeat God. But his pride won't let him come back to God and ask for forgiveness. Instead, he has to carry on his rebellion until the end of time; his pride won't let him do anything less than. And part of his rebellion could be considered ruining God's greatest creation, Earth [or for some, Mankind].

My way of thinking, anyway. Of course, I don't believe he exists, so my opinion doesn't really count!

This is mostly a question for Christians, but if you want to answer then plz do.

Most of you know how God knows everything, is all powerful, etc. and how Satan was thrown out of Heaven because he had disobeyed God. God is going to eventually win according to the Bible.

Now then, Satan has been trying many things to try to disrupt God's plan. Now my question is this: Why would he try to do it if he's going to lose in the end? He knows he's going to lose because he has access to and does read the Bible. I'll put down as many options as possible plus an other collumn. If you have an other then plz tell us what the other is. If you don't have the faintest clue then there'll be one there also.

Also, if you have only something negative to say about Christianity, or any other religion, then take it to another thread. Stay within the paramaters that there is a God and that there is a Satan and that what the Bible says is true if your going to post.

Originally, Satan desired to usurp God's throne/authority. Since the cross, he knows that isn't possible. All that's left is to go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Satan is out to hurt God and His children/the remanent/the saints/the church in any way he can.

Obviously people are having a hard time sticking to your subject.

Satan=the serpent=the dragon=Lucifer=the temptor=the lier=the father of lies=the devil=a murderer from the begining. If you want the exegetics on that, just ask, but it will take sometime before I can spell it out in detail.

Obviously people are having a hard time sticking to your subject.

Satan=the serpent=the dragon=Lucifer=the temptor=the lier=the father of lies=the devil=a murderer from the begining. If you want the exegetics on that, just ask, but it will take sometime before I can spell it out in detail.

Except in the Bible.

In fact, ignore Revelation (which wasn't even IN the original collection of scriptures, until Mithraism started getting popular with it's apocalyptic brand of prophetic texts), and there's pretty much NO good reason to connect those 'characters'.

Except in the Bible.

In fact, ignore Revelation (which wasn't even IN the original collection of scriptures, until Mithraism started getting popular with it's apocalyptic brand of prophetic texts), and there's pretty much NO good reason to connect those 'characters'.

Actually, there are many reasons, you just disagree with them and therefore call them something other than good reasons, just like I disagree with the
"good" reasons to believe that there is no God. You are entitled to disagree, but that doesn't make your or anyone else's analysis of scripture more or less valid than those who disagree with you.

As for the Mithraic content of Revelation, it is actually very rational for John to have used symbolism that was well know at the time to explain apocolyptic realities and in such a way as to avoid, as much as possible, the ire of the Roman army which was dominated by Mithraism. As for its cannonization, it's content is consistent with the previous teachings of the Bible, it's author was one of the apostle's writing to the churches, and it is reasonable that it be considered inspired.

Cannonization was not a gaurantee that all of scripture was preserved and that nothing was lost along the way, see Jude 14. That does not, however, invalidate that which is contained in the Cannon.

Actually, there are many reasons, you just disagree with them and therefore call them something other than good reasons, just like I disagree with the
"good" reasons to believe that there is no God. You are entitled to disagree, but that doesn't make your or anyone else's analysis of scripture more or less valid than those who disagree with you.

As for the Mithraic content of Revelation, it is actually very rational for John to have used symbolism that was well know at the time to explain apocolyptic realities and in such a way as to avoid, as much as possible, the ire of the Roman army which was dominated by Mithraism. As for its cannonization, it's content is consistent with the previous teachings of the Bible, it's author was one of the apostle's writing to the churches, and it is reasonable that it be considered inspired.

Cannonization was not a gaurantee that all of scripture was preserved and that nothing was lost along the way, see Jude 14. That does not, however, invalidate that which is contained in the Cannon.

I disagree that there are 'good' reasons to connect Satan and all the other 'malign' influences in the text. Examples like 'Lucifer' (an obvious reference to a planet preceding the sun, and it's extension into metaphor - based on Mesopotamian literature) are linked together - although OBVIOUSLY disparate elements - in Revelation... completely undermining the remainder of scripture... and creating a 'revisionist' history for the bible, which has a Duality, rather than a strict Monotheism.

In fact - ignoring Revelation for a second - it takes a real effort to try to combine most of those obviously unconnected characters... a willful intent.

Cannonization was not a gaurantee that all of scripture was preserved and that nothing was lost along the way, see Jude 14. That does not, however, invalidate that which is contained in the Cannon.

If canonisation DOESN'T guarantee that scripture was preserved and nothing was lost... then WHAT PURPOSE did it serve?

By your own admission, it was nothing more than the arbitrary selection of 'some scripture', then?

That DOES, in fact, invalidate the canon, I'm afraid.

Does anyone understand what the second option in this poll is supposed to mean? It doesnt seem very clear.

Won't we have to stay within the parameter that John Milton's Paradise Lost is true? I don't recall some of the stuff you're talking about being in the Bible.

In the Bible it talks about how Satan was cast out of Heaven because he started a revolution. Now then, Satan is called a counterfieter. The Anti-Christ in Revelation is Satan's "Christ". Satan can read the bible because when Jesus is in the wilderness Satan uses topics in the Bible to try to make Jesus disobey God.

Does anyone understand what the second option in this poll is supposed to mean? It doesnt seem very clear.

Here's what I mean: If Satan can get God to do what he wants by changing things then that means that Satan is more powerful. If he can't do that then he's going to try to make God unfaithful by making something that God promised impossible.

Hitler trying to exterminate the Jews was probably a similar case. If the Jews didn't exist then the Book of Revelation couldn't happen as it says it will. Therefore, God would be unfaithful.

Satan=Lucifer

Actually based upon texts on angels, Satan and Lucifer are not the same being. In fact, in some angelic texts Lucifer is not a fallen angel. And some people point out that Jesus is in some way representative of Lucifer since Lucifer translates to "bringer of light", which is alluded to in Luke and John.

Since "knowing satan exists" seems to be a requirement to post in this thread, why don't you guys go ask him?

If canonisation DOESN'T guarantee that scripture was preserved and nothing was lost... then WHAT PURPOSE did it serve?

By your own admission, it was nothing more than the arbitrary selection of 'some scripture', then?

That DOES, in fact, invalidate the canon, I'm afraid.

Firstly, if this isn't about what Satan is trying to do if he knows the end then plz take it someplace else.

Secondly, what is cannonism?

Thirdly, Revelation wasn't the last book to be added in. One of the Books of John were. So the Book of Revelation isn't fantasy.

Fourthly, many religions in the world are connected and have similar parts. Aztecs actually used virgins for heart-tearing ceremonies b/c they were the closest perfect thing. They knew that they had to kill something perfect or next to perfect for their sins but Satan perverted that and changed it into a god and rising of the sun. There are probably hundreds of examples but since we're here to talk about what Satan is trying to accomplish then take it to another thread.

Since "knowing satan exists" seems to be a requirement to post in this thread, why don't you guys go ask him?

Confer with demons? Let's see here...because he's out there to lie? Because he wouldn't talk to us? Because he'd try to make us unfaithful to God? Secondly, why would we want to talk to him? He wouldn't have anything productive to us to say anyways.

Actually based upon texts on angels, Satan and Lucifer are not the same being. In fact, in some angelic texts Lucifer is not a fallen angel. And some people point out that Jesus is in some way representative of Lucifer since Lucifer translates to "bringer of light", which is alluded to in Luke and John.

But wasn't Lucifer Satan's actually name in Heaven? I'd have to find the portion of text but I'm pretty sure Satan and Lucifer are they same ppl.

Here's what I mean: If Satan can get God to do what he wants by changing things then that means that Satan is more powerful. If he can't do that then he's going to try to make God unfaithful by making something that God promised impossible.

Hitler trying to exterminate the Jews was probably a similar case. If the Jews didn't exist then the Book of Revelation couldn't happen as it says it will. Therefore, God would be unfaithful.


OK. Then I have to ask, where did this silly idea come from?

OK. Then I have to ask, where did this silly idea come from?

Which one? The option or the thread?

Thread came from need for outside opinions.

Option since it sounded reasonable.

Confer with demons? Let's see here...because he's out there to lie? Because he wouldn't talk to us? Because he'd try to make us unfaithful to God? Secondly, why would we want to talk to him? He wouldn't have anything productive to us to say anyways.

So it's more helpful to sit around and speculate what Satan's motive is than go to the horses mouth?

So it's more helpful to sit around and speculate what Satan's motive is than go to the horses mouth?

Why would he tells us? Besides, one cannot serve two masters. Either you listen to God and try to stay away from Satan, or you listen to Satan and slowly get brought into his way of thinking.

So it's more helpful to sit around and speculate what Satan's motive is than go to the horses mouth?
Wouldn't he, by definition, lie?
Or something like that?

I'm no expert, so I don't claim to really know. Just throwing out an idea.

Wouldn't he, by definition, lie?
Or something like that?

I'm no expert, so I don't claim to really know. Just throwing out an idea.

Yes, he probably would unless you weren't a Christian. But by then, you'd be quite deep into his plan probably.

If giving information to you would help his plan then he will, but otherwise, I doubt it.

Wouldn't he, by definition, lie?
Or something like that?

I'm no expert, so I don't claim to really know. Just throwing out an idea.

I don't know really...I'm not a christian and I haven't read any of the literature. Except some of the icelandic folklore, we have plenty of stories about smartasses going around making pacts or bets with the devil and then betraying him... The devil is usually portrayed as arrogant, stupid but usually truthful in those stories.

I don't know really...I'm not a christian and I haven't read any of the literature. Except some of the icelandic folklore, we have plenty of stories about smartasses going around making pacts or bets with the devil and then betraying him... The devil is usually portrayed as arrogant, stupid but usually truthful in those stories.

Talk about conflict of ideas. One story says he's a nice guy, other story says he's out there simply to benefit himself. Quite the stark contrast.

Lol. Just noticed something. In the Icelandic folklore about Satan, he gets betrayed. Not the other way around.

Firstly, if this isn't about what Satan is trying to do if he knows the end then plz take it someplace else.

Secondly, what is cannonism?

Thirdly, Revelation wasn't the last book to be added in. One of the Books of John were. So the Book of Revelation isn't fantasy.

Fourthly, many religions in the world are connected and have similar parts. Aztecs actually used virgins for heart-tearing ceremonies b/c they were the closest perfect thing. They knew that they had to kill something perfect or next to perfect for their sins but Satan perverted that and changed it into a god and rising of the sun. There are probably hundreds of examples but since we're here to talk about what Satan is trying to accomplish then take it to another thread.

First: HaSatan in the Old Testament is NOT the same 'character' as 'Satan" in the New Testament, and neither is related to any of the other connections made by Revelation - THAT is the point.

If you want to discuss 'satan' and his purpose... you have to first of all decide WHO satan IS.

Second: 'Canonisation' was the process by which a group of 'christian' scholars decided, hundreds of years AFTER the events had taken place, which scriptures to collect together and make the 'bible'. There were dozens more scriptures, which have been left out. Some of the texts considered canonical were considered close to heretical pre-canonisation.

Try looking at the difference between a Catholic bible and a protestant bible - that gives you a clue.

Thirdly: There WAS no book of revelation, until 'christianity' started losing popularity to Mithraism... which HAD a book of apocalyptic prophecy....

Then, coincidentally... all of a sudden, a book of 'christian' apocalyptic prophecy turns up (very close in nature to the Mithraic text), and 'christianity' becomes the 'popular' choice. A little TOO supsicious for me to swallow.

Fourth: Actually - the Aztecs used to sacrifice almost anyone, but ESPECIALLY warriors... they fought wars SPECIFICALLY just to capture sacrifices. (I believe they called the 'garland wars'). Nothing about 'purity'... more about appeasing forces like Quetzocoatl.

The problem is - you are looking at 'satan' like a real entity... which is a flaw if you are SERIOUSLY questioning his 'place' in reality and the scheme of things. You have made your assumption already... that the 'satan' they teach at church is one, unified, real being. You are missing out on the roots of the 'satan' myth in Egyptian theology (As Seth), and of the 'serpent' character in Egyptian (Apepi) and Mesopotamian theologies...

I don't know really...I'm not a christian and I haven't read any of the literature. Except some of the icelandic folklore, we have plenty of stories about smartasses going around making pacts or bets with the devil and then betraying him... The devil is usually portrayed as arrogant, stupid but usually truthful in those stories.
Satan is capable of telling the truth. It's his best strategy...tell the truth so they trust you, then you lie.

Consider Eve...Satan told her that she would learn Good and Evil, like God...True.
Then he lied and told her she wouldn't die.

Talk about conflict of ideas. One story says he's a nice guy, other story says he's out there simply to benefit himself. Quite the stark contrast.

Lol. Just noticed something. In the Icelandic folklore about Satan, he gets betrayed. Not the other way around.

The devil is never a nice guy in those stories.
Typically the stories are about priests or scholars that make pacts with the devil, material gain or even simple chores (such as shoveling manure) in return for their soul. When the time to pay the devil comes, they usually play on his arrogance (Hey Satan, I bet you can't fit in this hole in the wall, *poof* The devil turns himself into a fly and flies into the hole. The priest puts a cork in the hole and voilá: the Devil is trapped untill he agrees not to take the guys soul. )

If you read the Old Testament - it is clear that 'satan' is part of the plan... he only does what he is told to do... for example, the temptation of Job - where 'god' tells 'satan' to test Job's faith.

"HaSatan" is the 'adversary' of man, not of god. He is the 'prosecution' in the trial of humanity.
That is sensible. I found this quote on a website, "Carol Newsome says that hasatan is 'One who defends a king's honor by zealously ferreting out hidden disloyalty'." That does describe the book of Job in a nutshell.

First: HaSatan in the Old Testament is NOT the same 'character' as 'Satan" in the New Testament, and neither is related to any of the other connections made by Revelation - THAT is the point.

If you want to discuss 'satan' and his purpose... you have to first of all decide WHO satan IS.

Second: 'Canonisation' was the process by which a group of 'christian' scholars decided, hundreds of years AFTER the events had taken place, which scriptures to collect together and make the 'bible'. There were dozens more scriptures, which have been left out. Some of the texts considered canonical were considered close to heretical pre-canonisation.

Try looking at the difference between a Catholic bible and a protestant bible - that gives you a clue.

Thirdly: There WAS no book of revelation, until 'christianity' started losing popularity to Mithraism... which HAD a book of apocalyptic prophecy....

Then, coincidentally... all of a sudden, a book of 'christian' apocalyptic prophecy turns up (very close in nature to the Mithraic text), and 'christianity' becomes the 'popular' choice. A little TOO supsicious for me to swallow.

Fourth: Actually - the Aztecs used to sacrifice almost anyone, but ESPECIALLY warriors... they fought wars SPECIFICALLY just to capture sacrifices. (I believe they called the 'garland wars'). Nothing about 'purity'... more about appeasing forces like Quetzocoatl.

