God V. Satan. Off the top of my head.

[fallingblood]

I just find it amusing and adorable that human beings think they're significant enough for two, opposing, mighty super-beings to play out their epic struggle through. It's like the residents of an anthill in the middle of the Sahara believing that WWII was about them.

I second this.

While I am a theist, the idea that there is a cosmic war all for the souls of some human beings seems quite ridiculous, at least to me.

I, as do many other theists, prefer a limited God (process and liberation theologies in particular subscribe to this idea) that doesn't actually directly act in the world. While that is only a very basic explanation (and not a full one by any regards), it is an idea that I think rings much more true.

 

[fallingblood]

Or if god is symbolic. From my understanding of Christian theology both are quite real.

There is no single all encompassing Christian theology. Many strains of Christian theology, such as process theology, and the variety different strains of liberation theology, generally reject the idea of a Satan figure.

 

[Iti oj]

I guess if you want to baselessly attack a religion, without really understanding it, then you're right.

For me, I would rather see what most Christians are saying, what theology says; you know, research. If one does such, the OP is seen as simply ridiculous.

as well as the claims the god is good and satan is evil.simply ridiculous...and yet you don't want to adress that.

 

[fallingblood]

as well as the claims the god is good and satan is evil.simply ridiculous...and yet you don't want to adress that.

Who says I don't want to address it? I just thought it was irrelevant, especially since I stated that I rejected a Satan figure.

 

[Iti oj]

Who says I don't want to address it? I just thought it was irrelevant, especially since I stated that I rejected a Satan figure.

then the op is not at you. Though you still have the question of how do we know God is good.

 

[fallingblood]

then the op is not at you. Though you still have the question of how do we know God is good.

Why wouldn't the OP be at me? I am still a theist, and believe in God. I am a Christian, and the OP is depicting this as an issue of Christianity (and later, he also stated that this was in Christian theology). The fact is, the idea of God vs Satan is one that simply is not present in much of Christian theology.

As for how we can know God is good? We simply can't. Any definition we have of good is based on humans. God is not human, God is not bound by human ideals, and thus trying to place a human concept upon a being that is not human simply can not fully work.

However, that doesn't mean that God is a serial killed that has killed millions of people. And really, atheists should know better, as they don't accept that God exists. Thus, those murders, and killings must have been done by humans.

 

[idav]

Satan got his way: there's evil in the world.

God didn't get his way: There's evil in the world.

This is obviously a confusion between the Demiurge and the God that actually likes humanity. What kind of God would not want their creations to be enlightened in the first place?

 

[Pappillion001]

It is a baseless attack as it is attacking a view of God that largely is rejected by many Christians. Not to mention that it takes a view of Satan that is contrary to those Christians who even accept the idea

And no, it is not accepted that God killed anyone so yes, there is a lot of doubt.

Truth is not dependent on whether you accept it or not. So what is more important, understanding as it was intended or understanding that fits a preconcieved idea?

How can you possibly suggest that God killed no one?

The only possible way is if the Bible is wrong. So which is it?

 

[Pappillion001]

There is no single all encompassing Christian theology. Many strains of Christian theology, such as process theology, and the variety different strains of liberation theology, generally reject the idea of a Satan figure.

Which one does God belong to?

 

[Skwim]

In fairness, a lot of deities were committing genocide back in the day. It was kind of a fad. Fortunately, Jehovah mellowed out after he found Jesus.

Suppose he repented?

I guess if you want to baselessly attack a religion, without really understanding it, then you're right.

Baselessly? You mean that my logic is flawed? Please tell me where.

For me, I would rather see what most Christians are saying, what theology says; you know, research. If one does such, the OP is seen as simply ridiculous.

Apparently you have done the research, so why is it ridiculous?

Who gave you all these informations ? God or Satan ? just think about
Beware!

Simple observation.

Satan has the ablity to act like God.

Then it must be impossible to know when its truly god acting or speaking, putting the believer between a rock and a hard place.

It is a baseless attack as it is attacking a view of God that largely is rejected by many Christians.

Characterize it however you wish, but the implication still stands, Satan got his way: there's evil in the world; and god didn't get his way: There's evil in the world.

