• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Did God Make The Devil?

madhatter85

Transhumanist
It takes great intellectual dishonest with ones self not to see the apparent problems in your "Indications of PLausibility" The funny thing is that even your link says it's NOT proof and you say it's plenty enough evidence. Odd no?

not really, the only "proof" is the Holy Ghost, which testifies of truth.

For example....don't you find it interesting that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the 1611 KJV Bible. In the ORIGINAL book of Mormon there is even I Corinthians 13 and Isaiah 53 are quoted in full....even the italics words which are ADDED by translators.
Not really, Considering that the Book of Mormon follows a group of Christians who came from Jerusalem, who must have had the words of Isaiah. not only that but the Sermon of the Mount and 3rd Nephi chapter 11 are strikingly similar in comparison. This points to the fact that the same truths were taught to multiple groups of people.

The fact remains that not one shred of archeological evidence supports any claim the Book of Mormon makes about the particular people mentioned in it.
Olmecs and Jaredites, Please provide me with the exact chance that 2 civilizations, during 2500 BC, would have the exact same historical time line in the same geographical area.

The fact that there have been over 4,000 CHANGES made to the book of Mormon is an embarrassment sense according to John Smith and his "witnesses" God said it was 100% accurate and correct. Yet they have had to change contradictions and names over time.
You think you are the first to try and point out the changes made? and you are completely off by that number. where are you getting your info from? the back of an anti-mormon pamphlet?

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.[114] New introductions, chapter summaries, and footnotes. 1920 edition errors corrected based on Original Manuscript and 1840 edition.[115]

  1. ^ The revised text was first published in 1981 and the subtitle was added in October 1982: "Report of the 152nd Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Ensign: 1. November 1982. LDS.org - Ensign Article - Report of the 152nd Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Skousen, Royal (1992). "Book of Mormon Editions (1830-1981)". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 1. Macmillan. pp. 175–6. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981). Retrieved 2009-02-12.

The Book of Mormon dates Christianity to a time BEFORE Christ even existed and says the term Christian was used BEFORE Christ existed....over 100 years before Christ. How can there be Christains when there was no Christ? The term Christian isn't coined till well after the death of JEsus. There weren't "Christians" when JEsus walked the planet.
The term "Christian" is used in the Book of Mormon at the year 72 BC in the book of Alma 5 times. Might i add that the prophesy of the messiah came long before then. Also the Bible only uses the term "Christian" 3 times.


I didn't say GOd's will was random....I said the outcomes that you believe to be GOd's will are random. I'm not sayign that it comes from god but that it comes from you. You believe as you wish to believe. That's fine. BUt it's intellectually bankrupt. I could make a milk jug as powerful as GOd when it comes to prayer. It's a matter of fatih and statistics at that point. The milk jug is as powerful as God.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of my beliefs. God only causes his will to be done regardless of anything else when it is necessary. It is my belief that the consequences for sin are natural consequences.

I was once a Methodist......I didn't live in fear of my immortal soul. I lived in fear for YOUR immortal soul.
Still, Fear.... most religions use fear as a way to control the masses.

But it is you that reduced it down to the idea that were it not for religion you wouldn't be the good guy you are.
I did not reduce anything. I merely stated a fact that my belief in God makes me a better person.

Well again I'm going to have to use your own religoin to trump you.

1. The arrangement between Sarai, Hagar, and Abram is HARDLY polygamy. Hagar was a surrogate mother at best. What was the reason this arrangment was needed? Apparently God didn't see fit to make Sarai fertile....so a common practice was to have a maid servant stand in. But that didn't make Hagar Abraham's wife. She was just a chick that Abraham boned so that he could have a son.
So you say it is justifiable to break a commandment to be a surrogate mother? Also, Sarai did bare a son, Isaac. If God knew that he would eventually have a son, why would God condone sin? no he would not.