The problem is - you are looking at 'satan' like a real entity... which is a flaw if you are SERIOUSLY questioning his 'place' in reality and the scheme of things. You have made your assumption already... that the 'satan' they teach at church is one, unified, real being. You are missing out on the roots of the 'satan' myth in Egyptian theology (As Seth), and of the 'serpent' character in Egyptian (Apepi) and Mesopotamian theologies...

Maybe you didn't hear me, the Book of Revelation was written before some of the Books of John. Also, Satan tends to pervert the truth to his own usage and don't go telling me that Satan came from Egypt. Most likely, it was the other way around.

Satan is Satan. Old or New. He still is a liar, a counterfieter, a tricky, slimy, snakish person.

Aztecs probably did sacrafice virgins for purity but since nobody alives is really going to know then oh well. The point however is that they knew something had to be sacrificed otherwise sun wouldn't rise.

Also, I seriously doubt that anything left out of the Bible even existed at that time. Jeruselum was burned, pillaged and wrecked many times mind you so information was lost. But this information probably isn't necessary since it was lost. Otherwise, it'd still be around.

Another thing, any "christian" group would have kept everything. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been "christians".

Last thing, take your arguement somewhere else about whether Satan exists or not b/c this thread is meant for theoretical talk about Satan's motives.

The devil is never a nice guy in those stories.
Typically the stories are about priests or scholars that make pacts with the devil, material gain or even simple chores (such as shoveling manure) in return for their soul. When the time to pay the devil comes, they usually play on his arrogance (Hey Satan, I bet you can't fit in this hole in the wall, *poof* The devil turns himself into a fly and flies into the hole. The priest puts a cork in the hole and voilá: the Devil is trapped untill he agrees not to take the guys soul. )

But still, wouldn't it be the other way around actually? I mean, he may be arrogant, but he's not stupid. He's clever. Still, we're getting off topic.

That is sensible. I found this quote on a website, "Carol Newsome says that hasatan is 'One who defends a king's honor by zealously ferreting out hidden disloyalty'." That does describe the book of Job in a nutshell.

But Satan wasn't trying to help God. He was trying to help himself. By getting ob away from God or getting God to be wrong about something.

But wasn't Lucifer Satan's actually name in Heaven? I'd have to find the portion of text but I'm pretty sure Satan and Lucifer are they same ppl.

No - Lucifer is a Mesopotamian concept for the star that rises before the sun, and thus, also sets before the sun.

It is used in the bible as a metaphor for a king losing power... yes, he was rich, but he'll still fall.

Basically - No matter how high you climb, we all end in the ground.

The only person referred to consistently as 'the bringer of light' (what lucifer MEANS) is Jesus... also, I believe, the only character identified as 'the morning-star'. (Both names OFTEN attributed to 'satan'.

No - Lucifer is a Mesopotamian concept for the star that rises before the sun, and thus, also sets before the sun.

It is used in the bible as a metaphor for a king losing power... yes, he was rich, but he'll still fall.

Basically - No matter how high you climb, we all end in the ground.

The only person referred to consistently as 'the bringer of light' (what lucifer MEANS) is Jesus... also, I believe, the only character identified as 'the morning-star'. (Both names OFTEN attributed to 'satan'.

Satan isn't the morning star. He may be beautiful, smart and an angel but he's still fallen. Another thing is Lucifer was Biblical. No matter how much you say it came from Mesopotamian or somewhere else, I can still say this: "How do you know?" and the answer from me and you would have to be this "We don't really know" and then life goes on.

And ya, how do you know Lucifer means "the bringer of light", "the morning star"?

Create your own thread for goodness sake anyways.

But still, wouldn't it be the other way around actually? I mean, he may be arrogant, but he's not stupid. He's clever. Still, we're getting off topic.

Well...Clever, but not as clever as the smart guy in those stories.
There is a sculpture in a park near my house, it's shows the Devil being hit on the head with a book. The Devil gave someone a ride from Denmark to Iceland on his back (the Devil turns himself into a Seal) in exchange for the guys soul. At the end of the ride the guy hits the seal/devil on the head with a book and knocks him out.
(Hmmm...Reykjavík is possibly the only place to have a statue of Satan in a public park)
I think we're still on topic here, the thinking process of the devil (assuming he exists)...Though, I don't really know how the bible handles the topic of Satan. The folklore is the only literature that I'm familiar with that speaks of the Devil.

But wasn't Lucifer Satan's actually name in Heaven? I'd have to find the portion of text but I'm pretty sure Satan and Lucifer are they same ppl.

Lucifer was frequently used in German folk tales as "the devil," due to his position in the Roman pagan heirarchy and his subsequent condemnation as a fallen angel passed on many of the pagan gods in assimilated regions. However, he is not the same angel.

And for those on the post with the whole Satan doesn't exist thing, I am a diehard agnostic, so I don't believe in his existence or non-existence. I couldn't care less. I am just interested in angelic texts and mythology, so I am adding my two cents.

Well...Clever, but not as clever as the smart guy in those stories.
There is a sculpture in a park near my house, it's shows the Devil being hit on the head with a book. The Devil gave someone a ride from Denmark to Iceland on his back (the Devil turns himself into a Seal) in exchange for the guys soul. At the end of the ride the guy hits the seal/devil on the head with a book and knocks him out.
(Hmmm...Reykjavík is possibly the only place to have a statue of Satan in a public park)
I think we're still on topic here, the thinking process of the devil (assuming he exists)...Though, I don't really know how the bible handles the topic of Satan.

Bible says that Satan isn't the nicest person to be friends with since he's against God and that anyone who follows him is going to suffer the same fate as him. Also, it says that he's the reason in part as to why the world is what it is. A horrible place.

Lucifer was frequently used in German folk tales as "the devil," due to his position in the Roman pagan heirarchy and his subsequent condemnation as a fallen angel passed on many of the pagan gods in assimilated regions. However, he is not the same angel.

And for those on the post with the whole Satan doesn't exist thing, I am a diehard agnostic, so I don't believe in his existence or non-existence. I couldn't care less. I am just interested in angelic texts and mythology, so I am adding my two cents.

Not to be rejecting your two cents worth, but could you plz take arguements like that to another thread b/c I'm really looking for ppl who want to stay on this topic to stay and ppl that talk about whether he exist or not to take it to another thread. Plz and thank you.

That is sensible. I found this quote on a website, "Carol Newsome says that hasatan is 'One who defends a king's honor by zealously ferreting out hidden disloyalty'." That does describe the book of Job in a nutshell.

Exactly.

And especially convincing when you see that the Hebrew is "HaSatan", or "The Satan"... and thus, obviously a 'title', rather than a name.

"HaSatan" is what he DOES, not who he IS.

Satan isn't the morning star. He may be beautiful, smart and an angel but he's still fallen. Another thing is Lucifer was Biblical. No matter how much you say it came from Mesopotamian or somewhere else, I can still say this: "How do you know?" and the answer from me and you would have to be this "We don't really know" and then life goes on.

And ya, how do you know Lucifer means "the bringer of light", "the morning star"?

Create your own thread for goodness sake anyways.

Ok, so I was slightly wrong, its not "bringer of light," but "bearer of light," in Latin. Lucifer is associated with the morning star, in the Roman pantheon of gods he is the morning star, which is actually the planet Venus. Regarding his fall, frequently the Catholic Church placed the old gods, be they Roman, Norse, or what have you, into either heaven or hell as angels, depending on who they were. For example, Loki is considered a fallen angel, clearly a reference from Norse mythology. Furthermore, this information came from the book, Dictionary of Angels: Including the Fallen Angels, by Gustav Davidson, found here on amazon, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/002907052X/qid=1109023064/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-0449183-4492711?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.

Satan is capable of telling the truth. It's his best strategy...tell the truth so they trust you, then you lie.

Consider Eve...Satan told her that she would learn Good and Evil, like God...True.
Then he lied and told her she wouldn't die.
The serpent did not lie.

Death is a fact of life. If Adam and Eve were alive, but ignorant of death while in the Garden of Eden, then they had no concept of death because there was no death in the Garden of Eden. This means they were not alive. If they were ignorant of what death was, then God's threat of death meant nothing to them; hence, why they ate of the fruit.

If they knew about death, then they must have interpreted God's command as immediate death, because otherwise, knowing they would eventually die, it must have meant "more sooner."

The serpent said they would not die because of eating the fruit, and he was right.

Not to be rejecting your two cents worth, but could you plz take arguements like that to another thread b/c I'm really looking for ppl who want to stay on this topic to stay and ppl that talk about whether he exist or not to take it to another thread. Plz and thank you.

Actually, Teckor - it was you who asked if Lucifer and Satan were the same guy, wasn't it?

So, now you are pushing people off the thread for answering your own questions?

Or - just inviting anyone to leave who has a different view to yours?

Exactly.

And especially convincing when you see that the Hebrew is "HaSatan", or "The Satan"... and thus, obviously a 'title', rather than a name.

"HaSatan" is what he DOES, not who he IS.

A 'title' however is a name. "The Satan" then suggests that there is only one of him like, The God of Isreal.

And take it to another thread plz.

Actually, Teckor - it was you who asked if Lucifer and Satan were the same guy, wasn't it?

So, now you are pushing people off the thread for answering your own questions?

Or - just inviting anyone to leave who has a different view to yours?

That was rhetorical question. I believe that Satan and Lucifer are the same ppl. If you want to talk about Satan's motives then plz do but if you don't have anything to say about that then plz leave.

But Satan wasn't trying to help God. He was trying to help himself. By getting ob away from God or getting God to be wrong about something.
So helping God inadvertently doesn't count?

The serpent did not lie.

Death is a fact of life. If Adam and Eve were alive, but ignorant of death while in the Garden of Eden, then they had no concept of death because there was no death in the Garden of Eden. This means they were not alive. If they were ignorant of what death was, then God's threat of death meant nothing to them; hence, why they ate of the fruit.

If they knew about death, then they must have interpreted God's command as immediate death, because otherwise, knowing they would eventually die, it must have meant "more sooner."

The serpent said they would not die because of eating the fruit, and he was right.

They wouldn't have died had they not eaten the fruit. The eating of the fruit was sinning. Sin=death. Satan lied about the death. Sure they had knowledge of Good and Evil but they would die.

Ok, so I was slightly wrong, its not "bringer of light," but "bearer of light," in Latin. Lucifer is associated with the morning star, in the Roman pantheon of gods he is the morning star, which is actually the planet Venus. Regarding his fall, frequently the Catholic Church placed the old gods, be they Roman, Norse, or what have you, into either heaven or hell as angels, depending on who they were. For example, Loki is considered a fallen angel, clearly a reference from Norse mythology. Furthermore, this information came from the book, Dictionary of Angels: Including the Fallen Angels, by Gustav Davidson, found here on amazon, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/002907052X/qid=1109023064/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-0449183-4492711?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.

However, I'm refering to Christianity, not Romanism.

Satan isn't the morning star. He may be beautiful, smart and an angel but he's still fallen. Another thing is Lucifer was Biblical. No matter how much you say it came from Mesopotamian or somewhere else, I can still say this: "How do you know?" and the answer from me and you would have to be this "We don't really know" and then life goes on.

And ya, how do you know Lucifer means "the bringer of light", "the morning star"?

Create your own thread for goodness sake anyways.

The star that rises before the sun, is the Morning Star... thus, is the same celestial body as 'Lucifer'.

We know that Lucifer comes from earlier mythology that the Hebrew, because the evidence of those Mesopotamian mythologies still exists... and existed long before the Hebrews came down from the hills.

If you aren't going to explore the origins of the mythology, how can you hope to work out what 'purpose' any of the characters serve?

So helping God inadvertently doesn't count?

Sorry but no. Satan's intentions were pretty clear.

Personally, Teckor, it seems as though you started this thread without any thought into the nature of Satan and it seems as though the heart of your question lies at the very notion being explored here, what and who is Satan, first, and then based upon how one views Satan, and what forms were actually him in the Bible, and in outside sources, one can formulate a better answer to your question. So no, I do not believe that all of this is off-topic.

The star that rises before the sun, is the Morning Star... thus, is the same celestial body as 'Lucifer'.

We know that Lucifer comes from earlier mythology that the Hebrew, because the evidence of those Mesopotamian mythologies still exists... and existed long before the Hebrews came down from the hills.

If you aren't going to explore the origins of the mythology, how can you hope to work out what 'purpose' any of the characters serve?

Fine. But you know what, what's to stop me from saying that that's simply a perversion of the Devil? Nothing.

That was rhetorical question. I believe that Satan and Lucifer are the same ppl. If you want to talk about Satan's motives then plz do but if you don't have anything to say about that then plz leave.

So - you are asking me to leave, because you have made an unsupportable assumption on which to base your argument, and I question it?

Was it a serious question at the start of the thread?

Do you REALLY want to understand what 'satan' is for? What his 'motives. are?

Because, it is beginning to look like you just want people to agree with your cosy little world view.

If you want a grown-up debate, with people who have put a great deal of time into research of the matter, then we can have that debate... if ALL you want is people to say.... "Yes, that satan, he's a big baddy", then I will gladly leave, as that debate holds NO INTEREST for me.

Personally, Teckor, it seems as though you started this thread without any thought into the nature of Satan and it seems as though the heart of your question lies at the very notion being explored here, what and who is Satan, first, and then based upon how one views Satan, and what forms were actually him in the Bible, and in outside sources, one can formulate a better answer to your question. So no, I do not believe that all of this is off-topic.

Then allow me to add in another rule would it be? To this arguement. Given that the Bible is correct in what it says about Satan, what is his motive.

So - you are asking me to leave, because you have made an unsupportable assumption on which to base your argument, and I question it?

Was it a serious question at the start of the thread?

Do you REALLY want to understand what 'satan' is for? What his 'motives. are?

Because, it is beginning to look like you just want people to agree with your cosy little world view.

If you want a grown-up debate, with people who have put a great deal of time into research of the matter, then we can have that debate... if ALL you want is people to say.... "Yes, that satan, he's a big baddy", then I will gladly leave, as that debate holds NO INTEREST for me.

Tell me this. Is a murderer a big baddy? Is he? Not really. But when you have a murderer, a liar, someone that encourages pretty muc hevery single evil thing in the world then yes I'd call him a big Baddy.

I asked for ppl's view of Satan's motives according to the Bible not whether he existed or not.

What you want alos however, is for everyone to agree with you so don't go talking to me about me wanting to control it. I simply want to know what other "Christians" have to say. Good bye, but I'm not leaving this thread for a while.

And oh ya, I don't have a cosy little world view. I see the world as a place full of perversion, idiocy and evil. Almost all of which is because of our co\hoices and Satan. Our choice not to obey God and Satan's helping us down that path.

Fine. But you know what, what's to stop me from saying that that's simply a perversion of the Devil? Nothing.

What?