Not to mention that it takes a view of Satan that is contrary to those Christians who even accept the idea.

So, what do these Christians contend; Satan didn't get his way: there's no evil in the world; and god did get his way: There's no evil in the world?

And no, it is not accepted that God killed anyone so yes, there is a lot of doubt.

Not accepted by whom? From almost all Christians I've heard speak to the topic they readily concede that god killed people.

 

[Pappillion001]

Why wouldn't the OP be at me? I am still a theist, and believe in God. I am a Christian, and the OP is depicting this as an issue of Christianity (and later, he also stated that this was in Christian theology). The fact is, the idea of God vs Satan is one that simply is not present in much of Christian theology.

As for how we can know God is good? We simply can't. Any definition we have of good is based on humans. God is not human, God is not bound by human ideals, and thus trying to place a human concept upon a being that is not human simply can not fully work.

According to Christians where do you think the definition of came from? They are the ideals that we are told are pleasing to God. Bad things are described as sin and God cannot sin. God describes himself as possessing qualities that we consider God. There may be more to him than us humans, but there is not less.

However, that doesn't mean that God is a serial killed that has killed millions of people. And really, atheists should know better, as they don't accept that God exists. Thus, those murders, and killings must have been done by humans.

Nobody said serial killer, but the insistant denial that he did at all was my point. If that is part of God's nature then you have to accept that it as and try and figure out what that means. Covering you ears yelling LA LA LA LA won't accomplish that.

I am sure athiest are just fine with deaths being attributed to things other than God, but you don't get both.

 

[fallingblood]

Truth is not dependent on whether you accept it or not. So what is more important, understanding as it was intended or understanding that fits a preconcieved idea?

How can you possibly suggest that God killed no one?

The only possible way is if the Bible is wrong. So which is it?

That is an either or fallacy. The Bible does not have to be wrong if God killed no one.

Instead, portions of the Bible are mythological, metaphorical, allegorical, or simply not literal. Other portions of the Bible, in which humans attributed the killing of individuals to God, are simply mistaken, or justification. Which is not surprising seeing the context in which such passages were written. That doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. It means the Bible contains some errors.

As for understanding the message as it was intended, or based on preconceived ideas, of course understanding it as intended is best for an accurate interpretation. However, that doesn't mean that what is written is the truth. Not to mention that if we really look at the Bible, Satan (as commonly idealized) was never mentioned. So if we look at the Bible, the OP simply is irrelevant as there was no Satan in the OT.

Which one does God belong to?

Why does God have to belong to one theology?

 

[Quagmire]

Satan got his way: there's evil in the world.

Show where the bible says that Satan wanted evil n the world.

God didn't get his way: There's evil in the world.

According to the Bible, God wanted evil in the world. Even says that evil comes from him.

In fact, Satan seems to have even corrupted god.

Only to someone who's never actually opened the Bible.

​

Am I right or am I right!

Nope, and nope.


And I'll spare you the "If you specifically meant GOD according to mainstream Christian theology why didn't you say so" lecture because I realize the echo in the tunnel would make it hard to understand.

 

[fallingblood]

Baselessly? You mean that my logic is flawed? Please tell me where.

Your logic is flawed as it assumes that the Bible is literal, and factual. This means that one must than accept that God exists; however, you're an atheist. So you are applying a standard on the Bible that you don't even accept. And the whole reason is to just make a claim based on your preconceived ideas.

At the same time, you add ideas to the Bible that simply never appeared in the Bible, such as the character of Satan (at least for the OT, in which these atrocious acts occurred).

Apparently you have done the research, so why is it ridiculous?

It is ridiculous as one, Satan never killed anyone in the Bible. Satan didn't even exist. During the NT period, there becomes an idea of Satan (one could call this a proto-Satan), but even then, there is never murder on Satan's part.

Second, it assumes that the Bible is literal, which is an idea that has been rejected for most of history. Looking at early Jewish interpreters, such as Philo, as well as early Christian interpreters, such as Augustine, recognized that the Bible was not 100% literal. It really has only been in the last 100 years or so that Biblical literalism really took off. And even then, it has largely been a minority. Not to mention that mainstream scholarship, both Christian and Jewish, as well as mainstream seminaries, and churches accept that there are problems with the Bible. Many have also now rejected the idea of an actual figure of Satan.

