If god created mankind so they would have free will, and therefore truely worship him/her with out programming, then how did satan rebel?

I don't see the problem. Satan rebeled because of his free will (along with 1/3 of the angels), and man rebelled because of his free will. If you see a pattern developing, good, it seems that free will leads often to rebelion, because we want to choose what we want. Now that God has redeemed us, we try to voluntarily choose to do what he wants us to do, and when we meet Him at the end of the world, we will see how great and glorious He is, and be even more motivated to voluntarily serve Him.

To answer your question, God created both man and angels with free will. What's your point?

Satan as the Devil is a necessity of God's universe. Good without evil means God didn't have to separate night and day, water and land, life and death.

Theologians and philosophers have spent ages attempting to reconcile the station of Satan in a Christian cosmology, and thus far it cannot be done. Even the best constructions seem to indicate that Satan is a necessary result of the Universe.

The real question needs to include whether or not Satan will be redeemed. That answer sheds much light on the role of the Devil. If yes, then Satan is an agent of God performing God's will, and his evil is something God wishes to be in the universe. If no, then redemption is arbitrary on the grounds that somebody had to be evil in order for God to be good.

Satan must be necessary. Any suggestion otherwise includes the presuppositions that A) God is extraneous, and B) God could have done a "better" job of creating the Universe. Either answer is, generally, unacceptable to theologians.

Thus, it seems to me that any Devil that exists must do so only by God's allowance at least, by God's will if we choose to be less mincing about it. The Devil is an agent of God, therefore; that is, he performs a mission or task which God deems necessary to the development of the Universe.

But if the Devil's redeemed, it means this whole sin and repentence and redemption thing is extraneous, perhaps arbitrary. If the Devil isn't redeemed, it means redemption itself is arbitrary, since those directly performing God's will--as they were created--do not qualify for salvation.

Can you tell I don't believe in the Devil as presented by Christian myth?

I highly recommend the work of Jeffrey Burton Russell , who wrote several books on theologies of the Devil. The best development ideas I can offer would be assembled in Dr. Burton's Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages ... well, I forget the exact citation info, but it's all over in old threads; I pounded certain threads senseless with it.

But even the best of the believers have been unable to establish the necessity of the Devil in the Universe. At worst, he's a stooge; at best, a cunning agent in a divinely-inspired cabal.

A simpler idea might simply be this: Light, by its speed, would circle the Earth 7 or so times in a second. 300,000 km/s. There is light out there that left its source before the earth was created that might not have run into anything yet. I'm after the scale of the Universe here, not necessarily the science of photon decay.

But the presence of a Devil in the classic, mythic, Christian sense means that, of the vastness of the Universe and all of its unseen miracles, human beings are the most important thing in it, and the entirety of this Universe is devised merely to support the logistics of God's melodramatic plan.

Two cents? Ah, it's a soapbox.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

(edit--I keep screwing up Dr. Russell's name :o )
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 29, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 29, 2000).]

Caleb- Point me to the verses in the bible that speak about Satans rebellion. I have looked, and I can only find some vague references in Revelations.

I am genuinely interested.

http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000241.html

Mack,

Try the above link, if it wont work do a search on piers. The discussion held looks at this from two opposing views.

Enjoy and Allcare

Tony H2o




[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited September 29, 2000).]

Hiya,

And of course, within the Christian worldview, one can always say ..."the Devil made me do it!" and shake of that pesky yoke of responsibility. And then ..."forgive me Jesus..." and unburden oneself from the spectre of guilt ... and live to sin another day. Free will is an interesting concept, but in reality, if one accepts God as omnipotent, it is really no more than an illusion. It`s all done with mirrors.

Somehow I have more faith in Free Willy!

Take care

First of all, there are the verses in Revelation that you mentioned, which I don't think are quite so vague, NEVERTHELESS, there are others that show Satan is in rebellion (some by implication, others more explicit):

1)First of all, God told Adam & Eve not to eat, Satan told them to eat - he is clearly rebelling against God's plan.
2)Satan was trying to get Job to go against God's will.
3)Look at Matthew 12:22ff and other places where Jesus talks about Satan.
4)He is called our adversary, and compared to a roaring lion.
5)He disputed with Michael (the archangel) for Moses' body.

Now on to the explicit statements about his rebellion. Unfortunately, I don't know the exact references at tis time, but I will look for them. I think they are in Isaiah, (there might be some in Jeremiah ?). I'm flipping through my pocket Bible right now, but with no concordance and 60+ chapters, I doubt I'll find it before I get home and search my concordance. If you have a concordance you can search, one of the passages describes Satan as an "angel of light".

Nope, I can't find it now. Let me get back to you.

[This message has been edited by Caleb (edited September 29, 2000).]

make sure you find me those references, because I am genuinely curious. I would be shocked if you found them in the old testament, considering most Jews dont believe in Satan and Hell, at least not in the christian sense.

