NationStates Jolt Archive

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?

However, is Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell?

No

No, it's the Christians that are wrong.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, is Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?

In mainstream christainity the devil is not in hell. as of yet he has never seen hell. Hell will be his final resting place after the day of judgement and he will be tortured along with all the sinners in the same manner. He is not the master of hell. THe Devil is just the great advisary who tempts you to do evil.

Why shouldn't someone evil still punish other evil people? Also, I presume god has some way of making sure the evil souls can't get out of hell. That's religion for you.

Why shouldn't someone evil still punish other evil people? Also, I presume god has some way of making sure the evil souls can't get out of hell. That's religion for you.

THe devil is not the punisher of evil in CHristainity. He is the one that tempts you to do evil. Read the book of Job. THe devil tempts Job, and inflicts upon Job what God permits him to do, but God limits the devil in the amount of abuse Job can take. ALso in the Gospel of Matthew I believe the Devil tries to tempt Jesus. THe master of hell idea is a myth about christain beliefs.

sattan does not exist.

THe devil is not the punisher of evil in CHristainity. He is the one that tempts you to do evil. Read the book of Job. THe devil tempts Job, and inflicts upon Job what God permits him to do, but God limits the devil in the amount of abuse Job can take. ALso in the Gospel of Matthew I believe the Devil tries to tempt Jesus. THe master of hell idea is a myth about christain beliefs.
Ah, okay, gotcha... Thanks for clearing that up.

Meh. I like the idea of evolution through a series of encarnations much better. It's more fitting of a loving god than eternal punishment.

I was expecting a question on why God allows Satan to exist...

I was expecting a question on why God allows Satan to exist...
It's part of his master plan to be annoying and mysterious. And to not get so bored.

I was expecting a question on why God allows Satan to exist...
Or perhaps on why Satan allows God to exist..........

God might allow Satan to exist because he does tempt people, as a way of a test to see how strong/pious/righteous/moral you are.


Oh and Swalatia, theres only one "t"

God might allow Satan to exist because he does tempt people, as a way of a test to see how strong/pious/righteous/moral you are.

Shouldn't he know that already?

Satan is your best friend. :)

Shouldn't he know that already?
Just like he should know whether or not you're going to sin, how much you're going to sin and whether or not you'll repent. So really most of us have been destined to go to hell since, well forever. Omniscience FTW.

I was expecting a question on why God allows Satan to exist...

Free will, right? If there's no temptation to do bad then one isn't really choosing to not do it.

Free will, right? If there's no temptation to do bad then one isn't really choosing to not do it.

...So in order to have the choice to love God, they have to be tempted not to, because if they weren't, they wouldn't have a reason not to, and that's ... required, somehow?

Meh. I like the idea of evolution through a series of encarnations much better. It's more fitting of a loving god than eternal punishment.

Oh yeah-that would be so loving.

Make us go through THIS CRAP AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN ???

Until one reaches nothingness?

Sounds like eternal torture to me...:gundge:

Oh yeah-that would be so loving.

Make us go through THIS CRAP AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN ???

Until one reaches nothingness?

Sounds like eternal torture to me...:gundge:

...You realize, of course, that for it to be eternal, it'd have to not end?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?

The idea that Satan is bad, is based on a lack of understanding.

"Satan" is not a 'name'... it is a job - it is what 'he' does.

In the trial of humans, Satan (Hebrew reads: HaSatan - THE adversary) is the 'adversary'... the prosecution... he is the 'adversary' of man... NOT of God.

Careful reading of Job illustrates this - the relationship is clearly master-to-servant, and 'Satan' only harms Job on express instruction from God... even to the 'degree of harm'.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?
Because Christianity spins the facts to make Jesus and his daddy look good and Satan look bad. In reality Jesus kicks puppies and Satan is a nice guy, a big donor to charities for crippled kids and a loyal pal who will always show up to help you move or whatever else you need as long as you buy him a couple of beers.

Make us go through THIS CRAP AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN ???
Sure. You either develop a taste for it or get the hang of the whole thing and make it better.

Until one reaches nothingness?
That's the Buddhists. You can put whatever you want at the end of it. Bliss, if it pleases you.

"This is Hell. We're big on irony here" (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=040224) - Head Hell Guy, 8-bit Theater #388.

No, it's the Christians that are wrong.

Proof? :rolleyes: Haha, I love it. "Omg Christians dont have physical evidence!!! They're wrong!!!" Well there's no evidence the other way either!

Proof? :rolleyes: Haha, I love it. "Omg Christians dont have physical evidence!!! They're wrong!!!" Well there's no evidence the other way either!

Making it best to belive nothing, eh?

accordinga the the christian faith satan is not incharge of hell he is there being punished with all the "sinners"

Or perhaps on why Satan allows God to exist..........

To quote R. Lee Ermie in Full Metal Jacket: "He plays his games... We play ours."

Although I consider myself atheist, if I was forced to make an either or decision, I would probably worship the Dark One. Satanists have groovy rituals of destruction, sex, and cake, while Christians have shitty wine, shittier crackers, and guilt.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?
He has no power of his own, therefore hecannot send others back to the world. He punishes because he likes inflicting pain and sinners are provided in great quantity.

Proof? :rolleyes: Haha, I love it. "Omg Christians dont have physical evidence!!! They're wrong!!!" Well there's no evidence the other way either!
Uhh... there is no proof either way, only belief. You believe, or not. FIN

Hmm but if God is benevolent, why does he send people to burn in hell in the first place? That doesn't seem like a very benevolent action.