The history that existed while the Hebrews were still nomads... is actually the work of the Devil?

Perhaps you are right... but, if that is the case, then what is to stop me from saying that the whole Bible is a perversion of the Devil?

Nothing?

You have to make certain assumptions.

One of those assumptions is that people who write a history BEFORE someone else writes THEIR version.... are probably the being COPIED, not the ones COPYING.

Then allow me to add in another rule would it be? To this arguement. Given that the Bible is correct in what it says about Satan, what is his motive.

Why would you make THAT assumption?

The 'satan' of the Greek texts is quite clearly not the HaSatan of the Hebrew texts, and neither version matches the Revelation telling... so why assume that the bible 'version' of 'satan' is correct, when the bible can't even make ONE version?

Then allow me to add in another rule would it be? To this arguement. Given that the Bible is correct in what it says about Satan, what is his motive.
But that exactly is the problem, the Bible is unclear about Satan, and many ideas surrounding Satan. Is he a willing servant of God, as presented by Job, is he the serpent, etc.? Furthermore, his position in Christianity is also based upon outside sources other than the Bible, including, but not limited to Roman Paganism and Rabbinical tradition. So again, discussing who or what Satan is, is still important to answer this question.

If you don't want an intellectual argument with people other than Christians who share your world view, post this type of question somewhere else, like christianity.com or something.

What?

The history that existed while the Hebrews were still nomads... is actually the work of the Devil?

Perhaps you are right... but, if that is the case, then what is to stop me from saying that the whole Bible is a perversion of the Devil?

Nothing?

You have to make certain assumptions.

One of those assumptions is that people who write a history BEFORE someone else writes THEIR version.... are probably the being COPIED, not the ones COPYING.

Before the flood happened you little boso is there was knowledge of God and what was to happen. In the book of Jude it says that Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesised about Christ's second coming so obviously they knew back then about God and much more. Also, you are making the assumption that whatever ppl right about history is true and that other opinions aren't actually the real deal. One thing though about the Bible is that it portrays the Devil as he is and that he's at fault. Why would the Devil shoot himself in the foot? He wouldn't. I've been called ignorant and maybe I am but so are you and many other out there.

Before the flood happened you little boso is there was knowledge of God and what was to happen. In the book of Jude it says that Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesised about Christ's second coming so obviously they knew back then about God and much more. Also, you are making the assumption that whatever ppl right about history is true and that other opinions aren't actually the real deal. One thing though about the Bible is that it portrays the Devil as he is and that he's at fault. Why would the Devil shoot himself in the foot? He wouldn't. I've been called ignorant and maybe I am but so are you and many other out there.

Please edit this, I have no clue what you are saying.

But that exactly is the problem, the Bible is unclear about Satan, and many ideas surrounding Satan. Is he a willing servant of God, as presented by Job, is he the serpent, etc.? Furthermore, his position in Christianity is also based upon outside sources other than the Bible, including, but not limited to Roman Paganism and Rabbinical tradition. So again, discussing who or what Satan is, is still important to answer this question.

If you don't want an intellectual arguement with people other than Christians who share your world view, post this type of question somewhere else, like christianity.com or something.

Satan as I said before is a liar and much more. He isn't in anyway shape or for a helper of god anymore. When he was in Heaven he was, but not anymore. Intelectual arguements I can have only when pp stick to the guidelines otherwise you end up with one of these messes.

Why would you make THAT assumption?

The 'satan' of the Greek texts is quite clearly not the HaSatan of the Hebrew texts, and neither version matches the Revelation telling... so why assume that the bible 'version' of 'satan' is correct, when the bible can't even make ONE version?


actually they all match. they simply show different qualities of Satan. There is more than one version of you. So how am i supposed to know which one's correct? They all porbably are.

Tell me this. Is a murderer a big baddy? Is he? Not really. But when you have a murderer, a liar, someone that encourages pretty muc hevery single evil thing in the world then yes I'd call him a big Baddy.

I asked for ppl's view of Satan's motives according to the Bible not whether he existed or not.

What you want alos however, is for everyone to agree with you so don't go talking to me about me wanting to control it. I simply want to know what other "Christians" have to say. Good bye, but I'm not leaving this thread for a while.

And oh ya, I don't have a cosy little world view. I see the world as a place full of perversion, idiocy and evil. Almost all of which is because of our co\hoices and Satan. Our choice not to obey God and Satan's helping us down that path.


I see the world as a place full of human evil, human perversion and human idiocy.

I have met many people.

People don't need ANY outside help to be evil or idiotic.

Please edit this, I have no clue what you are saying.

Enoch knew about God and muc more about the future before Judaism and the flood. So what's to say that Satan didn't get wif of some of it and change it to benefit himself. Enoch was before the flood.

I see the world as a place full of human evil, human perversion and human idiocy.

I have met many people.

People don't need ANY outside help to be evil or idiotic.

To get started we did. From there it was just down hill with help from others and Satan.

Satan as I said before is a liar and much more. He isn't in anyway shape or for a helper of god anymore. When he was in Heaven he was, but not anymore. Intelectual arguements I can have only when pp stick to the guidelines otherwise you end up with one of these messes.

You know, why don't you just tell us what you think, and then we can all agree and go our merry little ways. Considering that is all you want to hear.

You know, why don't you just tell us what you think, and then we can all agree and go our merry little ways. Considering that is all you want to hear.

I don't want to hear that. I want to hear what other ppl have to think about Satan's motives given that the Bible is true and that Satan is real. Now you go your merry little way of ignorance and i'll go mine.

Before the flood happened you little boso is there was knowledge of God and what was to happen. In the book of Jude it says that Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesised about Christ's second coming so obviously they knew back then about God and much more. Also, you are making the assumption that whatever ppl right about history is true and that other opinions aren't actually the real deal. One thing though about the Bible is that it portrays the Devil as he is and that he's at fault. Why would the Devil shoot himself in the foot? He wouldn't. I've been called ignorant and maybe I am but so are you and many other out there.

First: Just as a passing reference, have you read the Book of Enoch?

Second: aside for that question... since this was all insults, flame and flame-baiting... I find nothing else in this entire post worthy of dignifying with a response.

If you'd like to extract some sense out of this post, and remove all the acid and bile... I might deign to respond to some of the individual points.

As it is, I can't actually quite work out if there WAS a point about this post, except to call me a 'boso' (whatever that is), and imply that I am 'ignorant'.

Enoch knew about God and muc more about the future before Judaism and the flood. So what's to say that Satan didn't get wif of some of it and change it to benefit himself. Enoch was before the flood.

What is "wif"?

I disagree that there are 'good' reasons to connect Satan and all the other 'malign' influences in the text. Examples like 'Lucifer' (an obvious reference to a planet preceding the sun, and it's extension into metaphor - based on Mesopotamian literature) are linked together - although OBVIOUSLY disparate elements - in Revelation... completely undermining the remainder of scripture... and creating a 'revisionist' history for the bible, which has a Duality, rather than a strict Monotheism.

In fact - ignoring Revelation for a second - it takes a real effort to try to combine most of those obviously unconnected characters... a willful intent.


Actually, nearly 80% of the book of Revelation carries direct ties to passages from the OT. It's apocolyptic bent is little more than further elaboration on prophecies from Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Psalms and from Christ Himself in the Gospels. As for the issue of monotheism, as Christ said, He and the Father are one, in some senses, part of the same being. Now I can't explain exactly the nature of that connection as I'm not God and can't know what exactly that means, but I accept Christ's self-proclaimation as sufficient reason for my faith on that subject.

As for a willful intent to tie those clearly tied characters together, I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I think it takes willful intent and a desire to destroy the integrity of scripture to seperate them.

First: Just as a passing reference, have you read the Book of Enoch?

Second: aside for that question... since this was all insults, flame and flame-baiting... I find nothing else in this entire post worthy of dignifying with a response.

If you'd like to extract some sense out of this post, and remove all the acid and bile... I might deign to respond to some of the individual points.

As it is, I can't actually quite work out if there WAS a point about this post, except to call me a 'boso' (whatever that is), and imply that I am 'ignorant'.

No such thing as the Book of Enoch.

Might I say also that the bie and acid came from ppl saying that "there is no Satan" and me trying to prove Satan.

Allow me to appologize. But we are all ignorant at one point or another.

What is "wif"?

Wiff, smell. Sound it out.

I don't want to hear that. I want to hear what other ppl have to think about Satan's motives given that the Bible is true and that Satan is real. Now you go your merry little way of ignorance and i'll go mine.

Okay, then, let's see, take the Bible to be true, and Satan to be real, done. Does not change a thing, I am arguing that you need to accept other interpretations of Satan, to have a discussion on his possible motives, considering that not all Christians and Biblical scholars will agree on one set of assumptions.

Okay, then, let's see, take the Bible to be true, and Satan to be real, done. Does not change a thing, I am arguing that you need to accept other interpretations of Satan, to have a discussion on his possible motives, considering that not all Christians and Biblical scholars will agree on one set of assumptions.

Well then. Go ahead. What do you think Satan has in mind?

As for a willful intent to tie those clearly tied characters together, I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I think it takes willful intent and a desire to destroy the integrity of scripture to seperate them.

And it'd probably take much more to destroy the Bible off the face of the Earth. Too much to do that.

If canonisation DOESN'T guarantee that scripture was preserved and nothing was lost... then WHAT PURPOSE did it serve?

By your own admission, it was nothing more than the arbitrary selection of 'some scripture', then?

That DOES, in fact, invalidate the canon, I'm afraid.

It tied together, most of the valid scriptures so that nothing further need be lost. Previously, it was a collection of scrolls. Probably pretty easy to lose a small one here or there over thousands of years.

The canon not being complete, does not necessarily invalidate that which is contained there in. The books included can still be entirely inspired. If you removed the NT from the OT that wouldn't make either part less inspired. Just 2 seperate books.

Wiff, smell. Sound it out.
First, its whiff.
Second, from now on please check your spelling and grammar in your posts, so that we can make some sense out of them. Take the time to think out your responses and write them out clearly and concisely. People do not enjoy trying to read poorly worded arguments and will treat you accordingly.

It tied together, most of the valid scriptures so that nothing further need be lost. Previously, it was a collection of scrolls. Probably pretty easy to lose a small one here or there over thousands of years.

The canon not being complete, does not necessarily invalidate that which is contained there in. The books included can still be entirely inspired. If you removed the NT from the OT that wouldn't make either part less inspired. Just 2 seperate books.

I hope you don't mind but just to add on, anything that was lost was probably irrelevant because otherwise, it wouldn't have been lost. Now then, can we plz get back onto topic.

First, its whiff.
Second, from now on please check your spelling and grammar in your posts, so that we can make some sense out of them. Take the time to think out your responses and write them out clearly and concisely. People do not enjoy trying to read poorly worded arguments and will treat you accordingly.

Thank you very much for the correction. But when you are angry at being insulted then it makes it difficult to write clearly and concisely considering the fact your simply trying to write something out quickly.

Thank you very much for the correction. But when you are angry at being insulted then it makes it difficult to write clearly and concisely considering the fact your simply trying to write something out quickly.

Ok, but then don't go around insulting others.

And as to your question, I personally believe that Satan takes the place of God's foil throughout the Bible, and therefore will do all he can to disrupt God's work, well that's what I would believe, if the Bible is right and Satan exists.

Bible says that Satan isn't the nicest person to be friends with since he's against God and that anyone who follows him is going to suffer the same fate as him. Also, it says that he's the reason in part as to why the world is what it is. A horrible place.

I guess that's the answer you want.
This thread isn't going anywhere, because you ask that everyone that talks in here has the same opinions and ideas as you. :rolleyes:

Actually, nearly 80% of the book of Revelation carries direct ties to passages from the OT. It's apocolyptic bent is little more than further elaboration on prophecies from Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Psalms and from Christ Himself in the Gospels. As for the issue of monotheism, as Christ said, He and the Father are one, in some senses, part of the same being. Now I can't explain exactly the nature of that connection as I'm not God and can't know what exactly that means, but I accept Christ's self-proclaimation as sufficient reason for my faith on that subject.

As for a willful intent to tie those clearly tied characters together, I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I think it takes willful intent and a desire to destroy the integrity of scripture to seperate them.

Or, alternatively - a knowledge that the scripture was not written as a complete set, but as separate texts by at least two different religions, spread over a thousand or more years.

Plus - NOT automatically assuming that all the text is SUPPOSED to be read together, as though ordained by some 'hand-of-god' gesture.

Or, alternatively - a knowledge that the scripture was not written as a complete set, but as separate texts by at least two different religions, spread over a thousand or more years.

Plus - NOT automatically assuming that all the text is SUPPOSED to be read together, as though ordained by some 'hand-of-god' gesture.

If you use scripture to interpret itself, "all scripture is given by divine inspiration and is profitable for doctrine, correction...." of course, it has to be intrepreted with the aid of the Holy Spirit "who will guide you into all truth".

I know that I will get a fair amount of disagreement on my next statement, but IMO the Bible was not written by two seperate religions. With the exception of 1 author(as far as I know), its writers were all Jewish and regardless of that, it is all one cohesive religion, when interpeted properly with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Please don't think I'm claiming to have a perfect understanding of or interpretation of scripture. I'm a growing Christian and a falible human so to make such a claim would be preposterous, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand many things accurately. Ultimately my understanding shouldn't matter anyway. Only God's truth matters in the final analysis. Knowing as much of that as possible is one of my goals, but I am afterall seeking to know an infinite God, so please forgive me if I don't know it all.

No such thing as the Book of Enoch.

Might I say also that the bie and acid came from ppl saying that "there is no Satan" and me trying to prove Satan.

Allow me to appologize. But we are all ignorant at one point or another.

First - Jude directly quotes from Enoch.

Second - Educate yourself: http://www.pathwaysofprophecy.com/ancman/dsscrolls/enoch.html

Third - I didn't say there WAS no 'satan'... I said that the bible accounts don't describe ONE, CONSISTENT character.

Fourth - apology accepted... that makes you a 'better person' than many on these fora, who will not apologise, even when clearly in the wrong. I appreciate that, and respect you for it.

Fifth - You have picked a bad forum.. or good forum... depending how you look at it... to make assertions about scripture... this forum has an unusually high level of people - both 'christian' and 'non-christian' - who are VERY well educated in scripture.

I guess that's the answer you want.
This thread isn't going anywhere, because you ask that everyone that talks in here has the same opinions and ideas as you. :rolleyes:

No I don't. What I want is for ppl to talk as if he is real, as though the Bible is true and what his motives for continuiing could possible be. But since that's obviously how you see me then sure whatever you say because that's exactly what you are trying to convince everyone of. Your trying to convince everyone that your view of me is absolutely true so either way your just as bad as me.

First - Jude directly quotes from Enoch.

Second - Educate yourself: http://www.pathwaysofprophecy.com/ancman/dsscrolls/enoch.html

Third - I didn't say there WAS no 'satan'... I said that the bible accounts don't describe ONE, CONSISTENT character.