"1)First of all, God told Adam & Eve not to eat, Satan told them to eat - he is clearly rebelling against God's plan."

Genesis never says the word Satan. Or the devil. It only says serpent.

"2)Satan was trying to get Job to go against God's will."

Satan did this with gods blessing, and in fact had to ASK permission to hurt Job. As if he didnt have the power to go against gods will.

"3)Look at Matthew 12:22ff and other places where Jesus talks about Satan."

This doesnt mention the rebellion and war in heaven.

"4)He is called our adversary, and compared to a roaring lion."

Give me a verse number.

"5)He disputed with Michael (the archangel) for Moses' body."

Once again, give me a verse number.

This is slightly off the subject but I thought it worth a quick mention.

An early US president (sorry I can’t remember which one) who was in office at the time the US symbol was introduced wanted a snake as the symbol. He pointed out that the bald-headed eagle has more in common with vultures than with other proud eagles, i.e. it is largely a disreputable scavenger. But the snake is in reality a noble creature, certainly stealthy and cunning but a true powerful hunter. He was outvoted on the basis that the snake/serpent is a representation of Satan.

Again we can see how the ignorance and inaccurate perceptions of those who wrote the bible myths continue to adversely affect modern man.

Cris

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm
http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/OT/genesis.html

I have just checked two translations of the Bible. For the record, the cybercomm version of Douay-Rheims is still being proofread.


1)First of all, God told Adam & Eve not to eat, Satan told them to eat - he is clearly rebelling against God's plan.

It has never been clear to me how we associate the serpent and Satan, except for the assumptions of a few myths piled atop one another. I mean, sure, tradition holds that the serpent is Satan, but if we believe Genesis, then tradition holds that a woman's place is "under thy husband's power" and that "he shall have dominion over thee" (3.16).

And that bit about labor and toil in 3.17 ... tell me that hasn't been just a repeating pattern throughout our history that we haven't condemned ourselves to. Should we be proud to be part of the workaday, Sisyphan misery simply because God cursed Adam for listening to his wife?


2)Satan was trying to get Job to go against God's will.

A couple of things about Job. I take the following from What the Bible Really Says, by Manfred Barthel.


Job's real name was Iyyob ("where is the father?"), and he lived in the land of Uz, which means he was not an Israelite at all but an Edomite (possibly) or at any rate an inhabitant of the desert steppeland to the northeast of Canaan. (248)

I like that translation of the name. It's worth noting, on a literary level, that many writers through history, as well as many modern writers, have maintained the tradition of naming characters with names that have specific meanings relevant to the story.


The broad outlines of Job's story are familiar enough: he endures his calamities and his comforterrs, the slaughter of his family, the ruin of his household, sore boils and loathsome afflictions, all with the patience of Job. But finally, even this "perfect, upright" God-fearing man becomes impatient with the complacent platitudes of his comforters. He begins to doubt that God is just, and he demands to know why a righteous man such as himself should have met with such an undeservedly disastrous fate.

God's answer comes in the form of a sweries of questions, all of which have the same thrust: How can a mere mortal expect to understand the ways of the Lord? (248)

Barthel further notes that God allows Satan these actions because Satan has made a bet with God, in effect, that Job will curse God if he is stripped of all his "substance". (248)

The only thing that disturbs me about Barthel's way of putting it is that I knew this when I was 12, and I still thought Job was bogus. The only lesson there is that there's no point in complaining; life is life, what's done is done, and it ain't no use trying to change anything because you're too dumb to understand. We can take Job for certain insights, but that requires admitting that God is, essentially, a brat in the story, getting pissed off at Job simply because he--God, that is--loses a freakin' bet.


3)Look at Matthew 12:22ff and other places where Jesus talks about Satan.

Right ... I see Jesus introducing the name Satan to the conversation at hand.

In the New American or Douay-Rheims, I still see a political speech.

When the accusers accuse the accusers, there will be nobody left to accuse. A very cunning note on political cabals.

Of 4 & 5, I'll have to actually will myself to look them up.

But I did want to note that Lucifer means "bearer of light" and was a title given to Christ at one time. From Jeffrey Burton Russell:


In medieval literature the Devil is usually called Lucifer or Satan. "Lucifer" was unusual earlier in the Middle Ages because of the tradition applying the name to Christ, the lightbearer, but it became as common as "Satan" in later medieval literature. (247)

At some point I'm going to locate my copy of Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels ... there's a relatively recent printing (sometime in the last decade), but if anyone's got a copy, the entry on Satan is rather impressive, and gives a pretty good idea of just how ridiculous Satan-theology is.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
_______________

Barthel, Manfred. What the Bible Really Says. Trans. Mark Howson. Wings Books: Avenel, 1982.

