Satan and the Work Denying

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33 here:

...satan does his work to deny the work of God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

It's not that Satan causes evil. It's that Satan is evil.

I think the idea of satan is negative for society because it gives the bad things we do a personality, and personalities have power.

When we seek to blame problems on someone or something else, we are doing it in an attempt to not seem at fault. This is a problem. The first step in fixing a problem is taking responsibility for it. We take responsibility by acknowledging that the negative actions we took were taken out of our own free will.

Once we know that we were the cause of our actions, we also know that we can choose not to engage in them anymore, or we can modify the actions so the negative effects are removed.

The original idea of Satan can be used constructively if he is observed purely as a tempter, and not one that can bypass the free will of an individual. That is why I think that the original of intentions of the word Satan is a way to symbolically represent one's immoral thoughts and ideas.

Jesus was tempted, Buddha was also tempted. Those that had great spiritual knowledge knew that their intellects could be used most advantageously for personal gain at the expense of others' well being if they chose to do so. Our modern society has chosen to listen to thoughts that drive us to do things that put others as well as ourselves in a state of disharmony with the universe. Effectively, Satan has led us astray, but we never have to do what Satan says, so we never should use that as an excuse for the evil deeds humanity has committed.

Now that's a quality post.

I'll be tellin' all my people I'm the one that wrote it. If you tell 'em I didn't, I'll call ya a liar right to your face

Would I be correct if I said that it doesn't matter (to God?) if I consider this Satan not an entity, but a concept used to help describe and understand "evil"? Is this Satan a teaching tool, or a real entity that plots and plans?

I, personally, being not the scholar, think if the idea were presented as Satan being a concept, as opposed to an entity, "the church" would likely lose some of its "moral authority", so would prefer this Satan to be an entity, or to be at least described as such. (I say that while admitting I can be a bit paranoid and cynical, if folks didn't know)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

I always find it amusing when folks must use the qualifier "biblical" whenever evidence gets mentioned.

Do you also think it's funny when people use the qualifier "scientific" whenever they mention evidence from science?

Not near as much.

You asked for means to confirm a claim that is soaked in Christian and Jewish theology, but then you refuse to accept confirmation from the Bible (the source of such theology)? Why would you do that?

For the same reason I don't look to the moon expecting to see a cow jumping over it.

Your assumption is that evidence from the Bible isn't actual evidence.

Prove that.

My assumption is that you can't show the claim presented in the OP to be true and factual.

I propose as my proof here your not presenting anything, biblical or not, to support the claim challenged in the OP, and your going on to request that I prove something that is not related to the challenge presented in the OP.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

A week later I'm still waiting for a definition of 'natural,' so I wouldn't be holding my breath on 'actual' if I were you

The shrooms came in, shoot me. So's ya know, there's a PM function on this site, where if ya think someone is missing something, ya can given 'em a heads up to let 'em know you requested info or such.

I'll be there here directly.

Edit:
...
Could the author of the OP please provide definitions of 'confirm' and 'factual' which aren't question-begging or circular, so we can understand the question?

Sure...

1: to give approval to : ratify <confirm a treaty>
2: to make firm or firmer : strengthen <confirm one's resolve>
3: to administer the rite of confirmation to
4: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact <confirm a rumor> <confirm an order>

For me, and that's just me now, I'd say if someone could present confirmation that fits definition 4, I'd hafta change my thinking on this whole deal.

1: of or relating to facts <a factual error>
2: restricted to or based on fact <a factual statement>

A'ight then, have at 'er.

[Crazee]

From Post 5:

It's not that Satan causes evil. It's that Satan is evil.

I think the idea of satan is negative for society because it gives the bad things we do a personality, and personalities have power.

When we seek to blame problems on someone or something else, we are doing it in an attempt to not seem at fault. This is a problem. The first step in fixing a problem is taking responsibility for it. We take responsibility by acknowledging that the negative actions we took were taken out of our own free will.

Once we know that we were the cause of our actions, we also know that we can choose not to engage in them anymore, or we can modify the actions so the negative effects are removed.

The original idea of Satan can be used constructively if he is observed purely as a tempter, and not one that can bypass the free will of an individual. That is why I think that the original of intentions of the word Satan is a way to symbolically represent one's immoral thoughts and ideas.

Jesus was tempted, Buddha was also tempted. Those that had great spiritual knowledge knew that their intellects could be used most advantageously for personal gain at the expense of others' well being if they chose to do so. Our modern society has chosen to listen to thoughts that drive us to do things that put others as well as ourselves in a state of disharmony with the universe. Effectively, Satan has led us astray, but we never have to do what Satan says, so we never should use that as an excuse for the evil deeds humanity has committed.