Fourth - apology accepted... that makes you a 'better person' than many on these fora, who will not apologise, even when clearly in the wrong. I appreciate that, and respect you for it.

Fifth - You have picked a bad forum.. or good forum... depending how you look at it... to make assertions about scripture... this forum has an unusually high level of people - both 'christian' and 'non-christian' - who are VERY well educated in scripture.

Fiirstly, there isn't any book of Enoch in existance as far as I know. There are many reasons as to why not. One, the flood wiped out much of recorded history. Two, Jeruselum was burned many times so it might have been destroyed if it lasted after the flood.

Secondly, I'll look into it in a sec. One thing though about it, wouldn't the language possible be completely different since Enoch was before the flood and the languages were confounded? Also, how would that have lasted so long? It's really rather interesting though, I'd actually been just wondering as to where the disciples got that quote from. Thx for the website.

Thirdly, the bible actually does have one consistent character, it's just that it's showing different qualities. Same theme, but different facts or views. From my point of view yesterday, you weren't very reasonable, my view today, your not entirely what I first thought. Another view might be from one of your friends. Different views, different qualities known but same person. Same with Satan.

Fourthly, thx for forgiving my outrage.

Fifthly, that may be true but there are many that think that the Gospels weren't written by the disciples which seems just a little bit outragous.

Ok, but then don't go around insulting others.

And as to your question, I personally believe that Satan takes the place of God's foil throughout the Bible, and therefore will do all he can to disrupt God's work, well that's what I would believe, if the Bible is right and Satan exists.

Takes the place of God's foil? Could you plz go a little indepth with that b/c I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. I don't get the taking the place of God's foil if he is trying to disrupt God's work.


Could I have some help with something? I've been trying to find the part in the Bible where it talks about Lucifer and the rebellion. Could you help look for it and post the location plz? Thx. I've found a verse about what Lucifer thought or planned on trying to do but I'm pretty sure that there's another verse. Isaiah 14:12.

If you use scripture to interpret itself, "all scripture is given by divine inspiration and is profitable for doctrine, correction...." of course, it has to be intrepreted with the aid of the Holy Spirit "who will guide you into all truth".

I know that I will get a fair amount of disagreement on my next statement, but IMO the Bible was not written by two seperate religions. With the exception of 1 author(as far as I know), its writers were all Jewish and regardless of that, it is all one cohesive religion, when interpeted properly with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Please don't think I'm claiming to have a perfect understanding of or interpretation of scripture. I'm a growing Christian and a falible human so to make such a claim would be preposterous, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand many things accurately. Ultimately my understanding shouldn't matter anyway. Only God's truth matters in the final analysis. Knowing as much of that as possible is one of my goals, but I am afterall seeking to know an infinite God, so please forgive me if I don't know it all.

So - of course, since the Koran is inspired by 'god', it is also true?

And, the Book of Enoch, though non-canonical, is also a valid text, since it was also inspired?

And the Book of Thomas, and Mary Magdelene's Gospel?

Or, are you also succumbing to the curse of 'special pleading'?

So - of course, since the Koran is inspired by 'god', it is also true?

And, the Book of Enoch, though non-canonical, is also a valid text, since it was also inspired?

And the Book of Thomas, and Mary Magdelene's Gospel?

Or, are you also succumbing to the curse of 'special pleading'?

One thing though, don't we all succumb to the curse of special pleading in one way or another?

The Koran and the Bible however differ very much. The Book of Enoch hasn't been proven to be actually the Book of Enoch but from what I'd read about it it seems possible that it might have been inspired by God since some of it holds with the Bible. Book of Thomas and Mary Magdelene's Gospel I haven't read so I won't judge it.

So - of course, since the Koran is inspired by 'god', it is also true?

And, the Book of Enoch, though non-canonical, is also a valid text, since it was also inspired?

And the Book of Thomas, and Mary Magdelene's Gospel?

Or, are you also succumbing to the curse of 'special pleading'?

I have a problem with the Koran and portions of the other books you mentioned, because they don't speak according "to the law and to the testimony" as noted by Isaiah.

I know you are going to suggest that what is present doesn't agree with itself already so why should adding a few more contridictory manuscripts matter..., I can only say that in my experience, my preceptions of contridition in scripture have been due to my lack of understanding and over time I have come to see harmony, with the exception of a few clear translation errors. Is it possible that the same could be true of Enoch, Thomas and MM? Yes, but that hasn't become aparent to me yet, and doesn't have a huge barring on salvific truth anyway.

Fiirstly, there isn't any book of Enoch in existance as far as I know. There are many reasons as to why not. One, the flood wiped out much of recorded history. Two, Jeruselum was burned many times so it might have been destroyed if it lasted after the flood.

Secondly, I'll look into it in a sec. One thing though about it, wouldn't the language possible be completely different since Enoch was before the flood and the languages were confounded? Also, how would that have lasted so long? It's really rather interesting though, I'd actually been just wondering as to where the disciples got that quote from. Thx for the website.

Thirdly, the bible actually does have one consistent character, it's just that it's showing different qualities. Same theme, but different facts or views. From my point of view yesterday, you weren't very reasonable, my view today, your not entirely what I first thought. Another view might be from one of your friends. Different views, different qualities known but same person. Same with Satan.

Fourthly, thx for forgiving my outrage.

Fifthly, that may be true but there are many that think that the Gospels weren't written by the disciples which seems just a little bit outragous.

Firstly: The Book of Enoch is usually translated from the Ethiopian text (which would be Cushite, in biblical times) - so would be unaffected by the politics and problems of Jerusalem. Also - if you DID believe that Enoch wrote a text, it is no less likely that that story could be passed on and on, being written down by generation after generation, passed along by oral tradition when necessary.... no less likely than that texts written by Moses actually survived.

Looking at all the evidence, it is just as likely that the Book of Enoch (as we see it today) was written by Enoch, as it is that the Mosaic texts were actually written by Moses.

Second: If you accept the story of the confounding of tongues... why do you assume automatically that Enoch WOULDN'T have written in Hebrew? Surely, since his word was given in Hebrew, that must be god's chosen language... so, it would make sense that it would be the ONLY language before the Tower of Babel, right?

Third: We are going to have to disagree on this point. 'Satanas' in Greek means adversary... as in enemy. "HaSatan" in Hebrew means THE Adversary - it is a title, not a name.... like Prince Charles is a "Prince" of England... but his name isn't 'Prince'. Similarly - we aren't told in the Old Testament what the name is of the Adversary, only his title... "The Adversary".

That, coupled with the fact that HaSatan is a servant of god, in the Old Testament... but has been transformed into an opponent in Revelation - makes a fairly good claim that there are two disparate characters, being accidentally (or deliberately) rolled into one, just because they have the same name.

Fourth: The outrage wasn't the problem. The flaming and flamebaiting were the problems, but all are forgiven.

Fifth: The Gospels can't have been written by the disciples... certainly not all of them. Since, even in name (assuming they were actually written by the people who share the same name as the Gospels), not all of the Gospels were written by disciples, were they?

One thing though, don't we all succumb to the curse of special pleading in one way or another?

The Koran and the Bible however differ very much. The Book of Enoch hasn't been proven to be actually the Book of Enoch but from what I'd read about it it seems possible that it might have been inspired by God since some of it holds with the Bible. Book of Thomas and Mary Magdelene's Gospel I haven't read so I won't judge it.

I don't succumb to special pleading. I assume that all evidence is equal (that is, unreliable) until specific correlation appears.

Even then, I don't hold one set of evidences to different standards than other evidences.

The Koran also holds with the bible. The only REAL departure between the two, is that the Koran gives Jesus as a prophet, rather than as messiah.

In THAT respect, the Koran actually follows Torah better than the bible does, since it sticks to the principle of "no other god"... whereas modern bible teaching says that Jesus was 'god', also.

For the record - it is practically impossible that Enoch actually wrote the scripture attributed to him... certainly not directly. If the words ARE those of Enoch, they were written down thousands of years after he lived... at least in the Book of Hanokh (Enoch) form.

But, that is no reason not to accept the text as being by Enoch - unless you ALSO disregard Genesis through to Deuteronomy (since they were certainly not all written by the hand of Moses), and the Gospels (since evidence suggests they were written long after the fact, based on second-hand tellings of witness 'accounts').

Firstly: The Book of Enoch is usually translated from the Ethiopian text (which would be Cushite, in biblical times) - so would be unaffected by the politics and problems of Jerusalem. Also - if you DID believe that Enoch wrote a text, it is no less likely that that story could be passed on and on, being written down by generation after generation, passed along by oral tradition when necessary.... no less likely than that texts written by Moses actually survived.

Looking at all the evidence, it is just as likely that the Book of Enoch (as we see it today) was written by Enoch, as it is that the Mosaic texts were actually written by Moses.

Second: If you accept the story of the confounding of tongues... why do you assume automatically that Enoch WOULDN'T have written in Hebrew? Surely, since his word was given in Hebrew, that must be god's chosen language... so, it would make sense that it would be the ONLY language before the Tower of Babel, right?

Third: We are going to have to disagree on this point. 'Satanas' in Greek means adversary... as in enemy. "HaSatan" in Hebrew means THE Adversary - it is a title, not a name.... like Prince Charles is a "Prince" of England... but his name isn't 'Prince'. Similarly - we aren't told in the Old Testament what the name is of the Adversary, only his title... "The Adversary".

That, coupled with the fact that HaSatan is a servant of god, in the Old Testament... but has been transformed into an opponent in Revelation - makes a fairly good claim that there are two disparate characters, being accidentally (or deliberately) rolled into one, just because they have the same name.

Fourth: The outrage wasn't the problem. The flaming and flamebaiting were the problems, but all are forgiven.

Fifth: The Gospels can't have been written by the disciples... certainly not all of them. Since, even in name (assuming they were actually written by the people who share the same name as the Gospels), not all of the Gospels were written by disciples, were they?

Firstly, your third point has one slight problem. In the Bible, God is often refered to or says that he is "The God of Isreal" or Jesus is refered to as "THe Prince of Peace". These simply emphasis that there is one of him. So, HaSatan simply means that he is "The Adversary". His actually name is Lucifer. But he is refered to as Satan. Kinda like how Jacob was called Isreal by God. Two names. One person. In the Old Testament however, Satan is not God's friend. Isaiah says it all with Lucifer (although I know that ppl are going to disagree about Satan and Lucifer being one person) wanting to b above God and being cast out of Heaven. Also, with Job, it says that Satan said that Job would curse God's name if he ran into hard enough times. Not quite trying to help God. Satan was a servant of God but he wanted to be above God, more powerful than him and that's what led to trouble.

Secondly, the Gospels were written by a few of the disciples. Why only a few? I don't know. Maybe there were others but they were all destroyed when Rome tried to kill all the Christians. But otherwise I'm almost positive that the Gospels were written by the disciples.

Moses however is said to have written down the first couple of books of the Bible. These were then copied out word for word over the years. At least, that's what I think happened. However, it seems strange from my perspective that there isn't any meantion or very little meantion of what Enoch said. The only time that comes to mind is in the Book of Jude. I might be wrong but I don't recall anywhere else anything about waht Enoch said.

I have a problem with the Koran and portions of the other books you mentioned, because they don't speak according "to the law and to the testimony" as noted by Isaiah.

I know you are going to suggest that what is present doesn't agree with itself already so why should adding a few more contridictory manuscripts matter..., I can only say that in my experience, my preceptions of contridition in scripture have been due to my lack of understanding and over time I have come to see harmony, with the exception of a few clear translation errors. Is it possible that the same could be true of Enoch, Thomas and MM? Yes, but that hasn't become aparent to me yet, and doesn't have a huge barring on salvific truth anyway.

You know that the Jews don't accept 'christianity' because the bible doesn't agree with Mosaic law? Many believe that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", expressly opposes the idea that there could be an incarnation of 'god' on earth.

My point isn't about dicrepency in text, as such.

My point is that the whole bible is considered the word of god, because "all scripture is inspired of god".

Well, so is the Koran... the Book of Enoch, the Bhagavat Gita, etc.

It takes special allowance to allow ONLY the canonical biblical texts to be covered by the 'all scripture' clause, and to exempt all other scriptures.

That is the problem... if scripture is the 'word of god' - what is the justification for ignoring so many words of god?

I don't succumb to special pleading. I assume that all evidence is equal (that is, unreliable) until specific correlation appears.

Even then, I don't hold one set of evidences to different standards than other evidences.

The Koran also holds with the bible. The only REAL departure between the two, is that the Koran gives Jesus as a prophet, rather than as messiah.

In THAT respect, the Koran actually follows Torah better than the bible does, since it sticks to the principle of "no other god"... whereas modern bible teaching says that Jesus was 'god', also.

For the record - it is practically impossible that Enoch actually wrote the scripture attributed to him... certainly not directly. If the words ARE those of Enoch, they were written down thousands of years after he lived... at least in the Book of Hanokh (Enoch) form.

But, that is no reason not to accept the text as being by Enoch - unless you ALSO disregard Genesis through to Deuteronomy (since they were certainly not all written by the hand of Moses), and the Gospels (since evidence suggests they were written long after the fact, based on second-hand tellings of witness 'accounts').

Firstly, the Koran says that Adam and Eve were in Paradise and that Paradise wasn't destroyed and that Paradise and Earth are seperate. Bible says that Adam and Eve were in Eden which was on Earth. Also, God is called Allah in the Koran.

Secondly, there are always cases of succumbing to special pleading by everyone at least once in their life if not more. But still, that's off topic.

Thirdly, Jesus is God. Most ppl know that there's the Trinity in which God has three seperate parts that have different purposes but are one person.

Fourthly, the original text that Moses wrote on is long gone. Just as the original text of the Gospels which were most likely written by the disciples, and the original texts of Genesis to Deutronomy. There are copies left or exact replicas left. Something which I tend to find annoying is that most ppl say that many Books of the bible were passed on by word of mouth but there's alot in those books that would be hard to keep tract of by word of mouth.

Firstly, your third point has one slight problem. In the Bible, God is often refered to or says that he is "The God of Isreal" or Jesus is refered to as "THe Prince of Peace". These simply emphasis that there is one of him. So, HaSatan simply means that he is "The Adversary". His actually name is Lucifer. But he is refered to as Satan. Kinda like how Jacob was called Isreal by God. Two names. One person. In the Old Testament however, Satan is not God's friend. Isaiah says it all with Lucifer (although I know that ppl are going to disagree about Satan and Lucifer being one person) wanting to b above God and being cast out of Heaven. Also, with Job, it says that Satan said that Job would curse God's name if he ran into hard enough times. Not quite trying to help God. Satan was a servant of God but he wanted to be above God, more powerful than him and that's what led to trouble.

Secondly, the Gospels were written by a few of the disciples. Why only a few? I don't know. Maybe there were others but they were all destroyed when Rome tried to kill all the Christians. But otherwise I'm almost positive that the Gospels were written by the disciples.