Russell, Jeffrey B. Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell Univ. Press: Ithaca, 1984.

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Caleb

" Satan rebelled because of his free will (along with 1/3 of the angels), and man rebelled because
of his free wil".

I don’t believe in Satan, nor do I believe the Bible "is the word of God", but I am
interested in it as a view of God and our place in the universe.

Anyway Caleb, or anyone who cares to give their view on my question
please do so because I have never been able to get anyone to address it, except for
one person who said it was a stupid question. My own feeling is he nor the others could answer it. Anyway here goes my "stupid question".

According to the Bible 1/3 of the angels rebelled and were kicked out of heaven,
but Genesis says only Adam and Eve ate of the apple, but all humanity had to pay
the price for their screw up. I realize that Adam and Eve could symbolize humanity
as a whole, but it doesn’t say all humanity sinned. So why the double standard
here. Only the angels who sinned paid the price, but all humanity pays the price for
Adam and Eve. Sounds to me to be a little unfair to say the least.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

"1 Pet 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:"

"Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

And here it is, although, as is typical of many prophetic sections, this one has a double meaning. If you look at the context, it is talking about a King of Lebanon, but many Bible scholars also believe that this speaks of Satan, or 'Lucifer':

"Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

And the other verse, also speaking doubly of an evil king:
"Ezek 28:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Ezek 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Ezek 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
Ezek 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Ezek 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Ezek 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Ezek 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Ezek 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee."

In both of these passages, I believe the idea is that these kings were controlled by Satan. We see a similar situation here:
"Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Luke 22:4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
Luke 22:5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
Luke 22:6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude."

And sorry I was wrong about the "angel of light" reference:
"2 Cor 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2 Cor 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
This is the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' deception.

Some other interesting verses:
"Zec 3:1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
Zec 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?"

"Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

"Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."

It is also believed that this verse refers to Satan, since no one else would match this description:
"Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye [the believers] walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"

"Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
(Interestingly, it is Simon Peter who later writes about the devil as a roaring lion!)

"Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

That last Luke passage is interesting, in that it paralels that in Revelation.
"Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
If there was ever any doubt, the Devil, Satan, the Dragon (in Revelations), and the old Serpent (from Genesis) are one and the same, according to this passage. Just in case there's any doubt:
"Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"

I hope these passages will help you.

-------------------------
Zappers,

That's a good question. The answer, as I understand it from the scriptures, is this. The one-third of the angels who rebelled chose to rebel, the other 2/3's didn't choose to rebel. Now in humanities case, Adam and Eve chose to rebel, but they were the only people around at the time. We are all descended from these sinners.
"1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
However! we are not guilty of sin only because we are descended from a sinner. Each of us is also guilty of our own sin. In the case of the 2/3 good angels, they didn't 'descend' from the the bad angels (angels don't have descendants), nor did they personaly choose to rebel. We have done both.

I'm really not sure how important it is that we are all descended from a sinner, but the fact remains that God has declared us all unrighteouss because we all do sin. 2/3 of the angels don't.

Did that make any sense?

[This message has been edited by Caleb (edited September 30, 2000).]

Caleb,


"Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

It has often occured to me that Jesus and Satan were actually the same being, and these verses seem to support that idea. The Old Testament describes Lucifer as the "son of the morning" (Isaiah 14:12); Jesus is referred to as the "day star" in 2 Peter 1:19; Jesus promises to give his followers "the morning star" in Revelations 2:28; Jesus proclaims himself the "bright and morning star" in Revelations 22:16.

Jesus supposedly came to earth from heaven, and he wants to be (and is) worshipped as God. And what has "weakened the nations" more than the battle to force Christianity on the entire world? Jesus himself said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. What greater deception could there be?

If Jesus and Lucifer are one and the same, then it would seem that he has indeed deceived even the "very elect". And what better way to deceive them than to claim to absolve them of all personal responsibility for their own acts? Hmmmm...something to think about, anyway.

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Lets try to be realistic Emerald. Has it really often occured to you Jesus = Satan or do you just bring up that idea for the sake of bringing it?

"Jesus himself said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword."

Would you mind explaining what that verse means? You quote it, but do you know what it is teaching?

"If god created mankind so they would have free will, and therefore truely worship him/her with out programming, then how did satan rebel?"

Satan has free will as well.


"Satan as the Devil is a necessity of God's universe."

I have toiled with that often. I think it is speculation either way one goes. We really can't anser that. I think the best way to find the answer to that is to stick with the source of our epistemology: special revelation (the Bible).

"Even the best constructions seem to indicate that Satan is a necessary result of the Universe."

But what are these constructions based on and where do they end? Do they go specifically based on the available data or do the take into account the cause for our universe and what happened "before" it?

"Thus, it seems to me that any Devil that exists must do so only by God's allowance at least, by God's will if we choose to be less mincing about it. The Devil is an agent of God, therefore; that is, he performs a mission or task which God deems necessary to the development of the Universe."