Hmm but if God is benevolent, why does he send people to burn in hell in the first place? That doesn't seem like a very benevolent action.

And lo, a rational thought many dismiss...

Satan is a Slovakian hockey player that plays for the New York Islanders - duh.

He has his own website! However, beware... he might tempt you into committing acts of evil.

SATAN (http://www.mirosatan.sk/Satan_sk/home/home.php)

Satan is a Slovakian hockey player that plays for the New York Islanders - duh.

He has his own website! However, beware... he might tempt you into committing acts of evil.

SATAN (http://www.mirosatan.sk/Satan_sk/home/home.php)
Oh of course, how did I not know that?

He WAS a Buffalo Sabre. Gives a whole new meaning to my rat hole of a city if Satan even left it.

He WAS a Buffalo Sabre. Gives a whole new meaning to my rat hole of a city if Satan even left it.
Isn't it funny that the season after Satan left Buffalo, the Sabres became a good team?

Read the book of Job. THe devil tempts Job, and inflicts upon Job what God permits him to do, but God limits the devil in the amount of abuse Job can take.
I'm glad you pointed that part out. It does well on these kinds of threads.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

As a christian who knows about this I can tell you one thing, Hell is the last place satan wants to be, hell was created as a dungeon for him and he doesnt rule over anything that god hasnt granted him and he never granted him hell, your theory is flawed because he is not the master of hell and is in as much pain down thereas everyone else.

You are wrong about satan being the master of hell. That is merely a myth, but satan is said to represent evil and tempt people. That role brings up an interesting point.

If god is all powerful why does he allow evil in the world?
Generally the answer is that he allows freewill and that humans are evil.
How does that allow for the existance of some evil entity that goes around sometimes interfering with freewill (posessing people) in order to spread evil.
God's inaction with regard to satan makes him just as culpable for the evil deeds induced by satan.

The only way I can see around this is for satan to be redefined as freewill. In which case everyone is possessed by satan. Then the issue arises, why would God allow everyone to be possessed by satan?

The whole thing is just an intricate web of contradictions which I certainly can see no way out of.

Just another reason why I demoted myself from christan to agnostic.

You are wrong about satan being the master of hell. That is merely a myth, but satan is said to represent evil and tempt people. That role brings up an interesting point.

If god is all powerful why does he allow evil in the world?
Generally the answer is that he allows freewill and that humans are evil.
How does that allow for the existance of some evil entity that goes around sometimes interfering with freewill (posessing people) in order to spread evil.
God's inaction with regard to satan makes him just as culpable for the evil deeds induced by satan.

The only way I can see around this is for satan to be redefined as freewill. In which case everyone is possessed by satan. Then the issue arises, why would God allow everyone to be possessed by satan?

The whole thing is just an intricate web of contradictions which I certainly can see no way out of.

Just another reason why I demoted myself from christan to agnostic.

Perhaps both God and Satan are a mythological representation of our respect and striving for the goodness within us and a representation of our fear of the evil inside of us, respectively.

By the way, why do you call your shift from Christianity to agnosticism a demotion?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?

Satan is just one of God's minions. He does the dirty work.

I do not, and never have, expected logic from the religious

Perhaps both God and Satan are a mythological representation of our respect and striving for the goodness within us and a representation of our fear of the evil inside of us, respectively.

By the way, why do you call your shift from Christianity to agnosticism a demotion?

Because according to my old beliefs I have condemned myself to hell.

I actually see my dechristianization as one of the biggest leaps foreward in my lifelong search for truth.

When I said I saw no way out, I meant within the confines of christianity. However, I do have to admit, your idea appeals to me.

Because according to my old beliefs I have condemned myself to hell.

Interesting. As an agnostic theist who happens to be Catholic, I'm not particularly worried about going to hell.

I actually see my dechristianization as one of the biggest leaps foreward in my lifelong search for truth.

Also interesting. The search for truth is often aided by leaving old beliefs behind for a time so that we can search for it without such a high degree of bias, certainly. I hope that works well for you.

The only way I can see around this is for satan to be redefined as freewill. In which case everyone is possessed by satan. Then the issue arises, why would God allow everyone to be possessed by satan?



That doesn't follow at all.
Satan's existence, if true in any way we have understood or misunderstood it, is possible because of freewill. That doesn't make Satan freewill itself. That's a very odd twist of flawed logic.

Interesting. As an agnostic theist who happens to be Catholic, I'm not particularly worried about going to hell.



Also interesting. The search for truth is often aided by leaving old beliefs behind for a time so that we can search for it without such a high degree of bias, certainly. I hope that works well for you.

Why do you have no fear of hell?
Also thank you for the encouragement, my new method has produced some promising results.

That doesn't follow at all.
Satan's existence, if true in any way we have understood or misunderstood it, is possible because of freewill. That doesn't make Satan freewill itself. That's a very odd twist of flawed logic.

Yeah I'd be inclined to agree with you. I thought about editing out that part but I realized that you would have more fun if I kept it in.

Basically the confuzed twisted path that my mind followed was to say that if the only reason god allows evil in the world is to preserve freewill, and satan is evil then satan must be in some way integral to freewill or else under the aforementioned assumptions god would have no excuse for not wiping satan out of existance.

