Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 11-08-2005, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iznomneak

No satan observable today has the power to reason and talk in a human language either.

It is the satan called Satan who is not observable that is the problem. If people could see him, his effectiveness would be considerably reduced.

pharoah · 11-08-2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

In Jude we read,
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

There are three events identified. If we take the events to be in chronological order, then the angels were "reserved in everlasting chains" after the destruction of Sodom and before the time that Israel left Egypt.

That would allow Satan and the angels to roam the earth and be the cause of the wickedness of the people that led to the flood and to that wickedness that led to the destruction of Sodom. After Sodom, the influence of the angels would have been diminished, so we should have seem less wickedness on the scale of Sodom. There are some who think that Satan was still free until Christ died on the cross at which point he was bound. The impact on the world is that we are told of relatively few people being saved in the OT and great numbers of people being saved in the NT.

From what I can gather above, you have committed yourself to the position that the demoms were bound in chains after the destruction of Sodom, and that Ol' Snatch himself was bound at the death of Christ. That's not how I read the Jude passage, but let's see where your interpretation takes us.

Quote:

# Matthew 7:22
Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

# Matthew 8:31
So the demons begged Him, saying, “If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine.�?

# Matthew 9:34
But the Pharisees said, “He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons.�?

# Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

# Matthew 12:24
Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.�?

# Matthew 12:27
And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

# Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.

# 1 Corinthians 10:20
Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.

# 1 Corinthians 10:21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.

# 1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

# James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!

Every one of these verses clearly depict post-Sodom demon activiity. Now which is wrong, all of these verses or your theory that all demons were bound after Sodom?

Now here's a passage from Revelations concerning Satan:

Quote:

Revelations 20
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

If Satan was bound at the death of Jesus, then why he is being depicted here as being bound again in the future?

Face it Rhutchin, the Bible's teaching about Satan and demons is hopelessly muddled and contradictory. These creatures are simply the result of the understandable Jewish desire to shift the onus of evil from God to other supernatural creatures. There's simply no way to reconcile the Satan of Job who's an angel of God only doing his bidding with the Satan of Paul who's the god of this world and the embodiment of all evil with the Satan of Jude who's supposedly bound in chains.

CJD · 11-08-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

These creatures are simply the result of the understandable Jewish desire to shift the onus of evil from God to other supernatural creatures.

The ancients who read and lived the TNK were never concerned with shifting the blame. Humanity was always (and is) to blame.

CJD

David Vestal · 11-08-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The problem we have is that little information is given to us concerning this event and that leaves many questions unanswered.

Actually, when viewed as a myth, there is ample information and no unanswered questions. Since your particular additions to the story raise many questions and answer none, there is no reason to accept them.

Quote:

Extrapolations beyond the text are always flawed given their nature as extrapolations. However, people can still speculate and do so consistent with the information that is available.

Your speculations are unsupported and transform an easily-understood story into one so rife with problems that you yourself are powerless to resolve them, as demonstrated by the fact that your post completely ignored all the issues I raised with your interpretation. Ergo, your additions to the story are less than worthless.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-08-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I do not see the contradiction (and you did not go into great detail about an alleged contradiction).

You claim that human concepts of morality don't apply to God.

And yet you ALSO disagree that God tortures people, kills babies and encourages soldiers to rape virgin girls: this is "not part of His nature".

Please explain how you can determine that this is "not part of his nature".

Jimmy Higgins · 11-08-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This need not imply that the serpent was the mastermind but only that the serpent was a very suitable animal for Satan (the true mastermind) to use.

So was Satan merely the muse? It would seem odd that the story would introduce the serpent as being unique, only to have a third party control the serpent (which the story never even comes close to alluding to).

That aside, the story has too many holes. For one, there are two Prohibitions:

Prohibition 1: And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Prohibition 2: The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'

1: Can't eat from "tree of knowledge of good and evil"
2: Can't eat or touch tree in the "middle of the garden"

Not only does the rule change, so does the identification of the tree as well.

It goes on when the woman claims the serpent "deceives" her. Problem is, where is the deception? The serpent says: "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

After God ponders about the act of the man and woman, the story tells us: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

So the woman is claiming of a deception that never exists. The serpent said that they wouldn't die, they didn't, and that God would see that their eyes had opened, which he did. Ironically, it is for this reason that God throws man out of the Garden... not because they broke the prohibition, but because man had become like God himself. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

It doesn't take a scholar to see jealousy in God's actions. He isn't throwing them out because they broke the rule but because if they stayed, they'd become Godly. The story tells us that the serpent is cunning. Some people want to automatically assume that means the serpent was against man. But from the story, the cunning of the serpent would apparently see right through God's lie. If anything, it could be argued that the serpent was freeing man from God's false prohibition. That the serpent wanted to lead man to all knowledge, while God wanted to keep it to himself. God was jealous of what man could become. The serpent was cunning enough to see this and didn't want man to be held back by God's jealousy.