There is a distinction between God's perfect will and God's permissiable will.


"The Devil is an agent of God, therefore; that is, he performs a mission or task which God deems necessary to the development of the Universe."

So your saying Judas should have been rewarded for selling out Jesus because Jesus died for the sins of the world? Definately not. God turns evil (which is that which is away from his will) into Good. Evil is in the intent not in the action. We will have new bodies. Our souls move on, not the atoms and molecules composing our present bodies that react and produce causes and effects in accordance with the laws of physics.

"But even the best of the believers have been unable to establish the necessity of the Devil in the Universe"

Who determined who the best was and who determined that they failed to establish the nature of Satan in God's universe?

"But the presence of a Devil in the classic, mythic, Christian sense means that, of the vastness of the Universe and all of its unseen miracles, human beings are the most important thing in it, and the entirety of this Universe is devised merely to support the logistics of God's melodramatic plan."

Might want to brush up on the anthropic principle. Lots of astronomical evidence for design. Hawking's question of why God made more than one star has been answered.

"And of course, within the Christian worldview, one can always say ..."the Devil made me do it!" and shake of that pesky yoke of responsibility. And then ..."forgive me Jesus..." and unburden oneself from the spectre of guilt ... and live to sin another day. Free will is an interesting concept, but in reality, if one accepts God as omnipotent, it is really no more than an illusion. It`s all done with mirrors."

Actually the Bible does not teach Satan is responsible for our sins. James tells us we are enticed and dragged away by our own evil desires.

A few more things....

Serpant = Satan

Bible = Myth is equal to a false statement.


"
It has never been clear to me how we associate the serpent and Satan, except for the assumptions of a few myths piled atop one another. I mean, sure, tradition holds that the serpent is Satan, but if we believe Genesis, then tradition holds that a woman's place is "under thy husband's power" and that "he shall have dominion over thee" (3.16)."

We deny the Bible because we disagree with God.

"We can take Job for certain insights, but that requires admitting that God is, essentially, a brat in the story, getting pissed off at Job simply because he--God, that is--loses a freakin' bet."

We disagree with God's actions and call him a brat. More importantly, we assume a logical foundation for our thoughts. We cannot provide any logical reason to how we know our thought corresponde to reality but we use them none the less to cut off the branch we are sitting on. We use highly subjective, speculative, personally biased synthetic propositions, to do away with the bible.

"According to the Bible 1/3 of the angels rebelled and were kicked out of heaven,
but Genesis says only Adam and Eve ate of the apple, but all humanity had to pay
the price for their screw up. I realize that Adam and Eve could symbolize humanity
as a whole, but it doesn’t say all humanity sinned. So why the double standard
here. Only the angels who sinned paid the price, but all humanity pays the price for
Adam and Eve. Sounds to me to be a little unfair to say the least."

Are you without sin? Am I without sin? Are any of us without sin? In adam all died, in Christ all ca be made alive if they believe in Him.


Peace,
Vinnie

Vinnie,


Lets try to be realistic Emerald. Has it really often occured to you Jesus = Satan or do you just bring up that idea for the sake of bringing it?

Yes, Vinnie - I really do think beyond what is spoon fed to me. I'm sorry that it comes across as offensive - I really don't intend it that way. But there is no way to bring these concepts to the table for discussion without offending someone.

Does the earth not have a north and south pole? Does a battery not have a positive and negative terminal? Could there be light without dark? Good without bad? Up without down? Even God himself admits this polarity within his own nature in Isaiah 45:7 when he says that he forms the light and creates darkness, he makes peace and creates evil. Earlier, he stated that there was no other God besides himself - he's all there is! So although God has many aspects, there is only One Power.

I would also like to quote Isaiah 45:21,22:

<font color="red">21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.</font>


"Jesus himself said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword."

Would you mind explaining what that verse means? You quote it, but do you know what it is teaching?

I think it means just what it sounds like - his intention was to cause strife and divide families, and get as many as possible to follow him and worship him as God.

Isaiah 2:4 says that in the last days the people will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruninghooks, and that nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore. As I see it, this is directly opposed to Jesus's mission on this earth.

Is it possible for you to look beyond your religious indoctrination to see what I see and understand my point of view without taking offense?

Peace, Vinnie.


Blessings,

Emerald


------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

"Yes, Vinnie - I really do think beyond what is spoon fed to me."

As Paul wrote, "Test everything. Hold on to that which is good."

"I'm sorry that it comes across as offensive - I really don't intend it that way. But there is no way to bring these concepts to the table for discussion without offending someone."

Wll I didn't get offended ;) Just curious if you actually believed that. God creating evil is one thing but saying Jesus = Satan isn't that Logical. You took a few verses and tried to show some corollary between them. Your idea of Jesus = Satan pretty much ignores the theme of the bible and many many many verses of scripture. So do you believe the Bible to be God's word? If not you would seem to be picking and choosing rather subjectively.