Yeah, I just made it worse, but if you criticise it again, and I respond again. The third time is supposed to be a charm.

Why do you have no fear of hell?

Because in my view, hell (like God and Satan) is a symbol, a powerful symbol of the pain and suffering we experience in life as both a product of our poor choices that alienate us from God and of the tragedies caused by natural calamities of this world. It represents nicely our sense of the unstoppable and everpresent force of evil embodied in natural disaster and the unfortunate results of our bad choices.

Aside from that, my particular approach to theology posits a truly benevolent God, one who allows those who so choose to continue to exist, even if they choose to exist apart from God (existence apart from God, the symbol of the goodness within us, being hell).

Also thank you for the encouragement, my new method has produced some promising results.

You're quite welcome. I'm glad to hear of the promising results.

Yeah I'd be inclined to agree with you. I thought about editing out that part but I realized that you would have more fun if I kept it in.

Basically the confuzed twisted path that my mind followed was to say that if the only reason god allows evil in the world is to preserve freewill, and satan is evil then satan must be in some way integral to freewill or else under the aforementioned assumptions god would have no excuse for not wiping satan out of existance.

Yeah, I just made it worse, but if you criticise it again, and I respond again. The third time is supposed to be a charm.


LOL

Well, one of the major problems with Satan is that he is very poorly defined in scripture. We cobble him together from several unrelated scriptures and then mix in buckets of borrowed mythology.

But, if you want God to wipe out Satan for being evil, then I imagine God would be obligated to wipe out humanity for its evil.

Lucifer Morningstar's position has been a matter for discussion for centuries, if not millenia. Is he the right hand of God? Is he the eternal enemy of Christ? Is he, somehow, both? Is the Angel of Death the companion of God or the Devil, or both?

I'm not religious, and have no intention of being. However, I've always found theological debates like this to be intriguing.

Just another reason why I demoted myself from christan to agnostic.
I would respectfully beg to differ.
NOT a "demotion".
:)

One of the best viewpoints I've seen on the subject surprisingly comes from a series of fiction novels by Piers Anthony called the Incarnations of Immortality. Is a 7 book series and the last two are about Satan and God. The take on how things work is just really cool, and while it's obviously fiction, there are some interesting points of logic to consider mixed in. (incidentally, this is also how I feel about the DaVinci code, and the Vatican's massive overreaction is giving the story more power than it could ever have had, but no thread stealing!)

In order for man to have free will, there must be a choice, so there must be an antithesis to God. My personal belief is that the 'revolt' in heaven where Lucifer defied God and started a little bit of a civil war and ended up cast down and made his own kingdom of Hell, I think that revolt was intentional by God because the angels don't have free will but He wanted humankind to have it, so we needed a choice. If angels don't have the option to disobey, how do they revolt? Wow, that's a bit offtopic too, maybe.

Satan and Hell exist as opposites to Heaven in order to ensure that Man has a choice between good and evil, to make Man more and less than the angels. Satan is the main tempter, and God is the main reasoner. Is logic vs emotion, much like the Jedi vs Sith. (sorry, I've been playing KotOR recently) They both have their jobs, their functions, and it's up to the peoples to make the choice. 'Judgement Day' isn't like going to court, it's just an honest and upfront blunt look at your life and telling you this is what you chose. If you chose God, then you get to go be with God. If you didn't, then you get to go be without.

--Also, I don't believe in the fire & brimstone, torture for eternity type Hell, I'm more of the ... oh what was the name of that movie, with Robin Williams and they showed his wife in Hell, all by herself. That's a more accurate view of Hell. To be away from the deity that created you, alone for eternity, there's no stabbing of hot needles into your genitals and little devils poking you endlessly, there's no need, you're just separate from Him because of the choice you made.

Ok, so this turned into something long, a bit rambly, and maybe totally offpoint, but I hope I've been of some help and maybe given the OP and maybe some of you others too something to think about in regards to the question.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?


me thinks he is my offspring..lol

oh what was the name of that movie, with Robin Williams and they showed his wife in Hell, all by herself. That's a more accurate view of Hell.

The title of the film is What Dreams May Come, the title being taken from Hamlet's famous monologue in Shakespeare's Hamlet.

The title of the film is What Dreams May Come, the title being taken from Hamlet's famous monologue in Shakespeare's Hamlet.
That was actually a pretty excellent movie, in most respects.

That was actually a pretty excellent movie, in most respects.

That it was. I found it incredibly stimulating intellectually and to some degree emotionally as well.

That it was. I found it incredibly stimulating intellectually and to some degree emotionally as well.
Agreed. In fact, when the situation has arisen, i have referred quite a few times to that particular flick.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong in any of my following statements, this question has been bugging me for a while now. *Note... I'm agnostic, I'm just asking about what the bible or other sources have to say about this.

In Christianity, Satan is bad. He is evil. He is the master of Hell, which is where sinners go. However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?