Moses however is said to have written down the first couple of books of the Bible. These were then copied out word for word over the years. At least, that's what I think happened. However, it seems strange from my perspective that there isn't any meantion or very little meantion of what Enoch said. The only time that comes to mind is in the Book of Jude. I might be wrong but I don't recall anywhere else anything about waht Enoch said.

First: There is no Old Testament text that links Lucifer to HaSatan. There is a reference to Lucifer (the star that sets before the sun, because it rises before the sun... and is, actually a planet.. Venus), but it CLEARLY states in the text that it is a reference to the king of Tyre.

I don't recall ANY Old Testament verses saying that 'satan' wanted to be above god - that kind of assumption didn't come along until Revelation... or later, with Paradise Lost.

Also - in Job, the Adversary is the Adversary of man... it is his job to put man on trial before 'god'... which is exactly what HaSatan does to Job.


Second: Write a list of the disciples that served under Jesus. Then, cross off any that arrived AFTER Jesus was dead, or that died within the space of the writing of the scripture.

Now, compare THAT list to the names on the Gospels... and see if it is even possible that the Gospels were ALL written by disciples.

(And, we aren't even going to go into why poor fishermen would be able to write in Greek, in a backwater town, far outside the usual provinces of the Roman Empire).


Third: Moses cannot have written ALL of the Mosaic texts. Because he was raised in Egypt, so would have no knowledge of the Hebrew written language... even if he HAD learned to speak it. Because he was raised a prince of Egypt, so was NOT a holy man, and thus, wouldn't have had access to education about Egyptian writing either.

But mainly, because Deuteronomy details Moses' funeral.

He cannot have written a text that describes how he died, or what happened AFTER his death.

Also - examining the book of Genesis, it is clear that AT LEAST two authors wrote just that book.

You know that the Jews don't accept 'christianity' because the bible doesn't agree with Mosaic law? Many believe that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", expressly opposes the idea that there could be an incarnation of 'god' on earth.

My point isn't about dicrepency in text, as such.

My point is that the whole bible is considered the word of god, because "all scripture is inspired of god".

Well, so is the Koran... the Book of Enoch, the Bhagavat Gita, etc.

It takes special allowance to allow ONLY the canonical biblical texts to be covered by the 'all scripture' clause, and to exempt all other scriptures.

That is the problem... if scripture is the 'word of god' - what is the justification for ignoring so many words of god?

If something contradicts the Word of god then it isn't the word of God. That's where you start. You seperate it out and then examine the two seperate pieces. also, why would the Jews reject that there woud be God in the Flesh? Since a saviour was promised and according to specific guidelines then Jesus matches up. Assuming of course that the New Testament is true.

First: There is no Old Testament text that links Lucifer to HaSatan. There is a reference to Lucifer (the star that sets before the sun, because it rises before the sun... and is, actually a planet.. Venus), but it CLEARLY states in the text that it is a reference to the king of Tyre.

I don't recall ANY Old Testament verses saying that 'satan' wanted to be above god - that kind of assumption didn't come along until Revelation... or later, with Paradise Lost.

Also - in Job, the Adversary is the Adversary of man... it is his job to put man on trial before 'god'... which is exactly what HaSatan does to Job.


Second: Write a list of the disciples that served under Jesus. Then, cross off any that arrived AFTER Jesus was dead, or that died within the space of the writing of the scripture.

Now, compare THAT list to the names on the Gospels... and see if it is even possible that the Gospels were ALL written by disciples.

(And, we aren't even going to go into why poor fishermen would be able to write in Greek, in a backwater town, far outside the usual provinces of the Roman Empire).


Third: Moses cannot have written ALL of the Mosaic texts. Because he was raised in Egypt, so would have no knowledge of the Hebrew written language... even if he HAD learned to speak it. Because he was raised a prince of Egypt, so was NOT a holy man, and thus, wouldn't have had access to education about Egyptian writing either.

But mainly, because Deuteronomy details Moses' funeral.

He cannot have written a text that describes how he died, or what happened AFTER his death.

Also - examining the book of Genesis, it is clear that AT LEAST two authors wrote just that book.

Lucifer and Satan where both on Earth. Both were angels. Isaiah 14:12 says that Lucifer wanted to be above God. In Job Satan says that Job would curse God's name after God had said that he was a just man and everything. He was trying to prove God wrong. Also, if HaSatan is the Adversary of man, why'd he only put Job on trial?

About the disciples, many of them died after Jesus had been dead for a least a year (with the exception of Judas) b/c of what they preached. So it makes sense that after Jesus had died and talked to them the times after that that they would be able to write the Gospels. There was only one real Disciple that arrived and that person was simply repalcing Judas. Most of the Gospels however are from John, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and James. They were all part of the origianl twelve.

Moses was raised by Egytians yes, but whats to say that after they left that someone outside taught him and he wrote it in Hebrew. Deuteronomy I can understand being written partly by Moses but the rest by Joshua. Moses was probably considered a holy man because Isreal had been promised someone that would lead them out of Egypt.

Genesis was God telling Moses what to write.

Just one thing I thought of that I'd like to add on. What if God taught Moses how to read and write? Hey, he would have the disciples talk in languages that they didn't even know so whats to prevent God from teaching Moses how to read and write?

If something contradicts the Word of god then it isn't the word of God. That's where you start. You seperate it out and then examine the two seperate pieces. also, why would the Jews reject that there woud be God in the Flesh? Since a saviour was promised and according to specific guidelines then Jesus matches up. Assuming of course that the New Testament is true.

And yet, the Jews don't accept Jesus as 'christ'. They still argue that the messiah hasn't yet come.

In terms of matching Old Testament prophecy, Baha'u'llah actually matches several of the prophecies that Jesus left unmatched.

But anyway - the reason WHY Judaism doesn't "accept" the New Testament, is because they believe it contradicts the received 'word of god' (what WE call the Old Testament).

So - by your logic - the New Testament CANNOT be the 'word of god'... because it contradicts the account already given to God's Chosen People.

And yet, the Jews don't accept Jesus as 'christ'. They still argue that the messiah hasn't yet come.

In terms of matching Old Testament prophecy, Baha'u'llah actually matches several of the prophecies that Jesus left unmatched.

But anyway - the reason WHY Judaism doesn't "accept" the New Testament, is because they believe it contradicts the received 'word of god' (what WE call the Old Testament).

So - by your logic - the New Testament CANNOT be the 'word of god'... because it contradicts the account already given to God's Chosen People.

Firstly, how does it contradict the Old Testament? Anything that Jesus didn't do he would do when he came again. There are two coming remember, or at least if you look at all the prophesies, there should be. One, he'd die. Two, he has to be ruler of the world.

Secondly, matching several prophesies doesn't mean much. There's still probably about a twenty that Jesus matched that are pretty well impossible. Also, it makes more Biblical sense that many Jews still reject that he was the Messiah b/c he was meant to be rejected by his ppl.

Lucifer and Satan where both on Earth. Both were angels. Isaiah 14:12 says that Lucifer wanted to be above God. In Job Satan says that Job would curse God's name after God had said that he was a just man and everything. He was trying to prove God wrong. Also, if HaSatan is the Adversary of man, why'd he only put Job on trial?

About the disciples, many of them died after Jesus had been dead for a least a year (with the exception of Judas) b/c of what they preached. So it makes sense that after Jesus had died and talked to them the times after that that they would be able to write the Gospels. There was only one real Disciple that arrived and that person was simply repalcing Judas. Most of the Gospels however are from John, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and James. They were all part of the origianl twelve.

Moses was raised by Egytians yes, but whats to say that after they left that someone outside taught him and he wrote it in Hebrew. Deuteronomy I can understand being written partly by Moses but the rest by Joshua. Moses was probably considered a holy man because Isreal had been promised someone that would lead them out of Egypt.

Genesis was God telling Moses what to write.

Just one thing I thought of that I'd like to add on. What if God taught Moses how to read and write? Hey, he would have the disciples talk in languages that they didn't even know so whats to prevent God from teaching Moses how to read and write?

First: Where did you get the idea that Lucifer was on earth? Or, in fact, an angel?

We can be fairly sure HaSatan was an angel, because of the way he and 'god' talk at the start of Job, which also describes him being on earth... but no such assertion is made for Lucifer.

Second: the 'Lucifer' in the Isaiah story, in a reference to the star that rises before the sun, and thus sets before the sun... "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" The fact that it says "Son of Morning" shows that it is an astronomical body.

But - let's go back to the Hebrew for a second? In the Hebrew, this passage doesn't SAY "Lucifer", though it is clearly talking about the Luciferian mythology of Mesopotamia... what the Hebrew SAYS is "Helel".

Which is significant, because "Helel" refers to the King of Babylon. And actual, earthbound monarch, in a real city... who really "fell from grace".

Although the language is very poetic, and overly apocalyptic... it is OBVIOUS that Isaiah is talking about a real earthly king, in Isaiah 14:20 "Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned".


Second: regarding the Disciples... Matthias replaced Judas, yes?

Okay - well, Matthew 10 gives us an account of who the twelve disciples were... So, why don't you show me how the Gospels match the list?

Matthew 10:2-4 "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother... Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;.... Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him".


Third: Regarding Moses and his writing. Did you realise that the bible clearly states that Moses wrote the commandments? Not 'god'? Moses just took dictation...

The Moses story works BETTER if Moses is illiterate, because it means that he actually delivered the 'words of god'... because there could be no way he could have just 'made it up'... but, careful examination says that Moses did INDEED write the commandments... and, since he was alone at the time... who is to say that he did it with 'god' as his witness or inspiration?

Regardless - he cannot have written the WHOLE Mosaic texts, becasue, as we mentioned already... he was dead for part of it...

Firstly, how does it contradict the Old Testament? Anything that Jesus didn't do he would do when he came again. There are two coming remember, or at least if you look at all the prophesies, there should be. One, he'd die. Two, he has to be ruler of the world.

Secondly, matching several prophesies doesn't mean much. There's still probably about a twenty that Jesus matched that are pretty well impossible. Also, it makes more Biblical sense that many Jews still reject that he was the Messiah b/c he was meant to be rejected by his ppl.

This is a special kind of circular logic, that I can't even begin to fathom.

We KNOW that Jesus was 'messiah', because he matches the prophecies of messiah?

And yet... the ONLY prophecies of Messiah, were those of the Jews...

And THEY say, Jesus didn't match the prophecies.

If the Jews are RIGHT - then Jesus wasn't Messiah... because he doesn't match the prophecies of Messiah.

If the Jews are WRONG - then the Jewish prophecies mean nothing... because the Hews can be wrong, so why trust their prophets? Thus - Jesus STILL isn't Messiah...

Jeez, I really wish it was as simple and clear cut, black and white as God and Satan, good vs. evil, but unfortunately, either may not exist and the universe is a whole lot more complicated than that. It would truly be a great day when we humans could locate and isolate the evil of this world in the form of one creature and either ignore or annihilate it. The truth is that evil comes from all sides, even those you never expect; good people who patronize corrupt and oppressive corporations without even knowing it, cute animals that toy with their food before killing it, you and I who don't do as much as we can....etc.

Evil rests in the very heart of humans because we have a cerebrum and are capable of self awarness and free will. Just like the metaphorical story of Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit, it is our very intellect that makes us lords of this world, at the same time causing us untold misery in the form of intelligence used for corrupt and evil purposes.

First: Where did you get the idea that Lucifer was on earth? Or, in fact, an angel?

We can be fairly sure HaSatan was an angel, because of the way he and 'god' talk at the start of Job, which also describes him being on earth... but no such assertion is made for Lucifer.

Second: the 'Lucifer' in the Isaiah story, in a reference to the star that rises before the sun, and thus sets before the sun... "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" The fact that it says "Son of Morning" shows that it is an astronomical body.

But - let's go back to the Hebrew for a second? In the Hebrew, this passage doesn't SAY "Lucifer", though it is clearly talking about the Luciferian mythology of Mesopotamia... what the Hebrew SAYS is "Helel".

Which is significant, because "Helel" refers to the King of Babylon. And actual, earthbound monarch, in a real city... who really "fell from grace".

Although the language is very poetic, and overly apocalyptic... it is OBVIOUS that Isaiah is talking about a real earthly king, in Isaiah 14:20 "Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned".


Second: regarding the Disciples... Matthias replaced Judas, yes?

Okay - well, Matthew 10 gives us an account of who the twelve disciples were... So, why don't you show me how the Gospels match the list?

Matthew 10:2-4 "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother... Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;.... Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him".


Third: Regarding Moses and his writing. Did you realise that the bible clearly states that Moses wrote the commandments? Not 'god'? Moses just took dictation...

The Moses story works BETTER if Moses is illiterate, because it means that he actually delivered the 'words of god'... because there could be no way he could have just 'made it up'... but, careful examination says that Moses did INDEED write the commandments... and, since he was alone at the time... who is to say that he did it with 'god' as his witness or inspiration?

Regardless - he cannot have written the WHOLE Mosaic texts, becasue, as we mentioned already... he was dead for part of it...

Firstly, Isaiah 14:12 says that there was a Lucifer and that he sought to be above God and that he is doomed to Hell and that he fell from Heaven. No assertion can be made that HaSatan and Lucifer are the same person but it can be assumed that they are due to their similarities.

Secondly, just because it says "the morning star" means that he's (if he is a person) a astronomical object. A problem with this however is that in verse 13 it says that he had said in his heart that he woul ascend above God. Now that sounds much more like someone might say since inanimate onjects cannot think nor say anything.

Unfortunately, you have simply said that it means "Helel" but since translations can differ and therefore be incorrect then it might mean what you say it means but it might not.

Also, falling from Heaven and falling in grace have quite the gap between them.

Another thing which I'd like to say is plz don't say "OBVIOUSLY" because "OBVIOUSLY" it isn't as "OBVIOUSLY" seen to others as it is to you. I shouldn't have that right, you shouldn't, only God should because he has it there for a reason. Another thing however is that it talks about him being cast into a pit and into hell. Also, Satan is in some ways a earthly king. He rules (in some aspects) or earth. He doesn't have absolute power but he none the less has power and is ruling earth (in some ways).

Thirdly, Matthias replaced Judas yes.

First book of the New Testament, Matthew (Matthew the publican), Second Book, Mark. Third book, Luke. Fourth book, John (John, James's brother). From Acts to right before James was all written by Peter. James by James. The Peter's were also written by Peter. The John's by John as well and Revelation. Jude, was written by Jude the brother of James. Most of the Gospels were written by the original Twelve Disciples. Otherwise, in one of the other gospels it tells of who the person was such as Mark in Acts. Apparently, I was wrong in that all the Gospels were written by the original Twelve disciples but there were however many other disciples so it makes sense that a few would have their own gospel.

Fourthly, how would it be better if he was illiterate? If he was literate he'd still have the same problem as to whether they were the actual words of God. It is actually quite easy to make something up on the spot or to use random bits of information to make something believeable.

