Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Perhaps “Satan� isn't really the “bad guy� he is made out to be by promoters of the Bible God. Maybe “he� is another one of the “gods� and is equal to the Bible God and/or Jesus – and no more bad or good (or real or unreal) than they are.

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 49 by JLB32168]

At some point would you kindly address the OP question Is "Satan" actually a competing "god"? rather than complaining about the question . . . Fancy footwork and avoidance may fool some people, but not likely too many.

I understand that the question may be uncomfortable for those who realize (perhaps at some level) that they cannot offer verifiable evidence in answer to the question -- only unverified tales and testimonials from ancient writings.

Not your business and NOT a matter of debate.

Let me clarify because it is a matter of debate. What have you used to arrive at the conclusion that Satan might be a god?

I have arrived at no such conclusion. I do not claim that ANY of the thousands of proposed supernatural entities are anything more than products of human imagination and characters in stories told by the thousands of religions.

Careful reading by an astute person of the OP does NOT yield any assertions or claims of knowledge. Notice the parts emphasized in bold and red in the below verbatim quote of the OP.

Notice that a question is DIFFERENT from an assertion: “Did Jane go to town?� is NOT an assertion / claim that Jane went to town.

A statement that contains “could be� or “perhaps� or “does not seem� is not an assertion of “what is� or a claim of knowledge.

Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Perhaps “Satan� isn't really the “bad guy� he is made out to be by promoters of the Bible God. Maybe “he� is another one of the “gods� and is equal to the Bible God and/or Jesus – and no more bad or good (or real or unreal) than they are.

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

Kindly attempt to debate what is actually said, not what you warp it to be.

Agreed.

Is there any verifiable evidence that Satan might be a god? After all, you’re the one who brought him up in the first place.

I have encountered no verifiable evidence that “Satan� is a god or not a god – only tales in religious literature or statements by those who believe the tales.

If I made that claim, which I have NOT, I would be expected to substantiate. I am NOT expected to defend a claim that YOU made up and projected onto me. Nice try – faceplant.

Were you not suggesting that the writers of the Bible only wished to bad-mouth/demean/discredit the competition the Judeo-Christian deity?

I identified that as a possibility – not a certainty

Where else would the question have arisen?

Read the OP carefully. It relates to claims and stories made in Christian literature.

By what authority do you dictate how others may debate?

It’s called “Addressing the topic introduced in the thread name,� namely “Is ‘Satan’ actually a competing ‘god’.� (Still not sure why you’re using quotation marks since when anyone else refers to the god Zeus they don’t place the word god in quotes.)

Thank you for illustrating “addressing the topic� by questioning my use of question marks.

I ask for evidence to support claims made by others.

Are you making a claim in the title of a thread that you started when you titled it “Is ‘Satan’ actually a competing ‘god’?�

A question is not a claim. See the “Did Jane go to town?� example to help with understanding.

Thus, none of those “non-things� came from “God�. Right?

Not that it’s related to the title of the thread or your OP but since God loves and we are created in his image and likeness then yes the desire to love comes from God – for those that believe in things like gods.

According to Christian lore, “Satan� was made by “God�

Thus, a god makes a universe and all it contains BUT did not make part of it (or, in other words, some of what is contained was not made by the creator god – that made the whole works).

God mae the universe. God did not make actions since they cannot be made.

Okay, then love did not come from God nor did any good actions – which seems to contradict the statement you made immediately above. Which way is it – or is it a matter of waffling?

Do you make “eat� or do you just eat?

When I eat I am responsible for the outcome.

The OP question remains “Is 'Satan' actually a competing god'�?

Indeed? [Guffaw!] That you feel at ease reminding me of the topic of the thread is just uproarious.

Perhaps readers appreciate your self-appreciation.

Can you present any verifiable evidence that “Satan� is NOT a “God� or can you not present verifiable evidence?

Anyone can cite what the Bible says. None of us can use what the bible says as authoritative or proof of truth.

But you can discuss what the text says w/o admitting it is true - just like I can debate the morality of the Valkries w/o discussing their existence or lack thereof. Or at least I’m able to do those things w/o changing the topic to “Oh yeah – well the stupid Valkries don’t even exist.�

If you understand the concept, kindly address Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

Would it be possible to stop complaining and actually debate the question “Is 'Satan' actually a competing 'god'?

Just curious, how is one supposed to answer this question? What sort of evidence can one use to answer it?

There does not appear to be any verifiable evidence to distinguish between “Satan� and “God� – only tales in religious literature and claims by religious dogma / doctrine (often parroted by believers).

The question remains “Is 'Satan' actually a competing 'god'?

And when I cited the same text you used – because you had to use that text to even form a question about Satan – you said that the text was bunk,

Bold added: Kindly quote my statement verbatim with URL – or acknowledge that I did NOT make the statement.

which moved me to ask “Why did you ask the stupid question about Satan if the source material is bunk in your eyes?�

I ask MANY questions from the source material regarded by Apologists as truthful and accurate – to call attention to the LACK of verifiable evidence to show that it is truthful and accurate.

This seems to irritate Apologists when they discover that they have NO verifiable evidence that their favorite stories are true. They often resort to AVOIDING the topic, making excuses, or whining about the question . . .