First of all -has anyone seen God? No. You "believe" because you have been born in "believing" families, therefore you take the presence of God for granted. Any religion, same principal. You must be mentally disabled not to question his presence.
Let's say you don't believe in God and call yourself "agnostic" ( that means you believe in something, you just don't know what is it and supposedly, you're searching ). So you don't believe. If that's the case, how come you believe in satan? Satan cannot exist if there's no god. And vice versa. Isn't this logic at it's finest?
Well if you get to think for a minute about basics of christianity - you're supposed to be a good person if you follow the rules ( we all know them, no matter what do we believe in ), But hey, same with communism. According to it's doctrines we're all supposed to be equal!!!
And one more thing: has anybody seen ufo? I don't think so. And even if they did, noone believes them and finds them crazy. Shouldn't we think that all humans who believe in any god ARE crazy? I think we should.
There's no god. No satan. No ufos. The only thing that's left for all thinking peop:headbang: le is NIHILISM.

Cockstein -

I saw a tv documentary about a month ago on the "real" truth behind UFO's. Apparently the design and engine propulsion systems were invented by a german scientist and then was adopted by the Nazi's as part of their special weapons program for recon work as they're hard to spot on radar, can't remember why. The plans all went to Skoda who made the first production UFO. At the end of WW2 the some of the nazi scientists defected to the KGB where they continued their work, a couple of them later defected to CIA. Supposedly it was one of the KGB's UFO's that showed up famously on a film set at the height of the cold war (Dean Martin film??? not sure)

After many UFO sightings in America the CIA staged a joint press conference with head of military intelligence(oxymoron?) denying their existance, and a famous pulp fiction writer saying aliens are everywhere and they're coming to attack us kinda thing. Basically if this programme is factually correct UFO's exist and it's all government - sorry... no little green men in saucers.

Sorry to hijack the topic!

I'm an aetheist but if I reason things - if god does exist and allows Satan to tempt and create evil things, then God is also evil, or just some bastard having fun. Like us playing the Sims or something.

I'm just gonna sell my soul to Santa (dyslexic devilworshipper) like all the good kids!

And one more thing: has anybody seen ufo? I don't think so. And even if they did, noone believes them and finds them crazy.
Yes, actually. I've seen two. The first was in '97, with four other witnesses. It was a lot like the Lubbock Lights that of course no one else saw either :rolleyes:

The second was November 30, 1998 at 4:17 am. This was punctuated by our local power grid going out. It was witnessed by one policeman, one police dispatcher, myself, a guy in a Subaru, two people who called a security company that i worked at, and my ex-gf.

I truly don't give a sh*t if you or anyone else doesn't believe me, because it did INDEED happen, and i was extraordinarily lucky to see not one but TWO in my life, BOTH TIMES with witnesses, AT LEAST ONCE with reputable ones.

I have a family member who witnessed one on radar in the Korean War and was ordered not to report on it as anything other than a tech glitch. And i have a lawyer friend who witnessed one of the ones listed in the article in Popular Mechanics about the Six Unexplained UFO sightings:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1282476.html

So you have your world and we have the same, just some things are a little different on your end. Don't employ the same manner of homogenous ASSumption that you're reveling against.

Yes, actually. I've seen two. The first was in '97, with four other witnesses. It was a lot like the Lubbock Lights that of course no one else saw either :rolleyes:

The second was November 30, 1998 at 4:17 am. This was punctuated by our local power grid going out. It was witnessed by one policeman, one police dispatcher, myself, a guy in a Subaru, two people who called a security company that i worked at, and my ex-gf.

I truly don't give a sh*t if you or anyone else doesn't believe me, because it did INDEED happen, and i was extraordinarily lucky to see not one but TWO in my life, BOTH TIMES with witnesses, AT LEAST ONCE with reputable ones.

I have a family member who witnessed one on radar in the Korean War and was ordered not to report on it as anything other than a tech glitch. And i have a lawyer friend who witnessed one of the ones listed in the article in Popular Mechanics about the Six Unexplained UFO sightings:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1282476.html

So you have your world and we have the same, just some things are a little different on your end. Don't employ the same manner of homogenous ASSumption that you're reveling against.

So aliens just enjoy driving by Earth? We're on the scenic route then...

I don't think satan is in charge of hell, why would God put him in charge of anything? It's more like that's were he goes along with all the sinners to 'burn' or whatever happens in hell. I mean he's like the ultimate sinner.

Satan is evil. But being evil doesn't mean that you lik your own kind. Satan gets his kicks out of punishing anyone, whether they be good or evil. He doesn't care, so long as he's causing someone pain.

I don't understand why any of you are personalizing God or Satan in the first place. :confused:

I don't understand why any of you are personalizing God or Satan in the first place. :confused:

Surely you have some idea. At the very least there are historical and cultural reasons for it.

Christians have a skewed idea of Satan because the concept was distorted from its original status in Judaism. Like most Jewish concepts in Christianity, it ceased being Jewish once it was paganized by Hellenizers and Goyim. This is why you can hardly find two Christians who agree on what is going on regarding Satan.

In Judaism, Satan was (and is) an angel sent by God to test and tempt human beings. In fact, Satan isn't even a name, or proper noun, but a title used to refer to any angel sent by God to test people. Thus, it would be satan (lower case) rather than Satan.

In fact, the first time 'satan' occurs in the Scriptures it clearly states that satan is an angel of the Lord (Num. 22:22). Evil, in addition, does not stem from satan but rather is a creation of God according to Scripture (Isaiah 45:7, I make peace and create evil).

But I digress. Anyone who is interested in a the pre-Christian view of satan, or how Christianity developed its doctrine of the big red guy might like to check out this short article on my website:

Who is Satan? (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id14.html)

"Satan" doesnt exist.