But alas.....what was the outcome of that arrangment? What happened to poor Ishmael? The Good Book tells us:

Genesis 16:11-12
"The Angel of the Lord also said to her: You are now with child adn you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

Now I don't know about you but that doesn't sound a bit good. And it isn't. IShmael was thrown out of Abrahams family for mocking the TRUE son of the TRUE wife Isaac. Ishmael goes on to father a great nation that is very hostile toward the nation of Israel. One of Ishmael's daughters marries Esau....and you know....God hated Esau.
You answered your own question. He was cast out for Sin, not for just "being born"

So yeah...once again....anything outside of the ORIGINAL marraige leads to nothing but BAD stuff. Says so in the BIble.

You might as well concede this point.
Please see my above response.

So it's OK for God to hold one or two stupid mistakes against you, but when others do it....it's illogical? David was very blessed....but he disobeyed God time after time.
Exactly, we are all commanded to forgive one another, if we do not forgive we ourselves cannot obtain forgiveness.

Doctrine and Covenants 64:
10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
They don't have to claim to rewrite the bible. It's an historical fact. They copied the 1611 KJV. 1/18th of the KJV to be exact is word for word. This stuff was supposed to have happened over 100 years before Christ and yet we have parts that are EXACT copies of the 1611 KJV. Even the parts the translators added in italics that were not part of the original Hebrew text. It's called plaigerism and though he didn't copy ALL of it...he certainly copied a big chunk of it.

Tell yourself what you must.....but the truth fo the matter just sings of foul play.
To you maybe, however prophecies in the Old testament sings louder than your assumptions. especially the book of Isaiah


Polygamy is not always consensual....evidence of this is the fact that the people rebeled against Joseph Smith....so much so that it led to them killing him at the harm he had caused families.
This is a complete fallacy. It was entirely consensual. Again, where are you getting your information? only 2% of the church at the time practiced polygamy, and the doctrine was clearly outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
It was an Isolated and controlled practice the following purpose:
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Again....you are being dodgy. There is a HUGE difference between owning slaves an act supported by the bible as an accepteable practice.....and rewriting/creating religion to advocate polygamy in a time when it was completely unacceptable and biblically speaking had been revealed to be wrong.

The presidents were wrong to own slaves no doubt. But from a religious stand point the BIble us FINE wtih slavery. The Bible, as I have repeatedly proven using the bible is not so big on polygamy. So again it shows the great lengths of dishonesty that Joseph Smith would go through to get what HE....a mere man....wanted. Which is understandable through a Christian lens....because he is a sinner and couldn't help it perhaps.
I'm glad you see the difference between owning slaves and Polygamy

And slavery was never condoned in the Bible. the word slave is used separately from "manservant" which is not the same as slave or they would have used the two terms interchangeably, or the term slave exclusively.

However, you are still avoiding answering my question. you seem to think the Bible condones slavery and does not support polygamy, when it is exactly the opposite.
 

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
not really, the only "proof" is the Holy Ghost, which testifies of truth.
An an such invisible being is as much "proof" that Santa Claus is the real reason I end up with Christmas presents at Christmas.....me being an Atheist and all.

Not really, Considering that the Book of Mormon follows a group of Christians who came from Jerusalem, who must have had the words of Isaiah. not only that but the Sermon of the Mount and 3rd Nephi chapter 11 are strikingly similar in comparison. This points to the fact that the same truths were taught to multiple groups of people.
That's is easy to understand when we know that the Writer of the Book of Mormon plagiarized KJV 1611.

Olmecs and Jaredites, Please provide me with the exact chance that 2 civilizations, during 2500 BC, would have the exact same historical time line in the same geographical area.
Well the problem I see with your assertion is that we do have evidence of the Olmecs but we have no evidence outside of your Book of Mormon to suggest the Jaredites lived anywhere in the entirety of the Americas.

The fact of the matter is most scholars believe the Olmecs to be indeginious. Also there are those that claim within your religion that Olmecs and Jaredites are one in the same....not two different cultures.

You think you are the first to try and point out the changes made? and you are completely off by that number. where are you getting your info from? the back of an anti-mormon pamphlet?