Now that's a quality post.

I'll be tellin' all my people I'm the one that wrote it. If you tell 'em I didn't, I'll call ya a liar right to your face

Knowledge is free
I am you, you are me
All part of the same society

Would I be correct if I said that it doesn't matter (to God?) if I consider this Satan not an entity, but a concept used to help describe and understand "evil"?

I would say that is correct. The thing is that a concept can become an entity to people if they choose to imagine it that way.

Is this Satan a teaching tool, or a real entity that plots and plans?

Satan should be a teaching tool, though I know it isn't always used that way.

When a human causes hurt on others, in the end they are hurting themselves as well. We will always receive in return levels of positive or negative energy that are similar to those we give out. I think satan may have been meant as a teaching tool by Jesus to cast off our evil thoughts because he knew that in the end those thoughts would inherently do us harm.

I, personally, being not the scholar, think if the idea were presented as Satan being a concept, as opposed to an entity, "the church" would likely lose some of its "moral authority", so would prefer this Satan to be an entity, or to be at least described as such. (I say that while admitting I can be a bit paranoid and cynical, if folks didn't know)

The church likely would lose some of its power. The power of the concept of Satan comes from the ability to foster an 'us vs them' mentality. When there is a 'them' that is causing harm and we need to be protected from, we tend to give our supposed protectors a lot of money. The church is sometimes markets itself as a way to save your soul from satan so that one may spend eternity in heaven as opposed to hell.

When there is no 'them' and we realize that everyone is an 'us', then we live much more cooperatively in our environment. The church is an organization with a portion leaders that are addicted to power. In a communal, cooperative society, there is no place for people like them, and they know it. What they don't know is that in this hypothetical society, they would still be much happier than they are now.

[Mithrae]

From Post 8:

A week later I'm still waiting for a definition of 'natural,' so I wouldn't be holding my breath on 'actual' if I were you

The shrooms came in, shoot me. So's ya know, there's a PM function on this site, where if ya think someone is missing something, ya can given 'em a heads up to let 'em know you requested info or such.

I'll be there here directly.

Edit:
...
Could the author of the OP please provide definitions of 'confirm' and 'factual' which aren't question-begging or circular, so we can understand the question?

Sure...

1: to give approval to : ratify <confirm a treaty>
2: to make firm or firmer : strengthen <confirm one's resolve>
3: to administer the rite of confirmation to
4: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact <confirm a rumor> <confirm an order>

For me, and that's just me now, I'd say if someone could present confirmation that fits definition 4, I'd hafta change my thinking on this whole deal.

1: of or relating to facts <a factual error>
2: restricted to or based on fact <a factual statement>

A'ight then, have at 'er.

Definition 4? I think we can safely say that nothing on God's green earth could be considered beyond any dispute or doubt. So I wonder what is the point of the numerous questions for 'debate' which you post? We can't remove doubt about the US government's motivations through an authoritative act or indisputable fact, and we obviously can't remove doubt about Satan's motivations through an authoritative act or indisputable fact.

When I was younger I read some books by woman who said that on one occasion she'd actually met Satan. But I suppose, technically, all that could really be said without doubt or dispute was that she'd met someone appearing out of thin air who claimed to be Satan, and he could have been lying. Even if he was telling the truth, apparently he didn't make any comments about whether he acted in order to deny the work of God or not

It's a pretty tough challenge you've presented I suppose, though I think I'm not alone in wondering what's the point.

[Shermana]

Hey Mithrae, can you reference these books you're talking about? I have my theory that a lot of people have in fact met with the evil one (especially majorly talentless celebrities who ended up becoming celebrities), I like reading such accounts whether they're legit or not.

And I like Crazee's post too, I think the concept of the Evil one is grossly misunderstood, he is the Tempter, the Accuser, and he serves, in Jewish Theology, G-d's purpose by exposing the true nature of people and showing what they'll actually do when they're put to the test. If he does employ skullduggery and trickery to confuse and cause chaos, it's all because he's allowed to do so.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

Definition 4? I think we can safely say that nothing on God's green earth could be considered beyond any dispute or doubt.

I wish you'd tell that to that bunch of theists that thinks they know a god's wants or wishes. Or in this case, some Satan feller.

So I wonder what is the point of the numerous questions for 'debate' which you post?

To arrive at the truth of the matter.

We can't remove doubt about the US government's motivations through an authoritative act or indisputable fact, and we obviously can't remove doubt about Satan's motivations through an authoritative act or indisputable fact.

Maybe you oughta tell that to the original claimant.