Satan is merely a name given to our namless fears.
Its a way to identify the boogey-man, and thus confront it.
The entire reason "satan" exists as we know him, is only to give reason why evil exists at all.

Weak willed people have always needed something to believe in and having a boogey-man, with a name, and yet, who is suppossedly submissive, or overmatched by "God" who is a good guy, is a way to convince ourselves that good is stronger than evil.

So, in essence, Satan is self-therapy, and nothing more.

"Satan" doesnt exist. Satan is merely a name given to our namless fears.

This is an opinion, just in case people don't realise and think it's fact.

This is an opinion, just in case people don't realise and think it's fact.

Lets not sound silly, and try to argue for his existance.

You cant even prove God exists, let alone his "big fiery nemesis that lives under the ground".

If one billion people all look for the purple unicorn...and no one ever finds it..its fairly safe to assume there never was one.

"Satan" doesnt exist.

Satan is merely a name given to our namless fears.
Its a way to identify the boogey-man, and thus confront it.
The entire reason "satan" exists as we know him, is only to give reason why evil exists at all.

Its as fair to say that satan doesn't exist as that satan does exist.

However, it would be inaccurate to say that satan was a name given to our fears, or a way to excuse evil or reason why evil exists. Keep in mind, in Judaism (where satan was created) satan wasn't used as a scapegoat for fears, nor as an excuse for why evil exists. Those were later Christian developments.

If one billion people all look for the purple unicorn...and no one ever finds it..its fairly safe to assume there never was one.

Its true that it would be safe to assume that there never was one.

However, to argue that lack of evidence produces the positive conclusion that something doesn't exist is a formal logical fallacy, drawing a positive conclusion from negative premises. A lack of evidence can never prove the non-existence of anything.

Satan does not exist per se, rather he is an ideal, an embodiment of all that is humanity supressed.

Of course in the faerie-tale of Christianity he was the head of the Nephilim who, for his crimes, was cast from Heaven by Michael the Arch Angel.

Its as fair to say that satan doesn't exist as that satan does exist.

However, it would be inaccurate to say that satan was a name given to our fears, or a way to excuse evil or reason why evil exists. Keep in mind, in Judaism (where satan was created) satan wasn't used as a scapegoat for fears, nor as an excuse for why evil exists. Those were later Christian developments.


Incorrect sir. (ma'am?)

Almost all religions have "the nemesis" , or counterpart to the Hero God.
In Christianity, we have God, or even Jesus, as a counterpart to Satan.
Both parts, representing good, or evil.

Zeus has his Hades..
Odin had Ymir the Frost Giant...
Marduk had Pazuzu...(thats probably not right, but you get the idea).

We assign good and evil personas onto the deities in question, and attribute events and occurances to them.
If a Christian sees a rainbow...he thinks its from God...he sees a murder..he asssumes its the work of Satan, its merely a coping mechanism.
The brain rationalizing the world around it.

Its true that it would be safe to assume that there never was one.

However, to argue that lack of evidence produces the positive conclusion that something doesn't exist is a formal logical fallacy, drawing a positive conclusion from negative premises. A lack of evidence can never prove the non-existence of anything.

That I feel is pretty much opinion.

If you have no evidence to support a theory, especially a religious theory, then its rationally unsound to persue, or worship that theory when you have absolutely no basis of certainty.

No evidence to support God = why the hell would you do it?!

Incorrect sir. (ma'am?)

Almost all religions have "the nemesis" , or counterpart to the Hero God.
In Christianity, we have God, or even Jesus, as a counterpart to Satan.
Both parts, representing good, or evil.

Zeus has his Hades..
Odin had Ymir the Frost Giant...
Marduk had Pazuzu...(thats probably not right, but you get the idea).

Right, but we're talking about satan, not all other religions. Bringing up a dichotomy in other religions is a red herring when discussing satan, or Judaism. As I wrote, satan wasn't a nemesis or counterpart to a hero deity in Judaism, and still isn't today.

And while religions around the world have assigned good attributes to God while assigning evil attributes to this anti-God, in Judaism both good and evil stem from God, as well as from ourselves as human beings. There isn't a god/devil dichotomy.

That I feel is pretty much opinion.

If you have no evidence to support a theory, especially a religious theory, then its rationally unsound to persue, or worship that theory when you have absolutely no basis of certainty.

No evidence to support God = why the hell would you do it?!

Well, logic is actually a science, with objective principles. It isn't opinion in the least; drawing a positive conclusion from negative premises is a formal logical fallacy.

Lets not sound silly, and try to argue for his existance.

You cant even prove God exists, let alone his "big fiery nemesis that lives under the ground".

If one billion people all look for the purple unicorn...and no one ever finds it..its fairly safe to assume there never was one.

I'm not trying to to prove anything

I'm not trying to to prove anything


Of course you arent.
Ultimately, neither of us can.

However, an absence of evidence, can however, prove an absence.
Thus, if Satan does exist, he and any influence...are quite absent.

However, an absence of evidence, can however, prove an absence.
Thus, if Satan does exist, he and any influence...are quite absent.

According to the science of logic, an absence of evidence can't prove an absence. Again, that is the formal fallacy of drawing a positive conclusion from negative premises.

I'm sure we've all heard the logical axiom "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Well, logic is actually a science, with objective principles. It isn't opinion in the least; drawing a positive conclusion from negative premises is a formal logical fallacy.


I beg to differ.