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.[114] New introductions, chapter summaries, and footnotes. 1920 edition errors corrected based on Original Manuscript and 1840 edition.[115]

  1. ^ The revised text was first published in 1981 and the subtitle was added in October 1982: "Report of the 152nd Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Ensign: 1. November 1982. LDS.org - Ensign Article - Report of the 152nd Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Skousen, Royal (1992). "Book of Mormon Editions (1830-1981)". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 1. Macmillan. pp. 175–6. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981).
  1. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
[/quote]
Yeah....and here's the thing....the problem is that Joseph Smith writes that he and his "witnesses" had prayed to God and that God had decreed that the account the Joseph Smith gave was completely accurate. Well if that's the case and God knows everything....why should there EVER be changes?

The term "Christian" is used in the Book of Mormon at the year 72 BC in the book of Alma 5 times. Might i add that the prophesy of the messiah came long before then. Also the Bible only uses the term "Christian" 3 times.
What you fail to realize is that the term CHRIST.....wasn't in the vocabulary. The Jews....you remember them...the ones that actually wrote the Old Testament phophecies? See they had no concept of a Christ figure or a son of God figure. What THEY had was a Messiah. and the Messiah could come from ANY culture. THe MEssiah didn't even have to be a Jew!

It is completely void of intellectual integrity to say that there was ANY concept or notiion of Christ prior to Christ having DIED. Christians weren't even Christians until 40+ years AFTER Christ died. In his lifetime they were not even known as Christians. There was no such thing. SO for Mormons to claim there was is completely eronious. The term Christ doesn't appear in ANY written language unti lthe 1400's....so yeah...the Mormons got it way wrong. They got the term by lifting it from the KJV 1611 and then reworking the bible to their own religion and projected and infused CHristianity into their book in a rather hodge podge way.

Still, Fear.... most religions use fear as a way to control the masses.
No argument here.

I did not reduce anything. I merely stated a fact that my belief in God makes me a better person.
You said you'd be a bad person if it weren't for religion. So what is it about religion that keeps your dark passenger at bay? Why were you born with this evil side of you that needs religion to keep it in check? YEt I have no religion and don't even have a bad side to keep in check?

So you say it is justifiable to break a commandment to be a surrogate mother? Also, Sarai did bare a son, Isaac. If God knew that he would eventually have a son, why would God condone sin? no he would not.
No I didn't say it was justifiable....it was understandable. Like I also said....all religion crubmles under the weight of it's own dogma and once truth sets in .....it falls away.

Who are you to know that GOd knew? You claim he is omnipotent....but you have no evidence. In Hebrew they say El Shaddai....which means....literally....GOd is enough. IT doesn't suggest that he is all these miraculous things. It merely means that he is enough. When this got translated to GREEK there was no word for El Shaddai. So the Greeks took the root word which is Shaddid. Shaddid means destroyer. The only way to get that into Greek was to use the words Panto Krator....which means ALMIGHTY. This is a big change already! And of course almighty in Latin becomes omnipotent. Which of course is just a big translation ERROR.

At any rate God did NOT condone it! He made Ishmael a terrible person hated by many. He punished Ishmael for the sins of the father. Which is just like GOd. REmember when David had a man killed so that he could sleep wtih that dudes wife? What happened? God killed the innocent baby instead of following his own rules and having the adulterers stoned. God makes exceptions to his own rulings....if you are the right person...it's all good. IF you are the wrong person...death!

You answered your own question. He was cast out for Sin, not for just "being born"
What so now you agree with me? Ishmael was punished.....so GOD DID PUNISH for the SIN of diddling outside of a marriage. You realize this agreeing with me makes you a heretic?

Doctrine and Covenants 64:
10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.
This bears itself out perfectly in the Bible time after time. God hates some....like Esau....and yet expects you to be better than God and love all no matter what! Hypocrisy.
 

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
To you maybe, however prophecies in the Old testament sings louder than your assumptions. especially the book of Isaiah
Prophecies do speak loud in the Bible. I can easily refute Christ with the Old Testament prophecy. Do you really want to travel down this path?