"Does the earth not have a north and south pole? Does a battery not have a positive and negative terminal? Could there be light without dark? Good without bad? Up without down? Even God himself admits this polarity within his own nature in Isaiah 45:7 when he says that he forms the light and creates darkness, he makes peace and creates evil. Earlier, he stated that there was no other God besides himself - he's all there is! So although God has many aspects, there is only One Power."

I agree with that except the "evil" part. You have to be careful of symantics. Looking in a dictionary, what definition of evil is that referring to?

Heres a self quote from a different message board recently...

________________
"What, shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10)

Verse in Niv: "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said."

"Shall evil befall a city, and the Lord had not done it? (Amos 3:6)"

Verse in Niv: "When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?"

"I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil;
I am the Lord, that does all these things.
(Isa 45:7)"

Verse in Niv: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Lamentations 3:38 in Niv: "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?"

_____________________


All those verses are referring to disasters and stuff. "There are two definitions of evil if you were to look in a dictionary. That fact helps explain the apparent difference between the Niv and Kjv in word choice for those verses.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong, wickedness.

2. Something that causes harm, misfortune, suffering, or destruction.

God may be classified as the creator of "evil" by webster according to the second definition of the word but not according to the first as that which is morally bad is that which is away from God's will.

"his intention was to cause strife and divide families,"

In Isaiah Jesus was called the prince of peace. He came to bring peace between the believer and God. But Jesus' ministry brought conflicts. Conflicts between Jesus and the Anti-Christ, between light and darkness, and between Christ's children and the devil's children. These conflicts can even occur in the same houshold. Thats what that verse is saying in not so many words.

"Is it possible for you to look beyond your religious indoctrination to see what I see and understand my point of view without taking offense?"

As I said earlier I did not take offense so my answer is yes. I'd like to flip the coin and ask you same question. Can you look beyond your religious indoctrination and see my (spoon fed?) point of view?

Peace,
Vinnie

Ilgwamh,


All those verses are referring to disasters and stuff. "There are two definitions of evil if you were to look in a dictionary. That fact helps explain the apparent difference between the Niv and Kjv in word choice for those verses.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong, wickedness.

2. Something that causes harm, misfortune, suffering, or destruction.

God may be classified as the creator of "evil" by webster according to the second definition of the word but not according to the first as that which is morally bad is that which is away from God's will.

When you look at the two definitions they are the same. To be morally bad or wrong, wickedness, you would contain the qualitys of the secound definitions, cause harm, misfortune, suffering, or destruction. I fail to see how the two can be separated from each other.

------------------
My Religion is vision!

Caleb

Thanks Caleb, that was nice of you.

But I am still a little put out about the angels. I think they got the better deal.......... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Vinnie,


In Isaiah Jesus was called the prince of peace.

Where in Isaiah is Jesus' name mentioned? Can you even find the name "Jesus" anywhere in the Old Testament? There was an Immanuel mentioned in Isaiah - but sorry, no Jesus.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Vinnie,


I'd like to flip the coin and ask you same question. Can you look beyond your religious indoctrination and see my (spoon fed?) point of view?

I'm not sure what religious indoctrination you're referring to that would keep me from seeing your point of view? Did you know that my mother is a born-again Christian, like her parents before her, and their parents before them, and on and on, ad nauseum? I come from a long line of Christian fundamentalists on my mother's side of the family, so I know exactly where they're coming from. Did I also mention to you that I attended one year of seminary classes to study the New Testament back in the early 70's? Did I mention that I've attended a number of Christian churches of various denominations as an adult in my search for the truth? Sorry, but none of them rang true for me.

You see, even though I was born to a Christian mother, I've always been a Pagan at heart. I just didn't fully realize it until fairly recently. Once I began studying the various Pagan religions, I knew I had found my own true path. Have you ever had the experience of reading a book on any religious philosophy and found yourself excitedly nodding your head and saying to yourself, "Yes! I've always known that, but didn't know there was anyone else out there who knew it too!"?

So no, I wasn't indoctrinated with Pagan philosophy as a child - but it was always right there inside of me waiting to be discovered. So there is nothing to keep me from seeing your point of view in that sense - I just never understood it because it wasn't logical to me and it didn't ring my inner bell of truth.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

"The Devil is an agent of God, therefore; that is, he performs a mission or task which God deems necessary to the development of the Universe."

So your saying Judas should have been rewarded for selling out Jesus because Jesus died for the sins of the world? Definately not. God turns evil (which is that which is away from his will) into Good. Evil is in the intent not in the action. We will have new bodies. Our souls move on, not the atoms and molecules composing our present bodies that react and produce causes and effects in accordance with the laws of physics.