If we consider religion as an experiment to prove a theory, that being the existance of God, then we must consider all past experiments as failures, since we do not have any such proof.

Basing an opinion and claiming a positive conclusion, (God does exist) from a series of failed experiments is folly.

Thus, the negative conclusion: God does not exist, would be the one that is far more likely, given the results of failed experiments.

No evidence to support your theory, means your theory is flawed, or incomplete.

I beg to differ.

If we consider religion as an experiment to prove a theory, that being the existance of God, then we must consider all past experiments as failures, since we do not have any such proof.

Basing an opinion and claiming a positive conclusion, (God does exist) from a series of failed experiments is folly.

Thus, the negative conclusion: God does not exist, would be the one that is far more likely, given the results of failed experiments.

No evidence to support your theory, means your theory is flawed, or incomplete.

So you reject the logical fact that it is a formal fallacy?

You are aware that logic is a science, with laws and principles just like any other, right? Fallacies aren't a matter of opinion any more than the law of gravity is.

However, if Satan is both evil and in charge of Hell, why does he punish the sinners? Logically, if he is bad he would not wish to punish people who are bad, but he would treat them well, them also being evil people, or he would release their souls back into the world to reek havoc. For Hell to work, Satan would either have to be good and want to punish the wrongdoers, or Satan is evil, and Hell is a fine and dandy place for a sinner to be.

Does this make any sense at all, or is there a huge flaw in my reasoning that I am missing?

Actually, I think that Plato got it right in the first Book of the Republic. Care for others of any kind--including the simple community of like with like, e.g. evil with evil--is a good, "justice" as he would have it. The most purely unjust person, then, would be so unjust--so evil--that he would treat everyone badly... if he could get away with it.

If the Devil, then, is the Christian depiction of pure evil, he would be so foul as to abuse anyone in his power, even those most like him.

So you reject the logical fact that it is a formal fallacy?

You are aware that logic is a science, with laws and principles just like any other, right? Fallacies aren't a matter of opinion any more than the law of gravity is.

I contend that my statements are no less logical than the "absence of evidence" mantra that so many christians love to use.

I contend that my statements are no less logical than the "absence of evidence" mantra that so many christians love to use.

Do you know what logic is? Its a science, not something really subject to opinion.

What you've entered into is a formal fallacy. Do you know what formal fallacies are?

being agnostic is just a a simple way of saying your are stupid. Being agnostic is not even a religeon because your not following anything, its just a theory. really if you trace the word agnostic back it means Without knowledge. in agnosticism you just believe in a higher being. its like being nuetral. you either believe or u dont!

Do you know what logic is? Its a science, not something really subject to opinion.

What you've entered into is a formal fallacy. Do you know what formal fallacies are?


Youre being an ass, and failing to refute my logic that you have such issue with.
Insulting me isnt making you look any wiser.

Youre being an ass, and failing to refute my logic that you have such issue with.
Insulting me isnt making you look any wiser.

I never insulted you, and you never used any logical principles that I've had to refute. As I've stated, over and over, logic is a science. It has very clear rules, principles, and laws.

Attempting to draw a positive conclusion from negative premises will always be a formal logical fallacy. It violates the rules of a categorical syllogism. In fact, this is so basic and rudimentary, you should be able to find this in virtually any logic text. Example, Hurley's Logic, Ninth Edition.

"Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise."

I have a feeling that you aren't familiar with the science of logic, and instead are using the term "logic" as a layperson, like it is most commonly used in day-to-day speech.

I never insulted you, and you never used any logical principles that I've had to refute. As I've stated, over and over, logic is a science. It has very clear rules, principles, and laws.

Attempting to draw a positive conclusion from negative premises will always be a formal logical fallacy. It violates the rules of a categorical syllogism. In fact, this is so basic and rudimentary, you should be able to find this in virtually any logic text. Example, Hurley's Logic, Ninth Edition.

"Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise."

I have a feeling that you aren't familiar with the science of logic, and instead are using the term "logic" as a layperson, like it is most commonly used in day-to-day speech.

Now I suspect you need to go back and re-read my post.

Thus, the negative conclusion: God does not exist, would be the one that is far more likely, given the results of failed experiments.

You can also use substitution to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the statement, "there is no evidence for God, thus God does not exist."

There is no evidence for a round Earth (in ancient history), thus a round Earth doesn't exist.

There is no evidence for bacteria (in the past), thus bacteria doesn't exist.

We've had no evidence for many things at various points in history, but not once did this lack of evidence mean that those things didn't exist. This is what the logical process of substitution demonstrates.

According to my rather unusual beliefs, God is unable to simply and directly interact with the world, and thus needed something to initiate a change. I see Satan (Lucifer) as both a positive and a negative figure. Positive, because he allowed for Man to become truly sentient and gain the ability to make his own decisions, but also negative, as with the ability to make decisions comes the ability to make bad ones. If anything, he's God's great tool, motivating change knowingly or not--at least, in a certain way.

I view life as a great test of faith, and that everyone must question themselves to truly find what is right for them. I don't believe in the condemnation to hell for those who question, because we were given the ability to think for a reason--it's the little piece of Him that we have inherited.

On the topic of believing something without seeing it, or having any proof... that is called faith, and it is a thing few people can truly possess.

On a lighter note, go ahead and oppose my opinion. I love challenges to my beliefs-they allow me to question and refine my views even further.