This is a complete fallacy. It was entirely consensual. Again, where are you getting your information? only 2% of the church at the time practiced polygamy, and the doctrine was clearly outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
It was an Isolated and controlled practice the following purpose:
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
Right....you can't see the absolute misogyny in THAT? It's OK for a man to diddle a virgin....as many virgins as he please. But let that woman get ahold of a couple virgin boys? Then what? A woman can just as easily populate the Earth diddling several men and a man can populate the Earth diddling several women.

I've already refuted to you that polygamy is wrong. I already proven to you the consequences of what happens when a married couple go outside of the original marriage. They are not my words....they are Gods words. Polygamy is wrong and thus is Mormonism is/was wrong.

And slavery was never condoned in the Bible. the word slave is used separately from "manservant" which is not the same as slave or they would have used the two terms interchangeably, or the term slave exclusively.

However, you are still avoiding answering my question. you seem to think the Bible condones slavery and does not support polygamy, when it is exactly the opposite.
You should read that thing called a Bible. The Lord your GOd completely condones slavery.

Judges 3:8 god sells the Israelites to the King of Mesopotamia for eight years.

Judges 3:14 God sells them to the Moabites for 18 years.

Judges 4:2-3 Gods sells them to Canaan for 20 years.

Judges 6:1 Sells them to the Midianites for 7 years.

Judges 13:1 Sells them to the Philistines for 40 years and the Babylonian for 70 years.

That's a century and a half of slavery....more than twice as long as what we had in the United States.

Exodus 21 is about what happens if a person buys a Hebrew servant.....slave. Women by the way are treated as less than a man would be. A man could be set free after six years. It's unabashed slavery.

But hey even Jesus talks about slaves in Luke 12:47-48. The GREEK word for the translated word of servant is "doulos" which is literally SLAVE.

But wait there's more. Leviticus 25:45-46
"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy,...and they shall be your POSSESSION...they shall be your bondmen forever."

Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

Colossians 3:22 "SErvants, obey in all things your masters."

Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off; For the Lord hath spoken it."

So yeah...your God condones slavery. Your god isn't a fan of polygamy. In every case of polygamy or polygamyish act you've mentioned thus far there was someone punished for the act.

Again....I say....religion crubmles on the wieght of its own inequities. I'm killing two birds with the same stone here.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
An an such invisible being is as much "proof" that Santa Claus is the real reason I end up with Christmas presents at Christmas.....me being an Atheist and all.
And until that changes we will not see eye to eye. sorry for the short response, but i did not bother to read the rest of your reply as i have grown tired and it is late.

Although, It's interesting i would like to see what compels someone such as an atheist to join a forum with the Title "Religious Forum." Seems like a fish out of water:sarcastic

From what i can tell Atheist flock to places like this to try to "enlighten" people.

Atheist are almost as evangelical than their Christian counterparts.
 

Commoner

Headache
And until that changes we will not see eye to eye. sorry for the short response, but i did not bother to read the rest of your reply as i have grown tired and it is late.

Although, It's interesting i would like to see what compels someone such as an atheist to join a forum with the Title "Religious Forum." Seems like a fish out of water:sarcastic

From what i can tell Atheist flock to places like this to try to "enlighten" people.

Atheist are almost as evangelical than their Christian counterparts.

We're trying to find explanations for why so many people still hold on to antiquated ideas and beliefs. And why, when pressed, theists find it difficult to produce any real answers - other than "because".
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
We're trying to find explanations for why so many people still hold on to antiquated ideas and beliefs. And why, when pressed, theists find it difficult to produce any real answers - other than "because".
this is such a backhanded comment.

Atheists in general make comments like "myth" "Antiquated" "lies" in such a way that you feel like you are asserting your "enlightement" upon whom you speak with. It's quite sad really.
 

Commoner

Headache
this is such a backhanded comment.

Atheists in general make comments like "myth" "Antiquated" "lies" in such a way that you feel like you are asserting your "enlightement" upon whom you speak with. It's quite sad really.