Third, it tries to force a single idea on all of Christianity, when that is usually not possible. It ignores that vast differences in theological approaches and interpretations.

Characterize it however you wish, but the implication still stands, Satan got his way: there's evil in the world; and god didn't get his way: There's evil in the world.

Why must evil being in the world come from Satan? A figure that has largely been ignored in Judaism and much of Christianity? There being evil in the world doesn't mean that Satan (a figure that really isn't mentioned in the Bible) got its way, and that God didn't get its way.

Instead, as many theologians and Christians accept (especially in process and liberation theologies) is that God is limited. That in the beginning, God allowed chaos to exist, as from chaos, creativity can be had. Also, in order for humans to be humans, God could control humans. This chaos leads to what is deemed to be evil. However, many accept that it, the chaos, was good anyway.

There is evil in the world, that does not mean that God didn't get God's way, and that some other entity won out. It simply means there is evil in the world.

So, what do these Christians contend; Satan didn't get his way: there's no evil in the world; and god did get his way: There's no evil in the world?

That Satan does not exist.

Not accepted by whom? From almost all Christians I've heard speak to the topic they readily concede that god killed people.

Just because you have talked to some Christians hardly means anything.

 

[fallingblood]

If you can't offer a rebuttal, that's fine.

According to Christians where do you think the definition of came from? They are the ideals that we are told are pleasing to God. Bad things are described as sin and God cannot sin. God describes himself as possessing qualities that we consider God. There may be more to him than us humans, but there is not less.

According to many Christians, the definition came from a want to define God. Throughout history there have been a plethora of definition for God. Most of them have been rejected for new definitions. So obviously, a definition of God is not easy. Then add to the fact that many Christians disagree on a definition of God, the matter is even more complicated.

More so, humans wrote the Bible, not God. Humans gave definitions for God, not God.

Nobody said serial killer, but the insistant denial that he did at all was my point. If that is part of God's nature then you have to accept that it as and try and figure out what that means. Covering you ears yelling LA LA LA LA won't accomplish that.

I am sure athiest are just fine with deaths being attributed to things other than God, but you don't get both.

It is implied that God is a serial killer, as, if God truly did kill millions of people, that does fall under the category of serial killing.

Also, I never had an insistent denial. I provided a reason as to why the OP was wrong, and then continued to support my case. Simply because I disagree with you is not a sign of insistent denial. It is a sign of disagreement.

Also, who are you to define what God's nature is? Its not like there ever has been one standard view that was accepted by all. In fact, the nature of God has also changed quite a bit, at least in what people have believed.

And you finished your argument with a logical fallacy.

 

[Skwim]

Show where the bible says that Satan wanted evil n the world.

According to the Bible, God wanted evil in the world. Even says that evil comes from him.

You're quite right. God did create evil. I guess I should stop making posts off the top of my head. God did gets his way, and in spades.

Your logic is flawed as it assumes that the Bible is literal, and factual. This means that one must than accept that God exists;

Not at all. Just as I, or you, can comment on the actions of Indiana Jones without believing he really exists/existed, I can comment on the actions of the Christian god and Satan.

however, you're an atheist.

Agnostic, please. Thank you.

So you are applying a standard on the Bible that you don't even accept.

Just as any literary critic can do the same with a work of fiction. If a fictional hero does something illogical one doesn't have to believe he really exists in order to point out the lapse in logic.

And the whole reason is to just make a claim based on your preconceived ideas.

Well, considering you fail to grasp the idea of fiction criticism I don't put any stock in what you may or may not think may be my motives.

At the same time, you add ideas to the Bible that simply never appeared in the Bible, such as the character of Satan (at least for the OT, in which these atrocious acts occurred).

Then I invite you to read JOB.

It is ridiculous as one, Satan never killed anyone in the Bible. Satan didn't even exist. During the NT period, there becomes an idea of Satan (one could call this a proto-Satan), but even then, there is never murder on Satan's part.