You can also use substitution to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the statement, "there is no evidence for God, thus God does not exist."

There is no evidence for a round Earth (in ancient history), thus a round Earth doesn't exist.

There is no evidence for bacteria (in the past), thus bacteria doesn't exist.

We've had no evidence for many things at various points in history, but not once did this lack of evidence mean that those things didn't exist. This is what the logical process of substitution demonstrates.

But again, I never claimed that any lack of evidence proves conclusively that God doesnt exist, I merely suggest that its far more likely, that he doesnt, based on the complete lack of evidence.

Thus, the negative conclusion: God does not exist, would be the one that is far more likely, given the results of failed experiments.

Jedi vs Sith. (sorry, I've been playing KotOR recently).

Thats interesting, because of the inherint hypocrisies of the jedis and the evil of the sith, George Lucas originally intended to have Luke beat the empire in return of the jedi and found an order of grey knights as a mixture of both. But he was sadly talked out of it...

But again, I never claimed that any lack of evidence proves conclusively that God doesnt exist, I merely suggest that its far more likely, that he doesnt, based on the complete lack of evidence.

I know, I think I tried to acknowledge that in my first response. Its a reasonable conclusion, but it isn't conclusive.

I know, I think I tried to acknowledge that in my first response. Its a reasonable conclusion, but it isn't conclusive.


Conclusive?

No.
Nothing concerning philosophy can, I think.

But I do think its more conclusive.

Conclusive?

No.
Nothing concerning philosophy can, I think.

But I do think its more conclusive.


Oh, there's evidence enough that God exists.
But there is no objective evidence - and there wont ever be.
As it was intended.

Oh, there's evidence enough that God exists.
But there is no objective evidence - and there wont ever be.
As it was intended.


No.

Evidence that a person has convinced themselves exists, but no one else can see, doesnt count.

Theres nothing that can really qualify as "evidence".

Only "conviction".

No.

Evidence that a person has convinced themselves exists, but no one else can see, doesnt count.

Theres nothing that can really qualify as "evidence".

Only "conviction".

*thinks it over*
*nods*
I rather like that.

Having the correct "conviction" ( i.e. that God exists ) then becomes the primary virtue.

But, coincidentally, it ( personal evidence )does count as evidence for the person that is convinced.

*thinks it over*
*nods*
I rather like that.

Having the correct "conviction" ( i.e. that God exists ) then becomes the primary virtue.

But, coincidentally, it ( personal evidence )does count as evidence for the person that is convinced.

Conviction however, isnt always a virtue.
I can be "convinced" that you are a demon sent from Hell, and therefore in need of a sound stabbing.

Conviction can be incorrect, evidence, isnt usually.

Conviction however, isnt always a virtue.
I can be "convinced" that you are a demon sent from Hell, and therefore in need of a sound stabbing.

Conviction can be incorrect, evidence, isnt usually.

In order for a conviction to be correct and virtuous, it must be pleasing unto God.

Whatever conviction is not pleasing unto God, is therefore incorrect and unvirtuous.

( Logic can prove everything - provided you are canny about picking your postulates. )

In order for a conviction to be correct and virtuous, it must be pleasing unto God.

Umm no...
Youre assuming the ability to tell right from wrong stems from only God.

Whatever conviction is not pleasing unto God, is therefore incorrect and unvirtuous.

According to Leviticus we should have more conviction to scourge unmarried women who get raped.
That conviction is not pleasing unto ME, and therefore incorrect, and unvirtuous.

Umm no...
Youre assuming the ability to tell right from wrong stems from only God.



According to Leviticus we should have more conviction to scourge unmarried women who get raped.
That conviction is not pleasing unto ME, and therefore incorrect, and unvirtuous.

I used that one as a postulate, a definition of Right and Wrong.

You're not God - therefore your beliefs of Right and Wrong are only correct to the extent that they present a submission unto God.

I used that one as a postulate, a definition of Right and Wrong.

You're not God - therefore your beliefs of Right and Wrong are only correct to the extent that they present a submission unto God.


I fail to see how they present a submission unto anything except my own sense of right and wrong.

Care to rephrase that?, Im confused.

I fail to see how they present a submission unto anything except my own sense of right and wrong.

Care to rephrase that?, Im confused.

I. God defines Right and Wrong.
( axioma )
II. Whatever deviates from God's definitions is therefore unvirtuous.
( axioma )
III. The prime way for a human to be right is submission to Divine Command.
( axioma )


IV. You have a definition of Right and Wrong ( of which you admit, I think, that it differs from Divine Command ).
V. This violates III.
VI. Therefore, you deviate from the prime way.

I. God defines Right and Wrong.
( axioma )
II. Whatever deviates from God's definitions is therefore unvirtuous.
( axioma )
III. The prime way for a human to be right is submission to Divine Command.
( axioma )


IV. You have a definition of Right and Wrong ( of which you admit, I think, that it differs from Divine Command ).
V. This violates III.
VI. Therefore, you deviate from the prime way.