One thing though, we're simply going to go in circles so if you wouldn't mind, let's actually agree on something that IS known to be contradictory. The "Agree to disagree statement".

This is a special kind of circular logic, that I can't even begin to fathom.

We KNOW that Jesus was 'messiah', because he matches the prophecies of messiah?

And yet... the ONLY prophecies of Messiah, were those of the Jews...

And THEY say, Jesus didn't match the prophecies.

If the Jews are RIGHT - then Jesus wasn't Messiah... because he doesn't match the prophecies of Messiah.

If the Jews are WRONG - then the Jewish prophecies mean nothing... because the Hews can be wrong, so why trust their prophets? Thus - Jesus STILL isn't Messiah...

Just because they say Jesus wasn't the Messiah doesn't mean much because as I said before, the Jews were meant to reject him and kill him otherwise it would be said so in the old Testament.

Some food for thought about your last paragraph. Since some scientists are wrong, is all science wrong? Since one group of scientists is wrong, are all scientists wrong? Since one student of a scientist is wrong, are all students and scientists wrong? Since I was wrong about the Gospels being written by just the original Twelve dsiciples, are all Christians wrong? Is the Bible wrong then just because I don't know everything that's true? I'd like to end this arguement on that note since we'll argue about this till the end comes and then we'll know. One way or another, we'll know.

Jeez, I really wish it was as simple and clear cut, black and white as God and Satan, good vs. evil, but unfortunately, either may not exist and the universe is a whole lot more complicated than that. It would truly be a great day when we humans could locate and isolate the evil of this world in the form of one creature and either ignore or annihilate it. The truth is that evil comes from all sides, even those you never expect; good people who patronize corrupt and oppressive corporations without even knowing it, cute animals that toy with their food before killing it, you and I who don't do as much as we can....etc.

Evil rests in the very heart of humans because we have a cerebrum and are capable of self awarness and free will. Just like the metaphorical story of Adam, Eve, and the forbidden fruit, it is our very intellect that makes us lords of this world, at the same time causing us untold misery in the form of intelligence used for corrupt and evil purposes.

As I said, we'll know in the end the truth b/c this arguement never goes very far except in expanding knowledge of one's belief.

And who or what is "HaSatan"?
Natasah...I would suspect that the authour of this version of the spelling of Satan was some how wronged by a lady or chick named Natasah... ;)

Except in the Bible.

In fact, ignore Revelation (which wasn't even IN the original collection of scriptures, until Mithraism started getting popular with it's apocalyptic brand of prophetic texts), and there's pretty much NO good reason to connect those 'characters'.
Throughout the entire OT the end times are spoke of as well as references to Jesus' divinity...Revelation does have a place in the Bible....

So it's more helpful to sit around and speculate what Satan's motive is than go to the horses mouth?
Hey Tummania how you doin? I feel what he is tryin to say is that anything Satan would say would be lies anyway so why bother listening to him....LAter bud...

Maybe you didn't hear me, the Book of Revelation was written before some of the Books of John. Also, Satan tends to pervert the truth to his own usage and don't go telling me that Satan came from Egypt. Most likely, it was the other way around.

Satan is Satan. Old or New. He still is a liar, a counterfieter, a tricky, slimy, snakish person.

Aztecs probably did sacrafice virgins for purity but since nobody alives is really going to know then oh well. The point however is that they knew something had to be sacrificed otherwise sun wouldn't rise.

Also, I seriously doubt that anything left out of the Bible even existed at that time. Jeruselum was burned, pillaged and wrecked many times mind you so information was lost. But this information probably isn't necessary since it was lost. Otherwise, it'd still be around.

Another thing, any "christian" group would have kept everything. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been "christians".

Last thing, take your arguement somewhere else about whether Satan exists or not b/c this thread is meant for theoretical talk about Satan's motives.
I am a born again Christian and can not stand the circular logic you use here and the reference to the nation of Egypt as a product of Satan...I believe tha tSatan is a true entity but you make all Christians look ignorant the way you debate...Go back and better prepare your self before they flame you to death or are you just trollin...

Just because they say Jesus wasn't the Messiah doesn't mean much because as I said before, the Jews were meant to reject him and kill him otherwise it would be said so in the old Testament.

Some food for thought about your last paragraph. Since some scientists are wrong, is all science wrong? Since one group of scientists is wrong, are all scientists wrong? Since one student of a scientist is wrong, are all students and scientists wrong? Since I was wrong about the Gospels being written by just the original Twelve dsiciples, are all Christians wrong? Is the Bible wrong then just because I don't know everything that's true? I'd like to end this arguement on that note since we'll argue about this till the end comes and then we'll know. One way or another, we'll know.

If 'christians' claim that Jesus was Messiah, PURELY because he matches the description of Messiah that the Jews gave....

How can the Jews be 'wrong' about who Messiah IS, and yet STILL be 'right' about who he was SUPPOSED TO BE.

That's the flaw in the logic... you are basing the assumption that Jesus was Christ, on the teachings of people that deon't believe he DID match the teaching.

I will be prepared for blackness and an end, when I close my eyes the final time... if I open them to a 'heaven', I will be pleasantly surprised.

You will be expecting an afterlife, when you close your eyes that final time... and, if you are wrong... you'll never know you lived a lie.

I'm not sure which one of us is getting the better deal.

I am a born again Christian and can not stand the circular logic you use here and the reference to the nation of Egypt as a product of Satan...I believe tha tSatan is a true entity but you make all Christians look ignorant the way you debate...Go back and better prepare your self before they flame you to death or are you just trollin...

I'm glad it's not just me that is having trouble comprehending that anyone can even be MAKING some of those arguments..

If 'christians' claim that Jesus was Messiah, PURELY because he matches the description of Messiah that the Jews gave....

How can the Jews be 'wrong' about who Messiah IS, and yet STILL be 'right' about who he was SUPPOSED TO BE.

That's the flaw in the logic... you are basing the assumption that Jesus was Christ, on the teachings of people that deon't believe he DID match the teaching.


Hey GI,
Jews, hundreds of years after the fact, misinterpreting what Jews hundreds and even thousands of years earlier said isn't inconceivable. There are many disagreements within different sects of Judaism, and there are even Messianic Jews who believe that Jesus what indeed the Christ/Messiah.

You might also consider Gamelial's advice to the Jewish counsel in Acts Chapter 5. I'd say world history since is sufficient evidence that something beyond a mere human idea has been at work since.

Hey GI,
Jews, hundreds of years after the fact, misinterpreting what Jews hundreds and even thousands of years earlier said isn't inconceivable. There are many disagreements within different sects of Judaism, and there are even Messianic Jews who believe that Jesus what indeed the Christ/Messiah.

You might also consider Gamelial's advice to the Jewish counsel in Acts Chapter 5. I'd say world history since is sufficient evidence that something beyond a mere human idea has been at work since.

Hey PR.

Yes - there are Jews who do accept Jesus, and there are also still Samaritans who believe that Jews who follow more of the texts than just the Pentatauch are heretics.

Extremes NEVER are truly representative.

Perhaps it would have been better to say 'most' Jews still don't accept that Jesus matched what 'most' Jews consider the requirements of Messiah.

Regarding Gamaliel... good advice, making a martyr of someone has never been a very profitable way of removing their influence. I don't see that he is saying anything that requires non-material explanation... Christianity has been no more 'succesful' than any other religion, in real terms.

Hey PR.

Yes - there are Jews who do accept Jesus, and there are also still Samaritans who believe that Jews who follow more of the texts than just the Pentatauch are heretics.

Extremes NEVER are truly representative.


Nor is the majority always right. Your point is taken, but I'd still say that hanging an argument on majority opinion on a subject doesn't contain the purist of logic or at the very least is not irrefutable.

Nor is the majority always right. Your point is taken, but I'd still say that hanging an argument on majority opinion on a subject doesn't contain the purist of logic or at the very least is not irrefutable.

Which is EXACTLY the problem I would have with assertions that the New Testament follows Messianic prophecy.

Curious... once again, you and I see the same coin, but different faces.

:)

I am a born again Christian and can not stand the circular logic you use here and the reference to the nation of Egypt as a product of Satan...I believe tha tSatan is a true entity but you make all Christians look ignorant the way you debate...Go back and better prepare your self before they flame you to death or are you just trollin...

Where did I say that Egypt was a product of Satan? Allow me to apologize if I'm giving a bad rap of Christians. I try to use logic in debates. I'll use information to back up the logic if need be. What do you mean by "trollin"? Also, mostly it's the athiests that flame me for things I believe, not other believers.

If 'christians' claim that Jesus was Messiah, PURELY because he matches the description of Messiah that the Jews gave....

How can the Jews be 'wrong' about who Messiah IS, and yet STILL be 'right' about who he was SUPPOSED TO BE.

That's the flaw in the logic... you are basing the assumption that Jesus was Christ, on the teachings of people that deon't believe he DID match the teaching.

I will be prepared for blackness and an end, when I close my eyes the final time... if I open them to a 'heaven', I will be pleasantly surprised.

You will be expecting an afterlife, when you close your eyes that final time... and, if you are wrong... you'll never know you lived a lie.

I'm not sure which one of us is getting the better deal.

A couple of things.

Firstly, you can be wrong about something but be right about what it's supposed to be, etc and so on. Adding mistakes, you know how to add but yet ppl are still bound to make a mistake about it. Also, didn't I say before that they Jesus were meant to kill him? So, how'd it look if they then found out that "Oh, we killed our saviour". Not good. That might be a part of it.

Secondly, if Christians are right, and if you aren't a Christian, you won't go to Heaven. If Christians are wrong about Heaven, etc. and athesits are right, then we're all nothing. Christians right, Christians benifit, Atheists don't. Athesits right, nobody benifits. So is it better to benifit in one aspect, or not at all. This only applies however between atheism and Christianity, otherwise there's alot more research needed.

Which is EXACTLY the problem I would have with assertions that the New Testament follows Messianic prophecy.

Curious... once again, you and I see the same coin, but different faces.

:)

what's the problem with assertations that the New Testament follows Messianic prophecies? If it's right, then it follows. If not, then it's not.

what's the problem with assertations that the New Testament follows Messianic prophecies? If it's right, then it follows. If not, then it's not.

Not at all - the assertion was that (basically) the majority cannot always be trusted to be right...

Thus... the majority of Jews could be wrong... Jesus COULD be Messiah...

but, on the other hand:

Equally... the majority of Christians could be wrong... Jesus could NOT be Messiah.

To 'make' the Old Testament and New Testament work together, either the Jews had to be wrong, or the 'Christians' are wrong. (Or, of course... both could be wrong, with no 'conflict'.. since BOTH would be wrong...)

Either the Jews were wrong about Jesus being Messiah, or the Christians were... and the Jews WROTE the prophecy... which, to my mind, gives them the upper hand in deciding who is right.

A couple of things.

Firstly, you can be wrong about something but be right about what it's supposed to be, etc and so on. Adding mistakes, you know how to add but yet ppl are still bound to make a mistake about it. Also, didn't I say before that they Jesus were meant to kill him? So, how'd it look if they then found out that "Oh, we killed our saviour". Not good. That might be a part of it.

Secondly, if Christians are right, and if you aren't a Christian, you won't go to Heaven. If Christians are wrong about Heaven, etc. and athesits are right, then we're all nothing. Christians right, Christians benifit, Atheists don't. Athesits right, nobody benifits. So is it better to benifit in one aspect, or not at all. This only applies however between atheism and Christianity, otherwise there's alot more research needed.

Actually - I have a 'get out of jail free card'... well, kind of.

I was 'saved', so - according to Baptists, I AM guaranteed a place in heaven, if such a thing exists.

So - I'd be right up there.

But anyway - Christians could be RIGHT about 'heaven' and still be wrong about the REST of the message - like, what the entry requirements are.

Thus - I could die as a godless heathen, and still get in, because I was basically a nice person.

Or I could die - and never feel another thing.. because death is the end... and I'm fine with that, too.

On the other hand, a christian could be rejected from 'heaven' (if it existed), because of the way he was so intolerant on earth... in which case, his faith does nothing... and he burns with the lowest sinner.

Or, the end comes, and there is nothing... which means the 'christian' wasted his life, living a lie.

I think it's all about perspective - and the assumption that most 'christians' make, that they can somehow know the 'will of god'.

Not at all - the assertion was that (basically) the majority cannot always be trusted to be right...

Thus... the majority of Jews could be wrong... Jesus COULD be Messiah...

but, on the other hand:

Equally... the majority of Christians could be wrong... Jesus could NOT be Messiah.

To 'make' the Old Testament and New Testament work together, either the Jews had to be wrong, or the 'Christians' are wrong. (Or, of course... both could be wrong, with no 'conflict'.. since BOTH would be wrong...)

Either the Jews were wrong about Jesus being Messiah, or the Christians were... and the Jews WROTE the prophecy... which, to my mind, gives them the upper hand in deciding who is right.

Mind you however that the Jews which wrote the prophecy weren't alive when Jesus was so they might have said if they were alive "Yes this is Jesus" they might not but who alive knows? Still.

Actually - I have a 'get out of jail free card'... well, kind of.

I was 'saved', so - according to Baptists, I AM guaranteed a place in heaven, if such a thing exists.

So - I'd be right up there.

But anyway - Christians could be RIGHT about 'heaven' and still be wrong about the REST of the message - like, what the entry requirements are.

Thus - I could die as a godless heathen, and still get in, because I was basically a nice person.

Or I could die - and never feel another thing.. because death is the end... and I'm fine with that, too.

On the other hand, a christian could be rejected from 'heaven' (if it existed), because of the way he was so intolerant on earth... in which case, his faith does nothing... and he burns with the lowest sinner.

Or, the end comes, and there is nothing... which means the 'christian' wasted his life, living a lie.

I think it's all about perspective - and the assumption that most 'christians' make, that they can somehow know the 'will of god'.

If your "saved", then why such the arguement against Christianity?

Also, there are requirements to get to Heaven. There has to be a sacrifice. According to Christianity, Jesus, the Son of God, was that sacrafice for not one person but for everyone. Then it's simply up to your choice.

No then, everyone has sin, that is true, but sin= death so as before something has to take the place otherwise we die physically and spiritually.

Even if there is nothing in the end, a "Christian" wouldn't have wasted his life. He would have contributed to making the world a better place by following the ten commandments.

I don't think I believe I know the will of God b/c God hasn't directly spoken to me and told me what he wants. He told us with Jesus and the rest of the disciples, etc. I wounldn't think anyone should say that they know the "will of God" but yes maybe we sometimes do act that way.

If your "saved", then why such the arguement against Christianity?

Also, there are requirements to get to Heaven. There has to be a sacrifice. According to Christianity, Jesus, the Son of God, was that sacrafice for not one person but for everyone. Then it's simply up to your choice.

No then, everyone has sin, that is true, but sin= death so as before something has to take the place otherwise we die physically and spiritually.