I suggest you read your Bible. I have, particularly Job 1:6-19

Second, it assumes that the Bible is literal, which is an idea that has been rejected for most of history.

So you're saying none of it should be taken literally? No real god? No real Mary? No real Jesus? Boy, for a Christian you're certainly one odd duck.

Why must evil being in the world come from Satan?

Is that what I said? Of course not. Go over it again. Perhaps more slowly this time.

There is evil in the world, that does not mean that God didn't get God's way, and that some other entity won out. It simply means there is evil in the world.

Then god's way must have included evil in the world. I was going to say "Hmmm....How . . . . . . . . different," but Quagmire reminded me that evil was god's idea in the first place.

That Satan does not exist.

I agree. However, in the Christian story book he does, and it's this book from which Christians get so many of their beliefs; therefore, he is fodder for discussion as much as any of the other characters in the book.

Just because you have talked to some Christians hardly means anything.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't add up to much at all, except that I know something of what they believe and don't believe. And one of the things these Christians I've talked with believe is that god killed people. Don't agree with them? Okey dokey, but that doesn't invalidate their belief.

 

[Pappillion001]

That is an either or fallacy. The Bible does not have to be wrong if God killed no one.

Instead, portions of the Bible are mythological, metaphorical, allegorical, or simply not literal. Other portions of the Bible, in which humans attributed the killing of individuals to God, are simply mistaken, or justification. Which is not surprising seeing the context in which such passages were written. That doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. It means the Bible contains some errors.

13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 15And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. ..... 18And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. 2 Sam

Which of your scenarios foes this fall under?

Hitler and Stalin felt justified. So did Colonists, but we don't accept that. We don't accept that there is a reason valid enough to wipe out, including their animals, an entire people. God is supposed to be setting an example of how to behave. Personally I don't think teaching someone how to be violent is the best way to teach them about peace, but I am mortal what do I know.

As for understanding the message as it was intended, or based on preconceived ideas, of course understanding it as intended is best for an accurate interpretation. However, that doesn't mean that what is written is the truth. Not to mention that if we really look at the Bible, Satan (as commonly idealized) was never mentioned. So if we look at the Bible, the OP simply is irrelevant as there was no Satan in the OT.

This is really perfect. Satan as depicted in the OT is not the same as thought by people of today. That is correct, but that also illustrates my point. People "know" Satan is this terrible angry fallen angel out to take them to hell.

That means at some point someone started to enlarge Satan's role from what it was and over time others did also until what it is today. The OP is making a point where the same type of thing is happening. People want to believe something is a certain way (Satan is evil out to destroy man) and it becomes that. People say God will prevail and always does, but based on results no so much. The evidence for both is clearly stated in the Bible, yet the understanding is something else.

 

[fallingblood]

You're quite right. God did create evil. I guess I should stop making posts off the top of my head. God did gets his way, and in spades.

How do you know what God wants and does not want?

Not at all. Just as I, or you, can comment on the actions of Indiana Jones without believing he really exists/existed, I can comment on the actions of the Christian god and Satan.

You do have me there. I will cede that point.

Agnostic, please. Thank you.

I apologize for that. Acknowledged

Just as any literary critic can do the same with a work of fiction. If a fictional hero does something illogical one doesn't have to believe he really exists in order to point out the lapse in logic.

You're right in this case. My argument was flawed.

Then I invite you to read JOB.

I've actually done quite a bit of research on Job. The Satan in Job is not the Christian figure of Satan. Instead, a correct translation of the term (which is ha-satan) is adversary. In fact, that is how the term has traditionally been translated up to the point in which the concept of Satan really took hold in parts of the Christian tradition. However, Jews still continue to translate it as adversary.

I suggest you read your Bible. I have, particularly Job 1:6-19

Which actually speaks about the adversary. All interpretation of this use of the term ha-satan, before the first century (and even quite some time after that), was of an adversary. An angel (and the verses show this) who was under the power of God (which is why the being never does anything without asking God's permission).

So you're saying none of it should be taken literally? No real god? No real Mary? No real Jesus? Boy, for a Christian you're certainly one odd duck.

I'm not saying none of it should be taken literally. I should have worded what I said better.