* Judas rewarded: I assert here the same notion I assert when facing anti-Semitism based on the sentiment that the Jews killed Christ. Simply, regardless of who killed Christ, that betrayal and destruction had to occur to complete Christ's mission. Thus, Christian anti-Semitism based on the notion that the Jews killed Christ is missing the point anyway, since whoever killed Christ did the Christians the favor of proving their point.

As applied to Judas: Christ needed Judas' betrayal. Christ needed someone to betray him. If it hadn't been Judas, it would have been someone. The story just doesn't work as effectively if Christ isn't betrayed. Whoever betrays Christ in the story proves Christ's point, elevates Christ's status, delivers Christ to God, and thus, goes the doctrine, humanity from evil.

* Evil in intent, not action: Why is it that every time I make that assertion, someone asks me about pedophiles? But, largely, I agree that Evil finds its roots in the intent.

* If I might mention, about the physics part: there you go! That's what to do with the brain. The old theology may be dead, but its gods and images don't need to be. Just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I, for one, would be fascinated to see what physical processes take place around an alleged manifestation of an Angel of the Lord.

And I would love to measure the physical laws of the transformation of the Eucharist.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 02, 2000).]

"When you look at the two definitions they are the same. To be morally bad or wrong, wickedness, you would contain the qualitys of the secound definitions, cause harm, misfortune, suffering, or destruction. I fail to see how the two can be separated from each other."

That is what is generally thought but the two are differnt. Elements decay over time (that half-life stuff). Is that morally bad. Disorder is increasing. Is that morally bad. A gun is not evil. It can help cause evil if used a certian way. A gun is just a collection of atoms, molecules and forces. A gun that is shooting someone is not evil or bad. In fact, unless it was a "good" shot it won't hit the mark. The sin is in the intent of the person using the gun. Thats the idea behind free will. The chemical reactions on the micro level and the interactions on the macro are not where the sin is. It is a sin to do these actions. Its a little hard to explain but maybe you are getting a little bit of an idea of it? I am not fully explaining it either. There are some sticky situations but this is the general idea. Because "intent" and "free will" and "soul" must all be properly understood and well defined to play the semantics game.


Hurricanes cause destruction. Are they evil? No, actually they are vital, without them life wouldn't have such a pleasant atmosphere to live in.

Evil and destruction are generally tied together. because our evil desires and sins bring exactly that: evil, suffering, destruction et cetera.

But with God the case is different because he is the one who determined (for us) what is morally bad or wicked. If you think about things like the Transcendental argument this comes a little bit clearer. Its like in one set of physical interactions a collection of atoms (a human) gives a needed collection of atoms (money) to another (a poor person). We would call this morally good but what is the difference bewteen this and 1 electron being transferred between two elements? We really need a foundation to be able to determine what makes something morally bad without being subjective (just picking and choosing based upon our own predjudices).

It can be gleaned from the Bible that which is morally bad is that which is away from God's will. That kills things like the theodice problem and it also makes the destruction and disaster that come from God impossible to be morally wrong.

"There was an Immanuel mentioned in Isaiah - but sorry, no Jesus."

Immanuel is just one of his nicknames :p Thats referring to Jesus.

And you were indoctrinated with religion as each and every one of us were. Some more than others but we are all influenced by our enviroment and its beliefs. Even if its for the worst or away from certian beliefs.


"* Judas rewarded: I assert here the same notion I assert when facing anti-Semitism based on the sentiment that the Jews killed Christ. Simply, regardless of who killed Christ, that betrayal and destruction had to occur to complete Christ's mission. Thus, Christian anti-Semitism based on the notion that the Jews killed Christ is missing the point anyway, since whoever killed Christ did the Christians the favor of proving their point."

habla en englais por favor :p

Well, that Judas stuff gets into predestination which is a loooooonnng subject. But Judas did do something bad even if it had good results.

"I, for one, would be fascinated to see what physical processes take place around an alleged manifestation of an Angel of the Lord."

Good luck ;)

"And I would love to measure the physical laws of the transformation of the Eucharist."

Somebody being over literal? :)

I'd like to measure the physical laws of me laying eggs in accordance with Christ's command to be like doves.


The quantum mechanics of matter with a chemical composition and molecular arrangement similar to bread popping into existence is what I would like to see. But I am applying qm to the macro-world. Anyways, it all (the miracles and stuff) probably stem from God's extradimensional nature. A corollary of Genesis 1:1 is that God is a transcendent creator that created the universe independent of the space, time, matter, energy, and dimensions that we see.

Check out a book like "Flatland" or "The Fourth Dimension."

Peace,
Vinnie


[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited October 02, 2000).]