Even if there is nothing in the end, a "Christian" wouldn't have wasted his life. He would have contributed to making the world a better place by following the ten commandments.

I don't think I believe I know the will of God b/c God hasn't directly spoken to me and told me what he wants. He told us with Jesus and the rest of the disciples, etc. I wounldn't think anyone should say that they know the "will of God" but yes maybe we sometimes do act that way.

First - Jesus said he wouldn't turn any away... and also, there's the thing about those in his hands, can never be taken out.

Thus - salvation is mine... regardless or works, or even belief... I see no good scriptural reason that can overturn that, if you accept all that scripture stuff.

Second: I like Christians. I just never meet any... what I encounter are 'christians'. They don't live christ-like lives, they don't follow the teaching of Jesus, they set themselves up as members of society, and they judge.

To my thinking... THOSE people aren't Christians. You aren't a Christian just because you attend church twice a week, or because your parents are.

On all of the forum, in my experience so far, I have met TWO people that I would consider MIGHT be 'true' Christians.

Third: I have no sin.

Fourth: If the 'christian' is wrong, and lives his/her life as most do - they have contributed little, and die liars.

Which is EXACTLY the problem I would have with assertions that the New Testament follows Messianic prophecy.

Curious... once again, you and I see the same coin, but different faces.

:)

It's true. I think it likely that anyone schooled in logic can see the logical issues in most any argument. Pretty much, when talking about anything that is based on assumptions anyway, there are always going to be flaws.

In my personal study of scripture, I have noticed that the more I focus on proofs an logic, the colder and more legalistic my religion becomes. The more I focus on know God, Christ and their will for my life, the more warm, personal and healing it becomes. I'm far more likely to grow from knowledge that changes my heart, than knowledge that changes my head.

Please don't think that I'm saying the evidence, logic and proofs are unimportant, but when dealing with those there always seems room for doubt, pretty much no matter what one believes. I do think that having a logical basis for belief is important, but if that is all that's there, it can be very empty. My personal interaction with God, though not tangible in any way I can prove scientifically, is the thing that convinces me over and over again of His love for me and all man kind. It has helped me see scripture from new perspectives that enhance my life and relationship with God, to see things so much more clearly than when I study from a strictly logic or scientific based perspective.

I know that probably sounds looney to you, but I assure you it is a very real part of my life. That is part of what makes me want to share it. The joy of knowing God really can be compared to much of anything. I guess that is why the Bible compares it to the relationship we can have with God to that of lovers in love, in marriage and the connection, unity, joy and well being that can come from healthy relationships.

Alright, I'll stop preaching. You're probably getting tired of my rambling anyway. Whether it means anything to you or not, I'm keeping you in my prayers, that God will aid and guide your search for truth, even if you don't come to the same conclusions I have.

Take care for now. Shabbat Shalom ;) , my friend.

It's true. I think it likely that anyone schooled in logic can see the logical issues in most any argument. Pretty much, when talking about anything that is based on assumptions anyway, there are always going to be flaws.

In my personal study of scripture, I have noticed that the more I focus on proofs an logic, the colder and more legalistic my religion becomes. The more I focus on know God, Christ and their will for my life, the more warm, personal and healing it becomes. I'm far more likely to grow from knowledge that changes my heart, than knowledge that changes my head.

Please don't think that I'm saying the evidence, logic and proofs are unimportant, but when dealing with those there always seems room for doubt, pretty much no matter what one believes. I do think that having a logical basis for belief is important, but if that is all that's there, it can be very empty. My personal interaction with God, though not tangible in any way I can prove scientifically, is the thing that convinces me over and over again of His love for me and all man kind. It has helped me see scripture from new perspectives that enhance my life and relationship with God, to see things so much more clearly than when I study from a strictly logic or scientific based perspective.

I know that probably sounds looney to you, but I assure you it is a very real part of my life. That is part of what makes me want to share it. The joy of knowing God really can be compared to much of anything. I guess that is why the Bible compares it to the relationship we can have with God to that of lovers in love, in marriage and the connection, unity, joy and well being that can come from healthy relationships.

Alright, I'll stop preaching. You're probably getting tired of my rambling anyway. Whether it means anything to you or not, I'm keeping you in my prayers, that God will aid and guide your search for truth, even if you don't come to the same conclusions I have.

Take care for now. Shabbat Shalom ;) , my friend.

Well! No, I didn't consider it rambling, and I caertainly wasn't 'getting tired' of it.

I have been a Christian - and I know what it can mean... and the point at which it stopped meaning anything to me, was the point at which I would draw the line, that says I am an Atheist.

Some of the Atheists on this forum seem to hate Christians... and I can understand why... with the disproportionate amount of power that various churches seem to weild. Even I often find myself opposing the church - for it's continuation of it's attempts to try to control the lives of NON-Christians.

I have nothing against Christians... I just think that MOST are nothing more than lip-service 'christians'... and have none of the message that Jesus (whether Man or God) came to preach.

By the way, I didn't think you were preaching... I thought you were just replying candidly, as I have been.

The difference is, I think, when someone tells you how you SHOULD live your life, and uses THEIR faith as the measure.

There are definitely cartain issues, where our personal perspectives shade our perceptions. This is far from the first time you and I have debated a point, only to find out we are ACTUALLY seeing the SAME point, we just perceive it differently.

Thankyou for taking the time to seriously debate the issue.

First - Jesus said he wouldn't turn any away... and also, there's the thing about those in his hands, can never be taken out.

Thus - salvation is mine... regardless or works, or even belief... I see no good scriptural reason that can overturn that, if you accept all that scripture stuff.

Second: I like Christians. I just never meet any... what I encounter are 'christians'. They don't live christ-like lives, they don't follow the teaching of Jesus, they set themselves up as members of society, and they judge.

To my thinking... THOSE people aren't Christians. You aren't a Christian just because you attend church twice a week, or because your parents are.

On all of the forum, in my experience so far, I have met TWO people that I would consider MIGHT be 'true' Christians.

Third: I have no sin.

Fourth: If the 'christian' is wrong, and lives his/her life as most do - they have contributed little, and die liars.

I agree with your First and Second statement. However, we're not perfect beings so it can sometimes be expected but yes I see your point. Your third point however, I disagree with. We all have sin, it's just that the penalty of our sin has been payed for by God.

Your fourth point somewhat angers me. To me it says, "Christianity doesn't make things any better". This may be a total exageration on my part. The thing though, is that if everyone was to follow Christ's teaching, even if it was simply the Ten Commandments, then the world would be a better place. Since however, we are sinful in nature then and the fact that Satan doesn't want us to do as God wants then we're going to have problems.

An interesting point I've noticed, your arguement that Lucifer isn't Satan revolves around one verse, the same verse that I use to say that Lucifer is Satan. Apparently, there's only one verse in the Bible that says Lucifer. I looked in the Strong's concordance and there was one listing. Basically, it's a draw. Neither one of us can say either way since there are points for and against but neither side has an absolute victory. Wanna call it a draw for now?

Part of it is explained in the Book of Daniel. Lucifer (AKA:Samiel, Satan, Devil) got mad at God for making man, saying how can you possibly make something lower than yourself? And now he's trying to prove to God that man will betray his maker in favor of a different good, really disquised evil.

I agree with your First and Second statement. However, we're not perfect beings so it can sometimes be expected but yes I see your point. Your third point however, I disagree with. We all have sin, it's just that the penalty of our sin has been payed for by God.

Your fourth point somewhat angers me. To me it says, "Christianity doesn't make things any better". This may be a total exageration on my part. The thing though, is that if everyone was to follow Christ's teaching, even if it was simply the Ten Commandments, then the world would be a better place. Since however, we are sinful in nature then and the fact that Satan doesn't want us to do as God wants then we're going to have problems.

An interesting point I've noticed, your arguement that Lucifer isn't Satan revolves around one verse, the same verse that I use to say that Lucifer is Satan. Apparently, there's only one verse in the Bible that says Lucifer. I looked in the Strong's concordance and there was one listing. Basically, it's a draw. Neither one of us can say either way since there are points for and against but neither side has an absolute victory. Wanna call it a draw for now?

The point is - most people that call themselves 'christians' live lives NO DIFFERENT to anyone else.

I live in an area of Georgia that is (apparently) VERY religious... and yet, so many of the people are hypocritical... you wouldn't believe the amount of adulterers, for example.

My point is - people CALL themselves 'Christian' - but do not LIVE that message.

By the way - Jesus didn't preach the Ten Commandments... he evn goes so far as to list what he considers the 'important' ones of the old 'laws'.

My argument that Lucifer and Satan are different entities does indeed revolve around the same reference - I am willing to call that a draw.

I think you MIGHT want to research some of the earlier Mesopotamian cultures. You might be surprised what you find.

The point is - most people that call themselves 'christians' live lives NO DIFFERENT to anyone else.

I live in an area of Georgia that is (apparently) VERY religious... and yet, so many of the people are hypocritical... you wouldn't believe the amount of adulterers, for example.

My point is - people CALL themselves 'Christian' - but do not LIVE that message.

By the way - Jesus didn't preach the Ten Commandments... he evn goes so far as to list what he considers the 'important' ones of the old 'laws'.

My argument that Lucifer and Satan are different entities does indeed revolve around the same reference - I am willing to call that a draw.

I think you MIGHT want to research some of the earlier Mesopotamian cultures. You might be surprised what you find.

Yes, I totally agree with your point. Although, (not to justify anything) but aren't we all just a little bit hypocritical sometimes? Just saying but yes I totally agree with what your saying.

I am however pretty sure though that Jesus does at one point go through the Ten Commandments but instead of listing the Old Testament "what to do's" in each case he lists a different way of doing it. I haven't beeb able to find the verses but I'm pretty sure their there. Either that or he did list the ones that he considered important. Funny though, the fact that when the Pharisees asked him which commandment was most important he told them that it was the first one, "love the Lord thy God". I believe that part's somewhere in Matthew and that it is also there that he talks about the other commandments.

I'll take your advice into researching into Mesopotamian cultures. Actually, you wouldn't have any sites on hand would you?

Well! No, I didn't consider it rambling, and I caertainly wasn't 'getting tired' of it.

I have been a Christian - and I know what it can mean... and the point at which it stopped meaning anything to me, was the point at which I would draw the line, that says I am an Atheist.

Some of the Atheists on this forum seem to hate Christians... and I can understand why... with the disproportionate amount of power that various churches seem to weild. Even I often find myself opposing the church - for it's continuation of it's attempts to try to control the lives of NON-Christians.

I have nothing against Christians... I just think that MOST are nothing more than lip-service 'christians'... and have none of the message that Jesus (whether Man or God) came to preach.

By the way, I didn't think you were preaching... I thought you were just replying candidly, as I have been.

The difference is, I think, when someone tells you how you SHOULD live your life, and uses THEIR faith as the measure.

There are definitely cartain issues, where our personal perspectives shade our perceptions. This is far from the first time you and I have debated a point, only to find out we are ACTUALLY seeing the SAME point, we just perceive it differently.

Thankyou for taking the time to seriously debate the issue.

The pleasure has been mine as well. I rather enjoy civilized discussions of issues, even with heathens :p ;) . I'm sure we'll do it again at some point, and when it is you, I look forward to it.

I try not to tell people how to live their lives, at least not unless I'm asked for my opinion. I do have very strong ideas about right and wrong and what it means to live as a Christian should, but I never have the right to try to push/force it on someone who doesn't want it. Christ never did that, Peter never did that, John never did that, Paul never did that, it just isn't the Christian M.O. or at least not what I see in the Bible.

I sort of think of the way I present my personal experience as somewhat "preachy", but maybe that is just because of the backlash you get around here from those who really do seem to hate religion.

Anyway, once again it's been a pleasure. :D

The pleasure has been mine as well. I rather enjoy civilized discussions of issues, even with heathens :p ;) . I'm sure we'll do it again at some point, and when it is you, I look forward to it.

I try not to tell people how to live their lives, at least not unless I'm asked for my opinion. I do have very strong ideas about right and wrong and what it means to live as a Christian should, but I never have the right to try to push/force it on someone who doesn't want it. Christ never did that, Peter never did that, John never did that, Paul never did that, it just isn't the Christian M.O. or at least not what I see in the Bible.

I sort of think of the way I present my personal experience as somewhat "preachy", but maybe that is just because of the backlash you get around here from those who really do seem to hate religion.

Anyway, once again it's been a pleasure. :D

There you go - evidence that the Christian and the Godless Heathen CAN get along. :)

You are certainly not the MOST preachy voice on these forums... and have the added advantage of being a Christian that CAN debate, without getting all bent out of shape, and throwing the bible at people... ;)

I think you have the right idea. Although I am no longer a Christian, I WAS.. and I think it is so important to try to be 'christlike', if you are going to CLAIM to be Christian. Yes - Jesus gave testimony, but he wasn't 'pushy' about it... he often offered his hand without any of the attachments that some christians would try to attach.

I have a lot of respect for Christians who act in a 'christian' way, and for those who accept that other people have made different choices.

To sum it up - I don't find you preachy, and yes - it is only a matter of times before we find ourselves crossing swords again! :)

Thank you. It is (and usually is) a pleasure.

There you go - evidence that the Christian and the Godless Heathen CAN get along. :)

You are certainly not the MOST preachy voice on these forums... and have the added advantage of being a Christian that CAN debate, without getting all bent out of shape, and throwing the bible at people... ;)

I think you have the right idea. Although I am no longer a Christian, I WAS.. and I think it is so important to try to be 'christlike', if you are going to CLAIM to be Christian. Yes - Jesus gave testimony, but he wasn't 'pushy' about it... he often offered his hand without any of the attachments that some christians would try to attach.

I have a lot of respect for Christians who act in a 'christian' way, and for those who accept that other people have made different choices.

To sum it up - I don't find you preachy, and yes - it is only a matter of times before we find ourselves crossing swords again! :)

Thank you. It is (and usually is) a pleasure.

:fluffle: :fluffle:

BTW, it occurred to me just now, you mentioning Christ not being "pushy". There were a couple of times that He was, but it was always with those who claimed to be representing God and doing so poorly. And never toward those outside the community of faith.

I generally feel the same way. If you don't believe in the truths of the Bible why should I beat you up with them. However, if you are claiming to be a Christian while abusing the scripture or using it to abuse others, well I might get a little more testy.

Yes, I totally agree with your point. Although, (not to justify anything) but aren't we all just a little bit hypocritical sometimes? Just saying but yes I totally agree with what your saying.

I am however pretty sure though that Jesus does at one point go through the Ten Commandments but instead of listing the Old Testament "what to do's" in each case he lists a different way of doing it. I haven't beeb able to find the verses but I'm pretty sure their there. Either that or he did list the ones that he considered important. Funny though, the fact that when the Pharisees asked him which commandment was most important he told them that it was the first one, "love the Lord thy God". I believe that part's somewhere in Matthew and that it is also there that he talks about the other commandments.