Of course, not quite as sad as preaching (and believing) those antiquated ideas in the first place. The "enlightenment" doesn't come from any dogma, but from the rejection of unsupported claims. The theists who are capable of skepticism, I have no problem with.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
Of course, not quite as sad as preaching (and believing) those antiquated ideas in the first place. The "enlightenment" doesn't come from any dogma, but from the rejection of unsupported claims. The theists who are capable of skepticism, I have no problem with.
And why are you so strongly against people having a belief? Why do you spend more time worrying about others and trying to convince them against God?

As for us preaching the gospel to the ends of the Earth, we believe that it is a commandment from God. seeing as you hold no such belief in God, I would like to ask what compels you to preach the opposite?

In my religion we are encouraged to seek for truth anywhere and to find out for ourselves what is true. There is no blind obedience in the LDS church. Some may blindly follow, but they are fools to do so. Each of us at one time or another have questioned our beliefs, In order to gain a testimony of God the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ it does require faith which, "Is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."
 

Commoner

Headache
And why are you so strongly against people having a belief? Why do you spend more time worrying about others and trying to convince them against God?

As for us preaching the gospel to the ends of the Earth, we believe that it is a commandment from God. seeing as you hold no such belief in God, I would like to ask what compels you to preach the opposite?

In my religion we are encouraged to seek for truth anywhere and to find out for ourselves what is true. There is no blind obedience in the LDS church. Some may blindly follow, but they are fools to do so. Each of us at one time or another have questioned our beliefs, In order to gain a testimony of God the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ it does require faith which, "Is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

Trust me, if I didn't think religion had a huge negative impact on the world I live in, I wouldn't bother with it. The same way I don't care if people believe that Elvis is still alive - it is of no consequence.

And, yes, there are those religions that are more benign and there are those that are more dangerous - and in fact, I'm not really against religions, I'm against any superstitious ideas being presented as truth.
 

Rogue Cardinal

Devil's Advocate
And until that changes we will not see eye to eye. sorry for the short response, but i did not bother to read the rest of your reply as i have grown tired and it is late.

Although, It's interesting i would like to see what compels someone such as an atheist to join a forum with the Title "Religious Forum." Seems like a fish out of water:sarcastic

From what i can tell Atheist flock to places like this to try to "enlighten" people.

Atheist are almost as evangelical than their Christian counterparts.
I'm not expecting to see eye to eye with you:eek:.

Atheists in general aren't allowed to express themselves in public.....they can but the cost can be great. So a place like this free's us to be able to speak plainly. That's why I am here.

I agree with you that Atheists can be just as evangelical as their Christian counter parts! HEHEHE I call it passion. You guys passionately believe your way and we passionately believe in our way. So it's expected that either side will get a bit preachy from time to time.

BTW how could I be a fish out of water? I've BEEN a theist. So I think I'm more like a fish that evolved! I'm really familiar with the water. :D
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Greetings!

Why did God make the Devil?

He didn't: there is no such animal! Devils are a purely human fantasy.

And "satan" simply refers to our own lower (animal) nature when we give it control instead of our higher (spiritual) nature!

Simple as that!

Peace, :)

Bruce
 

arimoff

Active Member
Greetings!



He didn't: there is no such animal! Devils are a purely human fantasy.

And "satan" simply refers to our own lower (animal) nature when we give it control instead of our higher (spiritual) nature!

Simple as that!

Peace, :)

Bruce

frubals man.
 

arimoff

Active Member
I believe it would be logical for me to say that a satan who rebelled against G-D makes no sense at all, just like saying there is one G-D but he has a son but it still one not two.

satan - he can't rebel against G-D its His creation, he is like a robot he is not even a human so he doesn't even have a free choice to understand that he can even rebel lol, just like angels.

satan - it is the evil part of every human being, but not like Christianity sees it, they created such an idea just to take off the blame of them selfs, it wasn't me it was the devil lol, or it was just created for the purpose of blaming the jews in midevil times.

But you can believe in anything you want and don't even have to believe me but you just can't use scriptures (Tanakh) to prove satan because thats Judaism and in Judaism there is no satan the way you see it.
 
Top