Emerald,
If one belives the Bible, then Jesus couldn't possibly be Satan. Satan is said to enter Judas when he betrayed Christ. This is a contradiction according to your theory. Satan betraying Satan? :rolleyes:

Jesus also resisted Satan in the wilderness, and refused to obey or worship him. I suppose all that wilderness starvation caused Jesus to become schizophrenic or something? :rolleyes:

Also in the last days, Jesus will throw Satan into the pit for 1,000 years.

Your theory isn't new. The Pharisees (who crucified Christ) thought he was doing everything in Satan (=Beelzebub)'s name. Jesus correctly pointed out that a house divided cannot stand.

So if we believe your theory, then we can't believe the Bible, but if we don't believe the Bible, then you have no evidence to base your theory on.
-------------
Somebody asked how we know the serpent = Satan.

Rev. 12:9 - "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which decieveth the whole world: he was cast out, into the earth, and his angels with him."

Also, the prophecy in Gen. 3:15 says that the serpent will bruise the heel of the woman's seed, but this seed will bruise the serpents head. This is what Jesus will do.
"And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." (Romans 16:20)
-------------
Zappers-
Maybe the angels "got a better deal" than we did ;) , but Jesus got an even better deal -
Hebrews 1:4 - "Being made so much better than the angels..."
and
Hebrews 1:5 - "For unto which of the angels said He [God] at any time 'Thou art my Son, this day have I beggotten thee'.

But even though Christ was better than the angels, he was made a "little lower than the angels"(Hebrews 2:9) when he came to earth as a man.

"Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in the fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Phillipians 2:6-8)

Now we who are Christians are "given power to become the sons of God" (John 1:12) - which the angels aren't!

[This message has been edited by Caleb (edited October 02, 2000).]

"* Judas rewarded: I assert here the same notion I assert when facing anti-Semitism based on the sentiment that the Jews killed Christ. Simply, regardless of who killed Christ, that betrayal and destruction had to occur to complete Christ's mission. Thus, Christian anti-Semitism based on the notion that the Jews killed Christ is missing the point anyway, since whoever killed Christ did the Christians the favor of proving their point."

habla en englais por favor



It's called PLUS ... Project Literacy United States. ;)

Perhaps if you'd made the transition to the next paragraph, where it says: As applied to Judas.

Really ... Christ was betrayed and died on the cross for our sins. How can this story go forward without a betrayal? Without the betrayal, there is no arrest, no faux-trial, and no execution; no execution means no rumors of resurrection. No rumors of resurrection, no church to establish.

I don't see predestination anywhere in it.

(retracted ... a number of rantings about physics; it seems I need a little literacy of my own ;) )

What is it you wrote on 10/1 ...? We deny the Bible because we disagree with God.

There's a number of counterassertions: that we believe the Bible because it's easier than coping with reality; that we believe the Bible because it's less threatening than reality; that we believe the Bible because it makes us feel good to imagine ourselves the center of the Universe's concern.

Two thousand years worth of Christianity and nobody can decide on what it means ... doesn't it seem that little point of resolution is important if you're going to be asserting that such a meaning is the foundation to reality?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 02, 2000).]

Caleb,


If one belives the Bible, then Jesus couldn't possibly be Satan. Satan is said to enter Judas when he betrayed Christ. This is a contradiction according to your theory. Satan betraying Satan?

If Satan entered Judas, then Judas couldn't be held responsible for his actions, could he? After all, the "Devil" made him do it. :rolleyes:


Jesus also resisted Satan in the wilderness, and refused to obey or worship him. I suppose all that wilderness starvation caused Jesus to become schizophrenic or something?

And just who was there with Jesus when he wrestled with his demons in the wilderness? Who was there to report the story?


So if we believe your theory, then we can't believe the Bible, but if we don't believe the Bible, then you have no evidence to base your theory on.

It is my belief that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories by various writers over a period of time, and therefore I am obviously not suggesting that Jesus/Satan was an actual being. What I am suggesting is that Jesus/Satan was intended in the minds of the New Testament authors to be the same character, but not in a way that would be obvious to the undiscerning reader.

It is my hypothesis (not quite to the level of a theory yet ;) ) that the story of Jesus is based on earlier Pagan mythologies, combined with Hermetic philosophy. The Principal of Polarity is an important concept in occult philosophy, and the New Testament writers were no strangers to the occult. Looking at it this way, it is not surprising (at least to me) that the Jesus character would be a multiple personality, with his negative aspect cleverly disguised as "the Devil" - a separate being.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Somebody asked how we know the serpent = Satan.

Rev. 12:9 - "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which decieveth the whole world: he was cast out, into the earth, and his angels with him."

Also, the prophecy in Gen. 3:15 says that the serpent will bruise the heel of the woman's seed, but this seed will bruise the serpents head. This is what Jesus will do.
"And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." (Romans 16:20)


Thank you much, Caleb.

I want to make sure I have this right.