I'll take your advice into researching into Mesopotamian cultures. Actually, you wouldn't have any sites on hand would you?

Jesus does indeed list off what he considers the most 'important' Commandments:

Matthew 22:37-40 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.... This is the first and great commandment... And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself... On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Effectively - he creates two 'new' commandments... 'love god', and 'love man' - and pretty much says that following THOSE two is what is required.

And, also - the revised 'Jesus' commandments: Romans 13:9 "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".

Regarding Mesopotamian cultures, a fairly readable 'history' can be found on the following link: http://www.crystalinks.com/meso.html

The beauty of the Mesopotamian cultures, is that they left so much evidence of their existence... and their beliefs, and their laws, even their mathematics.

Also useful - again, mainly for history: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/TIMELINE.HTM

Another quite useful site, and one that actually delves a little deeper into the religion (my favourite of the three, but not necessarily the most accessible): http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html


It is possible to find a wealth of information through just casual websearches... try searching with keywords like 'Mesopotamian', 'Babylon', 'Sumerian', 'Ugarit'.

For interesting parallels - try combining such searches with terms like "Genesis' or 'flood'.

It is truly incredible how closely some of these myths resemble the Bible accounts... the Sumerian account of Ziusudra, or the Babylonian account of Atrahasis... both remarkably similar to the 'bible' flood story (especially the babylonian myth... even down to the phrasing of certain passages) - but both written long before the Hebrews began writing histories.

:fluffle: :fluffle:

BTW, it occurred to me just now, you mentioning Christ not being "pushy". There were a couple of times that He was, but it was always with those who claimed to be representing God and doing so poorly. And never toward those outside the community of faith.

I generally feel the same way. If you don't believe in the truths of the Bible why should I beat you up with them. However, if you are claiming to be a Christian while abusing the scripture or using it to abuse others, well I might get a little more testy.

Exactly... the 'church' feels like stoning a whore... and Jesus does indeed get quite 'uppity'... but, who does he rail against? Religious hypocrits, or the sinner?

For me - Christianity IS a church of love and tolerance... and THAT is why I tend to butt heads with so many 'christians'. (Note: I always am very specific about the difference between Christians and 'christians'.)

Wow, it's a regular cross-theistic love-in. :)

Exactly... the 'church' feels like stoning a whore... and Jesus does indeed get quite 'uppity'... but, who does he rail against? Religious hypocrits, or the sinner?

For me - Christianity IS a church of love and tolerance... and THAT is why I tend to butt heads with so many 'christians'. (Note: I always am very specific about the difference between Christians and 'christians'.)

Wow, it's a regular cross-theistic love-in. :)

Watch it, you might turn into a Christian yet... :p :D

I hadn't notice you make that difference. I'll have to pay attention in the future.

Exactly... the 'church' feels like stoning a whore... and Jesus does indeed get quite 'uppity'... but, who does he rail against? Religious hypocrits, or the sinner?

For me - Christianity IS a church of love and tolerance... and THAT is why I tend to butt heads with so many 'christians'. (Note: I always am very specific about the difference between Christians and 'christians'.)

Wow, it's a regular cross-theistic love-in. :)

Wow, it's really cool to read this long debate cause you can argue nicely and by the way i think you both have a lot of good points

BTW my opinion is that the devil is trying to take down as many ppl as he can cause that means he's hurting more people...

Watch it, you might turn into a Christian yet... :p :D

I hadn't notice you make that difference. I'll have to pay attention in the future.

I've been a Christian already... which is the main reason it hurts me, to see so many 'christians'.

I'm not saying I could never be a Christian again, although it doesn't seem likely.... unless something miraculous happened... but then again, isn't THAT almost the 'definition' of religion?

Wow, it's really cool to read this long debate cause you can argue nicely and by the way i think you both have a lot of good points

BTW my opinion is that the devil is trying to take down as many ppl as he can cause that means he's hurting more people...

Thank you!

I have had help form a wonderful cast... :)

I've been a Christian already... which is the main reason it hurts me, to see so many 'christians'.

I'm not saying I could never be a Christian again, although it doesn't seem likely.... unless something miraculous happened... but then again, isn't THAT almost the 'definition' of religion?

I hope 'christians' aren't the reason you decided against...

You just need a sign?? Isn't that what got a few Jews into trouble with Christ?(a "faithless generation" and all...) I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just something to think about. No answer required.

I hope 'christians' aren't the reason you decided against...

You just need a sign?? Isn't that what got a few Jews into trouble with Christ?(a "faithless generation" and all...) I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just something to think about. No answer required.

No - I never really 'decided against'.

I just finally realised I didn't 'believe' it all, anymore...

No - I never really 'decided against'.

I just finally realised I didn't 'believe' it all, anymore...

Do you still believe parts of it? How much of your personal morality is synonomous with "Christianity"?

Do you still believe parts of it? How much of your personal morality is synonomous with "Christianity"?

The golden rule, basically... it's ALL about doing to others what you wish to have done to you.

Or, as the Wiccan Rede puts it "an it harm none, do as you will"... roughly.

I DO think 'Jesus' had some good ideas, vis-a-vis not putting too much store in what the scribes tell you you should believe, and not judging, and looking to your own failings.

I no longer believe that there was a person called 'Jesus'... although I'm not saying there WASN'T.... but, I don't 'need' him to be real, to attach to that motif the positive aspects of the story.

I don't believe in any gods.

And, I certainly don't believe that you CAN'T be moral, without religion.

The golden rule, basically... it's ALL about doing to others what you wish to have done to you.

Or, as the Wiccan Rede puts it "an it harm none, do as you will"... roughly.

I DO think 'Jesus' had some good ideas, vis-a-vis not putting too much store in what the scribes tell you you should believe, and not judging, and looking to your own failings.

I no longer believe that there was a person called 'Jesus'... although I'm not saying there WASN'T.... but, I don't 'need' him to be real, to attach to that motif the positive aspects of the story.

I don't believe in any gods.

And, I certainly don't believe that you CAN'T be moral, without religion.

Reasonable for the most part. IMO, there is no such thing as morality without religion, but I think we've had that conversation once or twice. Of course I also believe it is impossible to have true religion with true morality. One in absense of the other is only half of the coin neither of which will buy you much without the other half. Though my definition of religion does not mean that you have to subscribe to the dogma of a specific church as much as it has to do with personal belief structures.

I'm sure, even with that loose definition of religion, you probably still disagree. As long as you are honestly searching for truth and following that which you find to the best of your ability and I am too we'll be headed in the same direction and we'll meet at the same conclusions, though it may take us both a while to come to a clear enough knowledge of truth for that to be possible. Even though you don't believe, I'll still pray that God blesses your search.

Reasonable for the most part. IMO, there is no such thing as morality without religion, but I think we've had that conversation once or twice. Of course I also believe it is impossible to have true religion with true morality. One in absense of the other is only half of the coin neither of which will buy you much without the other half. Though my definition of religion does not mean that you have to subscribe to the dogma of a specific church as much as it has to do with personal belief structures.

I'm sure, even with that loose definition of religion, you probably still disagree. As long as you are honestly searching for truth and following that which you find to the best of your ability and I am too we'll be headed in the same direction and we'll meet at the same conclusions, though it may take us both a while to come to a clear enough knowledge of truth for that to be possible. Even though you don't believe, I'll still pray that God blesses your search.

My search is earnest, and honest, and ongoing.

I believe we HAVE met at some of the same conclusions, already... from our own individual angles... but, perhaps we have taken away different things from the experience... you and I seem to stand looking at opposite sides of the same coin far too often. :)

About the 'morality' thing... I think Rape is wrong. There is no 'religious' reason for that... I just think it is a bad thing for one person to do to another... it cuts into my deepest 'morality'... that you shouldn't do more harm than good... or whichever version of the Golden Rule.

I don't have a religion that tells me that, nor need one. My 'morality' is determined by a certain degree of pragmatism... I wouldn't like that, if I were the victim. Thus, I have a 'godless' morality.

My search is earnest, and honest, and ongoing.

I believe we HAVE met at some of the same conclusions, already... from our own individual angles... but, perhaps we have taken away different things from the experience... you and I seem to stand looking at opposite sides of the same coin far too often. :)

About the 'morality' thing... I think Rape is wrong. There is no 'religious' reason for that... I just think it is a bad thing for one person to do to another... it cuts into my deepest 'morality'... that you shouldn't do more harm than good... or whichever version of the Golden Rule.

I don't have a religion that tells me that, nor need one. My 'morality' is determined by a certain degree of pragmatism... I wouldn't like that, if I were the victim. Thus, I have a 'godless' morality.


I can see that we have come to the same conclusions about many things. I can also see where we are looking at opposite sides of the same coin on a fairly regular basis.

The problem I have with "I think Rape is wrong". Begs the question why? and you'd answer that it is a harm to or violation of someone else's rights and I'd say why? What defines an individuals rights? What defines good or bad, right or wrong?

It is kind of like what Paul says in Corinthians about not knowing what sin is without the law. The law doesn't save you, doesn't justify you, doesn't sanctify you, it just provides you the information needed to know what is good or bad, right or wrong.

In the absence of an objective Definer of what is good and bad, right or wrong, there is no way to know. In the absense of a previous definition given by religion a person should be just as likely overjoyed at being raped, tortured or murdered as to feel harmed by it.

I should probably stop there. I understand that you believe this is an inate knowledge but without an objective origin I don't see how that can be a valid response. I think this is one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree about though, cause I don't think either one of us is changing the others mind on this subject anytime soon.

I can see that we have come to the same conclusions about many things. I can also see where we are looking at opposite sides of the same coin on a fairly regular basis.

The problem I have with "I think Rape is wrong". Begs the question why? and you'd answer that it is a harm to or violation of someone else's rights and I'd say why? What defines an individuals rights? What defines good or bad, right or wrong?

It is kind of like what Paul says in Corinthians about not knowing what sin is without the law. The law doesn't save you, doesn't justify you, doesn't sanctify you, it just provides you the information needed to know what is good or bad, right or wrong.

In the absence of an objective Definer of what is good and bad, right or wrong, there is no way to know. In the absense of a previous definition given by religion a person should be just as likely overjoyed at being raped, tortured or murdered as to feel harmed by it.

I should probably stop there. I understand that you believe this is an inate knowledge but without an objective origin I don't see how that can be a valid response. I think this is one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree about though, cause I don't think either one of us is changing the others mind on this subject anytime soon.

No, no - this is worthy of a response...

You remind me of C. S. Lewis... but, I'm afraid, I always found his logic flawed.

(Nonetheless, you should probably be flattered by the comparison... it is a mark of respect).

The assumption that there is an innate sense of good/bad is just as flawed as the concept that there is a god-given sense of good/bad.

My understanding... is that 'I' would not like to be forced to have sexual intercourse with a violent stranger. True both for myself, and for any female I might happen to cast my mind in the direction of... if I were 'HER', I wouldn't want a violent stranger to do bad sex things at me.

Thus - I have a pragmatic, and empathic understanding of what many call the Golden Law.

My empathy... my Pragmatism... brings me to the same conclusion.. "Do unto others, as you would have done unto yourself"... or whichever way you care to read it.

Morality doesn't require 'law'... just empathy, and sympathetic understanding. (By which I men, there needs to be a parallel understanding, to assume that the SAME response will hold true).

An all-knowing, all-powerful God wouldn't accidentally make a creature to oppose Him. If this is your view of God then Satan, and all actions of Satan, are part of God's plan: Satan is doing God's bidding.
If you believe Satan is not doing God's bidding, you need to question whether god is all-knowing or all-powerful.

No, no - this is worthy of a response...

You remind me of C. S. Lewis... but, I'm afraid, I always found his logic flawed.

(Nonetheless, you should probably be flattered by the comparison... it is a mark of respect).

The assumption that there is an innate sense of good/bad is just as flawed as the concept that there is a god-given sense of good/bad.

My understanding... is that 'I' would not like to be forced to have sexual intercourse with a violent stranger. True both for myself, and for any female I might happen to cast my mind in the direction of... if I were 'HER', I wouldn't want a violent stranger to do bad sex things at me.

Thus - I have a pragmatic, and empathic understanding of what many call the Golden Law.

My empathy... my Pragmatism... brings me to the same conclusion.. "Do unto others, as you would have done unto yourself"... or whichever way you care to read it.

Morality doesn't require 'law'... just empathy, and sympathetic understanding. (By which I men, there needs to be a parallel understanding, to assume that the SAME response will hold true).

The problem I have with that is, where did the conception of being raped, murdered or tortured as a bad thing come from. You could just as easily have been socialized to see those things as positive.

I agree that you haven't been socialized in that manner and don't feel that way, but you could have been and without an objective definition of good bad right wrong righteous evil etc anything could fit into any of those catagories. Without an objective Definer, everything becomes relative and thereby, equally justifyable.

Oh yeah, thanks for the compliment. I don't agree with everything C.S. Lewis thougth, but he was a great thinker.

An all-knowing, all-powerful God wouldn't accidentally make a creature to oppose Him. If this is your view of God then Satan, and all actions of Satan, are part of God's plan: Satan is doing God's bidding.
If you believe Satan is not doing God's bidding, you need to question whether god is all-knowing or all-powerful.

Conceptual limitations placed on God by human, self-preservationist way of thinking. Love and free will are far more valuable to God, see the life of Christ for evidence.

The problem I have with that is, where did the conception of being raped, murdered or tortured as a bad thing come from. You could just as easily have been socialized to see those things as positive.

I agree that you haven't been socialized in that manner and don't feel that way, but you could have been and without an objective definition of good bad right wrong righteous evil etc anything could fit into any of those catagories. Without an objective Definer, everything becomes relative and thereby, equally justifyable.

Oh yeah, thanks for the compliment. I don't agree with everything C.S. Lewis thougth, but he was a great thinker.

SOME societies HAVE accepted some of those values as good things. The Vikings were so successful, in large part, because of a policy of rape.

That is a social 'morality', if you will.

So - collectively - there was no inner message of wrong-doing... but I am sure there were INDIVIDUALS who sat down and thought "Hey, wait... I wouldn't like that if it was done to me..." and thus, displayed a sympathetic morality... much like that which I argue.

An all-knowing, all-powerful God wouldn't accidentally make a creature to oppose Him. If this is your view of God then Satan, and all actions of Satan, are part of God's plan: Satan is doing God's bidding.
If you believe Satan is not doing God's bidding, you need to question whether god is all-knowing or all-powerful.

Satan is doing what he wants to do. God however knows exactly what he's going to do and has a plan for it. From the begining of time God knew exactly what was going to happen. The reason why he lets things be is because he wants us to have free will. He wants us to choose whether or not to love him. If love was programed into us, then it wouldn't mean much now would it? But to have something that actually chose to love you and obey, that's priceless. God had created his plan the second he even thought of making the Earth. Just because Satan is doing as God expects doesn't mean that he's doing his bidding, simply means that God has a plan.