This could help explain God's rage against the serpent. The serpent exposed God for the liar he was, because when the moment the woman ate the fruit, she did not "surely die." That man is banished from the garden because man would become like God only emphasizes that jealousy is God's motive. For God did punish the man and woman and serpent from the transgression of eating the fruit, however, that punishment did not include banishment. That was decided afterwards when God realized that his monopoly was gone.

post tenebras lux · 11-08-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Delia

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a very bad story to use as an example. God allowed Lot, his wife, and his two daughters to escape the shitstorming of the two cities, even though Lot offered his two daughters to be raped by a group of strangers in order to protect his houseguests, and following the firestorm, Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with their father, each producing male offspring, a kind of hybrid son/brother. Lot's unnamed wife was killed for simply looking back at her hometown being destroyed by a conflagration literally of Biblical proportions. And Lot was described in Genesis 6:9 as being righteous and blameless.

Bottom line, that story is all fucked up.

WMD

Both Lot and Job bring to mind the phrase 'more sinned against than sinning'. Given that we are all born with original sin, can't everyone claim to be more sinned against (by being born with the curse of original sin) than sinning (because, due to original sin, we are all already damned, so any further sinful behaviour (itself induced by original sin) is just icing on the cake)?

Rhutchin: Where do you stand on that claim that, due to being born with the curse of original sin, we are all more sinned against than sinning?

rhutchin · 11-08-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
The reference to those who are blinded seems clearly to be unbelievers. There are two choices for the “god of this world.�? They are Satan and God (Christ).

Satan is called the “prince of this world�? in the following--

<snip>

Satan is also said to have free reign over people and to desire them—

<snip>

There are verses that give the ultimate control over people to God (because He is sovereign) but this merely allows God to let Satan operate freely to accomplish His purposes. Certainly, Satan would have a desire to blind people in order to see them destroyed and could only accomplished this if allowed by God.

post tenebras lux
But why does god allow the 'god of this world' to do this? I've asked this of you before, but I don't think you've given an answer (maybe there was a 'I dunno' somewhere).

How do you respond to the idea that god and satan may be the same entity? People with split personalities can argue against themselves, and your god was able to send his 'son' personality down to earth to be crucified, so why couldn't he send his 'trickster' personality down to be bound in chains?

Given that you admit to not knowing why your god decides certain actions (such as who is on the list of the elect), do you agree that it is at least possible that the true personality of your god is that of 'The Trickster'? That it was satan who created the universe and this world?

God allows it because it is His purpose and plan to do so. We see this reason given in such verses as;

Romans 9
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Ephesians 1
11 ...we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

I don’t buy the idea that God and Satan are the same individual. There is no trickery on God’s part. In the Bible, He has explained everything He is doing and you are able to read it for yourself (but you do not have to believe it if you do not want to).

Quote:

rhutchin
Yes. This seems to have been the opinion of Peter also.

2 Peter 3
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

post tenebras lux
Do you think that your apologetics satisfy these conditions from 2 Cor?

Here they are again, for ease of reference:

Quote:

2 cor. 4:2
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Whether or not you consider yourself 'crafty' (is that a bad thing?), do you at least agree that you are not yet 'commending [yourself] to every man's conscience in the sight of [g]od' with your apologetics?

Apparently not to yours, so that fails your “every man's�? test.

Mageth · 11-08-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It is the satan called Satan who is not observable that is the problem. If people could see him, his effectiveness would be considerably reduced.

So then, why didn't God just go ahead and make Old Sol visible? Reducing his effectiveness would seem like a good thing. Doesn't God like to do good things?

My 8-year-old son saw through this scam a while back, BTW, when he asked his Christian mom, "Why doesn't God just kill the devil?" Yes, indeed. A very good question.

Invisible Gods, invisible Devils. And reasons as to why they are invisible! If you could see them, they wouldn't be as effective!

Is it any wonder why so many rational people dismiss these invisible creatures as nothing more than fairy tales?

post tenebras lux · 11-08-2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The reference to those who are blinded seems clearly to be unbelievers. There are two choices for the “god of this world.�? They are Satan and God (Christ).

So:

a) why did you substitute '[Satan]' for the 'god of this world' when you're now saying 'either Satan or Christ hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them'?

b) if the 'god of this world' could be a reference to the Christ, then what does the verse say about Jesus given that it says: Christ hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them?

c) if the 'god of this world' sometimes refers to Satan and sometimes refers to the Christ, then can you ever tell which is being refered to in each case? It would be helpful if this could be acheived without using some form of 'extra-biblical morality' (i.e. well that must be refering to Satan cos I know that Jesus would never do that sort of thing) as you admit that you don't (always) know why god - and I presume that includes 'god (christ)' - performs - or allows - certain actions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.