Then god's way must have included evil in the world. I was going to say "Hmmm....How . . . . . . . . different," but Quagmire reminded me that evil was god's idea in the first place.

Or, as I pointed out, God allowed chaos in the world. This chaos, while it can be good, can also be evil.

I agree. However, in the Christian story book he does, and it's this book from which Christians get so many of their beliefs; therefore, he is fodder for discussion as much as any of the other characters in the book.

Not really. Satan has only been placed in the Bible after the fact, because the idea later became important for some Christians (the ones who ended up gaining power).

You're absolutely right, it doesn't add up to much at all, except that I know something of what they believe and don't believe. And one of the things these Christians I've talked with believe is that god killed people. Don't agree with them? Okey dokey, but that doesn't invalidate their belief.

But it doesn't show what the majority of Christians believe, or what is common in Christian theology. It only shows what some Christians believe, and they hardly constitute a majority.

 

[fallingblood]

Which of your scenarios foes this fall under?

It falls under being mistaken. The child got sick. It would not have been uncommon to attribute a sudden illness to the hand of God.

Hitler and Stalin felt justified. So did Colonists, but we don't accept that. We don't accept that there is a reason valid enough to wipe out, including their animals, an entire people. God is supposed to be setting an example of how to behave. Personally I don't think teaching someone how to be violent is the best way to teach them about peace, but I am mortal what do I know.

I don't think God is teaching people this at all.

You are assuming that the Bible is literal, and that what the Bible said about God is actually true. However, do you have any evidence of this? Of course you don't because if you did, you would be the first to be able to prove that God existed.

It is much more probable that the people writing the Bible made observations and attributed them to God for political reasons, and because that is what they saw God as.

This is really perfect. Satan as depicted in the OT is not the same as thought by people of today. That is correct, but that also illustrates my point. People "know" Satan is this terrible angry fallen angel out to take them to hell.

That means at some point someone started to enlarge Satan's role from what it was and over time others did also until what it is today. The OP is making a point where the same type of thing is happening. People want to believe something is a certain way (Satan is evil out to destroy man) and it becomes that. People say God will prevail and always does, but based on results no so much. The evidence for both is clearly stated in the Bible, yet the understanding is something else.

Actually, in the OT, there was no Satan, there was no idea of hell, or that a fallen angel would drag anyone down there. In fact, that isn't present in the Bible at all. The concept of hell and Satan were something that was created after the fact, and then these ideas, being in the heads of those who were interpreting scripture, were seen in the scripture as well.

This means at some point, someone (or someones) created the idea of Satan and then placed it into the Bible after the fact.

 

[Pappillion001]

If you can't offer a rebuttal, that's fine.

Satan was translated from the Hebrew word meaning accuser or adversary. His role was just that an adversary. That part of Christian belief is correct. Where it becomes Christian is the belief he is Lucifer. He could be, but there is nothing to support that.

many Christians, the definition came from a want to define God. Throughout history there have been a plethora of definition for God. Most of them have been rejected for new definitions. So obviously, a definition of God is not easy. Then add to the fact that many Christians disagree on a definition of God, the matter is even more complicated.

Maybe including all Gods, but the Christian God has remained pretty consistent. Can you give an example of what you mean?

More so, humans wrote the Bible, not God. Humans gave definitions for God, not God.

So as a Christian where does your understanding and knowledge concerning your faith come from? Because you just tossed the only known source out the window as having no credibility.

It is implied that God is a serial killer, as, if God truly did kill millions of people, that does fall under the category of serial killing.

Nobody said he killed for the joy it brought him.

Also, I never had an insistent denial. I provided a reason as to why the OP was wrong, and then continued to support my case. Simply because I disagree with you is not a sign of insistent denial. It is a sign of disagreement.

To me

And no, it is not accepted that God killed anyone so yes, there is a lot of doubt.

is insistent denial because he did kill people

Also, who are you to define what God's nature is? Its not like there ever has been one standard view that was accepted by all. In fact, the nature of God has also changed quite a bit, at least in what people have believed.

And you finished your argument with a logical fallacy.

How would anyone know God if his nature is always changing?