When I was younger I read some books by woman who said that on one occasion she'd actually met Satan. But I suppose, technically, all that could really be said without doubt or dispute was that she'd met someone appearing out of thin air who claimed to be Satan, and he could have been lying. Even if he was telling the truth, apparently he didn't make any comments about whether he acted in order to deny the work of God or not

Or, we might think her and her rocker got separated.

It's a pretty tough challenge you've presented I suppose, though I think I'm not alone in wondering what's the point.

I make no concessions for the difficulty a claimant encounters when asked to show they speak truth.

The point is to arrive at the truth of the matter, as previously stated above.

[Mithrae]

Hey Mithrae, can you reference these books you're talking about? I have my theory that a lot of people have in fact met with the evil one (especially majorly talentless celebrities who ended up becoming celebrities), I like reading such accounts whether they're legit or not.

And I like Crazee's post too, I think the concept of the Evil one is grossly misunderstood, he is the Tempter, the Accuser, and he serves, in Jewish Theology, G-d's purpose by exposing the true nature of people and showing what they'll actually do when they're put to the test. If he does employ skullduggery and trickery to confuse and cause chaos, it's all because he's allowed to do so.

Hehe... you may well love these books then, 'cos they even feature a former high priestess and bride of Satan, who met and inducted numerous rock stars part of Satan's scheme to corrupt our youth! Part of a paranoid satanism hype which had its heyday in the 80s, I believe - too lazy to get references atm. But the author is Rebecca Brown, MD; a doctor who later, due to Satan's agents and nefarious works, lost her medical licence in at least one state allegedly for getting patients hooked on her alleged addiction to demerol I've read 4 of the 5 mentioned by Wiki (not Standing on the Rock); extremely conservative Christian views of course, which says something about my upbringing.

Definition 4? I think we can safely say that nothing on God's green earth could be considered beyond any dispute or doubt.

I wish you'd tell that to that bunch of theists that thinks they know a god's wants or wishes. Or in this case, some Satan feller.

The prevalence of dispute and doubt is well-known to Christians, I believe. Belief has to be based on reasons - like God talking to you - and anyone can doubt the validity of those reasons. You, for example, have expressed your doubt about the 'actuality' of biblical reasons for belief.

It's a pretty tough challenge you've presented I suppose, though I think I'm not alone in wondering what's the point.

I make no concessions for the difficulty a claimant encounters when asked to show they speak truth.

The point is to arrive at the truth of the matter, as previously stated above.

Since you have rejected (so far without providing any justification) a major source of support for the 'claim,' it looks more like the point is simply to declare that there are differences between your epistemic system and the 'claimants' epistemic systems - a point which it seems to take many threads for you to make.

Or perhaps more accurately, maybe the enlightened purpose of this thread is pointing out that given relatively minor differences in epistemic systems as well as cultural and personal circumstances, the 'claimants' do not share your opinions on the relative validity of sources of knowledge?

Or were you intending to explain the nature of truth to us, and reveal by what privileged method you have access to it?

[Euphrates]

You asked for means to confirm a claim that is soaked in Christian and Jewish theology, but then you refuse to accept confirmation from the Bible (the source of such theology)? Why would you do that?

For the same reason I don't look to the moon expecting to see a cow jumping over it.

One of these days you'll make sense.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

The prevalence of dispute and doubt is well-known to Christians, I believe.

I never said it wasn't. It seems you think it's a pity some of that dispute and doubt'd be expressed on a site dedicated to debate.

Belief has to be based on reasons - like God talking to you - and anyone can doubt the validity of those reasons.

And so I ask what those reasons are.

You, for example, have expressed your doubt about the 'actuality' of biblical reasons for belief.

You said a mouthful.

Since you have rejected (so far without providing any justification) a major source of support for the 'claim,' it looks more like the point is simply to declare that there are differences between your epistemic system and the 'claimants' epistemic systems - a point which it seems to take many threads for you to make.

How 'bout the idea of asking someone why they reject claims before complainin' 'cause they do?

Are you upset that I don't believe everything I'm told?

Or perhaps more accurately, maybe the enlightened purpose of this thread is pointing out that given relatively minor differences in epistemic systems as well as cultural and personal circumstances, the 'claimants' do not share your opinions on the relative validity of sources of knowledge?

The point of this thread, as I told you is to arrive at the truth of the matter.

If you wish to disparage me for asking, "how can we know the claimant speaks truth", I can't help ya. Not nary a bit.

Or were you intending to explain the nature of truth to us, and reveal by what privileged method you have access to it?

My intent is getting at the truth of the matter, regardless of your, or anyone else's protestations.

That you are seemingly upset at my attempt to do so causes me not the least bit of fret.