We know that the serpent of Genesis is Satan because Revelations tells us so. Furthermore, we have greater evidence that serpent equals Satan based on the last chapter of a letter written to the Roman congregation?


17 (7) I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.
18 For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent.
19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil;
20 then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan (8) under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.


Two notes on that, and I need not contrive them. Footnote (7) from my source (cited below) reads:

* 7 [17-18] Paul displays genuine concern for the congregations in Rome by warning them against self-seeking teachers. It would be a great loss, he intimates, if their obedience, which is known to all (cf Romans 1:8), would be diluted.

Footnote (8):

* 8 This verse contains the only mention of Satan in Romans.

So part of your proof is, essentially, the urgings of an evangelist that a congregation should be suspicious of their own kind. I must admit, such urgings are exactly what I have come to expect of the Satan required to maintain Chrisianity's viability.

I see why history is often regarded as detrimental to religion. Franciscan Catholics taught as late as ten years ago that Revelations is not a literal text. History supports that notion. Furthermore, the history surrounding the construction of the New Testament is being examined with more and more scrutiny. Presently I'm reading Elaine Pagels' Origin of Satan, which examines historical notions versus faith ideas. As an example of her approach, the first chapter focuses on the relationship between Jewish-Roman strife and the development of the Gospel of Mark. And that relationship is mighty, including what might be intentional misrepresentations of the Sanhedrin in order to foster better relations with Rome. Or the idea that the Bible is the only historical source which describes Pontius Pilate as it does: "Let me wash my hands of it." Josephus and Philo are two I can pull off the top of my head; both described Pilate in uncomplimentary terms: ruthless, vicious, partisan, and cruel. The bumbling, Reaganesque version of Pilate might well be a literary concession by Mark's authors to the Romans.

Furthermore, the Satan seems to rise up in the New Testament out of necessity. In fact, my initial impression of Pagels' view of the Gospels is that they're political works, using theology to connect with the motivations of the people, and that Satan is a convenient tool to polarize the audience. And history--again--shows that, throughout history, Christianity has employed Satan to fight three things: Jews, Pagans, and heretics.

But, as we've got a start on Serpent = Satan ... as soon as we clear that up, I need to figure out when Beelzebub became Satan, and for what purpose.

But this all does little to address the idea that Satan has "free will" because that is the only way he can perform the mission with which God entrusted him.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Emerald,

I still think tour tying to have your cake and eat it to.

You are using the Bible to support your Jesus-Satan 'hypothesis' (which was actually the Pharisee's hypothesis - don't plagiarize ;) ) BUT then you disregard (by claiming that the authors were trying to hide from the undiscerning) the parts of the Bible (many more numerous) which show the opposite is true.

How do we know which parts of the Bible are true, which are half-true, which were deliberately hidden by the authors, and which ones were downright lies? Which part of the cake do we eat, and which part do we leave? I think its all just a bit subjective. It depends on what your looking for. A while ago, there was a post that discovered Jesus wasn't Satan - he was a comedian! LOL!

Caleb,

Whatever the authors of the New Testament intended doesn't really matter one way or the other, considering that the gospel story was based on earlier Pagan myths. I just find these hidden clues tantalizing, that's all (I do love a mystery laced with clues!). I've long since discounted most of the stories as they're recorded in the Bible, so I guess I just keep hoping to find some sort of hidden message, or something interesting like that. A total waste of time, no doubt. I'm probably much better off reading The Kybalion, or something of that nature - something that's more straight forward, doesn't contradict itself at every turn, and at least makes some kind of sense to me.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

D'oh! :o

Forgot the Bible I was using ....
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

When you search for "some sort of hidden message, or something interesting like that." that doesn't even exist, you can find whatever you want. In your case, you assume the Bible is a pagan document, but it tells us otherwise. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sigh... Oh what's the use?

In your case, you assume the Bible is a pagan document, but it tells us otherwise.

Ah ... a source telling us that it is or isn't something. In the modern world we call it advertising.

You are correct, though. The Bible is not a pagan document, but an anthology of partisan history and plagiarized pagan traditions. Not to worry, though, since that describes at least three monotheistic religions.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

:rolleyes:
Let me get this straight. So far, we have the Bible as:

1) A pagan document.
2) A partisan history.
3) The inspired Word of the only true God.

:rolleyes:
Would anyone else like to add their own knowledge as to what the Bible actually is?
:rolleyes:

Caleb,

Why don't you take a look around the following site to find out more about the true origins of your "Christian holidays", as well as why the "Christian sabbath" was changed from Saturday to Sunday:

<A HREF="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hd.htm#menu">CHRISTIAN HOLY DAYS</A>

If you've never been exposed to these ideas before, it may come as somewhat of a shock to you. And if you have been exposed to them, I'm not sure why the idea that the Bible has plagiarized Pagan traditions is so unbelievable to you.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.