VII. "The Prime way" is mandated from a possibly, and likely imagined source, thus invalidating itself.

being agnostic is just a a simple way of saying your are stupid. Being agnostic is not even a religeon because your not following anything, its just a theory. really if you trace the word agnostic back it means Without knowledge. in agnosticism you just believe in a higher being. its like being nuetral. you either believe or u dont!#

Agnostic does not mean you believe in something but don't know what, it means you are unsure about God's existence. You're right about one thing the word does mean 'without knowledge' but this is knowledge of whether or not God exists. No-on to my knowledge has ever claimed 'agnosticism' to be a religion, I don't think it's even a word. You get agnostic Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. The fact that many of histories great philosophers have been agnostic rather refutes your 'being agnostic is just a simple way of saying you are stupid' claim. Infact, it is the most logical and easily defended religious position.

VII. "The Prime way" is mandated from a possibly, and likely imagined source, thus invalidating itself.

Nope. See: axioma I.

There can be no validity that does not start with the acceptance of Divine Existence.

Nope. See: axioma I.

There can be no validity that does not start with the acceptance of Divine Existence.


Youre making some sort of "laws" out of NOTHING.

If belief in God mandated a firm sense of right and wrong, then all christians would be sin-free.

Life isnt like that.

And theres NOTHING valid about God.

Youre making some sort of "laws" out of NOTHING.

If belief in God mandated a firm sense of right and wrong, then all christians would be sin-free.

Life isnt like that.

And theres NOTHING valid about God.


*shakes head*
God exists to be submitted to.
Negation exists to be punished.

*shakes head*
God exists to be submitted to.
Negation exists to be punished.


And fanciful delusions of divinity, will shatter every vain hope of a promised paradise.

And fanciful delusions of divinity, will shatter every vain hope of a promised paradise.

*raised eyebrow*
How can there be an 'and' ( other than an 'and' of acceptance ) following the Divine Command?

( See? It all depends on canny picking of postulates! )

*raised eyebrow*
How can there be an 'and' ( other than an 'and' of acceptance ) following the Divine Command?


Becuase there is nothing to issue any such command, beyond that wich you have convinced yourself to exist.

Becuase there is nothing to issue any such command, beyond that wich you have convinced yourself to exist.

You can hear it too - potentially.
If you don't hear it, then it follows that you are rejected and/or mad.

You can hear it too - potentially.
If you don't hear it, then it follows that you are rejected and/or mad.

Or, perhaps the only call you received, was one you gave yourself, rather than received from an outside source?

Satan is not real but myth and there is always many many sides of myth.
There are as many ideas of satan as people.
Christianity has for example changed their serious theology nearly each century
and the folklore view is both ignored and obviously less serious and more entertaining.

Satan is not always Lucier. Sometimes there are many devils or just one
which differs in abilities depending on the myth.
basically there are different concept.

The rebel angel against god.

Folklore trickster demons.

The demon acuser serving God by and testing the innocent.

Evil demon created by god as punnishment.

Servitor demons submissive to pure preists who may comand the power of demons in the name of God.

Sometimes there are fallen angels.
Satyric demons.
Or dragons.
They are really not the same.

And then there is the chaotic mess of demons that mix all together just
so christians can confirm that there is only one demon and one god.
It's so silly and become more silly still.

Religions are not homogenious not even monotheism.
There are no theological systems that are really followed.
I have lost interest in all religious intellectualism

Or, perhaps the only call you received, was one you gave yourself, rather than received from an outside source?

Let's suppose I did not hear the call from God.
It would then follow that I were rejected - or mad, just like you.

But that does not matter much, objectively.
( Being rejected and/or mad matters to us two, but that's pretty much it. )

Either one hears the call.
Or one is rejected and/or mad.



Logic can prove anything, provided you pick fitting postulates.

Let's suppose I did not hear the call from God.
It would then follow that I were rejected - or mad, just like you.

But that does not matter much, objectively.
( Being rejected and/or mad matters to us two, but that's pretty much it. )

Either one hears the call.
Or one is rejected and/or mad.

Logic can prove anything, provided you pick fitting postulates.

Of course. If you choose to ignore possibilities, anything can be reduced to the 'only logical possibility'.

If I know that the sky at night is either white or black, but I exclude black... it is 'logical' to assume it is white.

That doesn't mean it is... just that my logic model is flawed.

So aliens just enjoy driving by Earth? We're on the scenic route then...
UFO doesn't inherently = "aliens".
I don't need to ascribe too many deductions to things which are decidedly unfinished and lacking enough parameters to qualify the closest thing to "the right answer".

I think that's already been covered in a few other threads, anyway.
Nonetheless, those things did actually happen.
I'm sounding a bit redundant when i say "i've never, to my knowledge, seen any extraterrestrial sentient beings."

Let's suppose I did not hear the call from God.
It would then follow that I were rejected - or mad, just like you.

Open your mind a crack.
If there was no call, then you are rejected from nothing.

Mad am I?
Hmm..

Or maybe, Im able to look beyond what everyone SAYS I should believe, and am able to think objectively about the rationality of Gods existance.

What would makeyou say that?
Couldnt you simply have needed something to believe in, and have found comfort and safety in a community that supports you?

Is it such a stretch to believe that what truly draws you to religion, is not some sort of divine knowledge imparted by a man in the sky, but rather a small peice of mind gained by the idea that "God" "loves you", and that he has prepared Heaven for you when you leave this world?

Its not that small token of mental security, is it?
Its the community you probably find at church.
You find loving people who are spiritually like minded, and who support each other when in need.
THATS what truly draws people to religion...not God, or Jesus.


Either one hears the call.
Or one is rejected and/or mad.


Im sorry, thats a bit too stagnant for me.
No basis, no origins of thought, no logic.