I trust that this thread illustrates to readers that Apologists CANNOT offer evidence to show that “Satan� isn't a competing “god�. That is the point.

You’ve not offered evidence that show Satan is one either. You bear the equal burden of proof since you’re making the assertion.

Since I made NO such assertion, but asked a question I have no burden of proof.

Remember, “I don't believe your god tales� does NOT require substantiation or proof. However, “My god tales are true� DOES require substantiation or proof.

[Willum]

.

How do you know that Satan isn't the one communicating with you? He is supposed to be powerful and dishonest.

I have asked this question many times over the years and have never received a coherent answer.

Apologists seem to think that a supernatural master deceiver (according to their literature) could not deceive them. Yet many acknowledge that other people are deceived by "Satan".

So Mr. Zzyzx, I hope you are having a wonderful evening!

I have been considering this response, in addition to the wonderful insight provided by Mr. Marco! and I believe I have wonderful news, so that you never need worry about the answer.

Since there are so many inspired religionists, and only few can be right, if any, one must assume that, anyone who claims some divine insight, must either prove it, or the objective observer must assume the fact that the claimant is being influenced indeterminately by God, the Devil, some other spirit, delusion OR SOME COMBINATION THEREOF.

This is not an assertion for them to make, but for an objective person to assume about the asserter. I believe this will make a good policy when confronted by those who say they are God-inspired - demonstrate why, or be assumed to be influenced by other, possibly deceptive forces they can't recognize.

Thank you kind Zzyzx and Marco! I look forward to your insight into this epiphany.

[Yahu]

.
Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Perhaps “Satan� isn't really the “bad guy� he is made out to be by promoters of the Bible God. Maybe “he� is another one of the “gods� and is equal to the Bible God and/or Jesus – and no more bad or good (or real or unreal) than they are.

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

First off, you have to define what you mean by a 'god'. In the Hebrew, 'a god' was just a mighty individual. There is a distinction between 'the creator' and 'a god'.

Next, HaSatan isn't even a name of a god but a title of position as accuser in the heavenly court.

As for why Satan hasn't been dealt with yet, it isn't time yet. He is the 'god' of this world now but his time is limited. He will face judgement at the appointed time. It isn't that Yah or Yeshua can't deal with him but won't until the appointed time for the judgement of all on the earth.

He is now free to lead as many into error as he can and punish those that violate Yah's law. He is limited in his abilities and is still bound by Yah's law.

[marco]

You are being restrictive in your understanding of the word create.

I’m using the word as defined in Judeo-Christian theology. God makes things. He doesn’t create verbs/actions.

Your objection has nothing to do with theology. It is a simple misunderstanding. One can use the verb "create" in a variety of ways. The word is not limited by your own semantic experience. Artists create beauty; God created evil. If one is buying into pedantry, God CAN create verbs if he chooses. Shakespeare did. They would be neologisms.

And the argument is, who introduced these mosquitoes that cause suffering?

Water causes suffering in some cases. Are you of the opinion that mosquitoes serve no purpose other than to spread disease?

Your failure to understand is rather disappointing. I am using mosquito as a physical correlative for evil; there are many other things that one can associate with bad. And God made them, and is responsible for their effects.

But again others will say that whoever introduced the mosquito, introduced evil.

God introduced man into creation. Introduction of something doesn’t mean evil.

Of course, the theology of disease for example is that nothing was harmful until the Fall at which all things became corrupted. Mercury serves a purpose; however, if consumed in large amounts it becomes poisonous.

Yes, you're missing the point. We're not talking about the abuse of things or their excessive use becoming harmful. God has responsibility for what he has created. If he created man and man then messed things up, the artefacts made by God were flawed, faulty, carelessly constructed... God, in this way, was responsible for the bad things that resulted, including the murder of Abel. The faults in the world, earthquakes and tsunamis, are God's handiwork. Although you have trouble getting round the notion, it is therefore true to say God created evil.

Of course there are those who see tsunamis and earthquakes as wonderful demonstrations of the power of God. Amen.

[JLB32168]

At some point would you kindly address the OP question Is "Satan" actually a competing "god"? rather than complaining about the question . . . Fancy footwork and avoidance may fool some people, but not likely too many.

That question was answered in the post from Thu Jul 28, 2016 made @ 2:11 pm. Satan is described as a creature. Creatures cannot be God from the Abrahamic perspective since an aspect of deity is being uncreated. Uncreated and Creature are mutually exclusive concepts.

Your “rebuttal� was to simply dismiss the Scripture, which provided you with material for your OP, as the rambling fiction by people thinking about imaginary beings. Let’s say that I wanted to discuss if the BigBad Wolf was wrong to eat Grandmother and to want to eat LRRHood. I would say that A)Animals don’t have moral agency; therefore, they can’t be faulted with moral failures, and B)Wolves are carnivores so there’s nothing wrong with them eating that for which they are evolutionary developed and that C)LRRHood and the Woodsmen were actually in the wrong for killing the wolf who was merely doing what wolves do. One might rebut that point by saying that the wolf has moral agency in the tale; therefore, he can be faulted with moral failings. If I followed your MO, I would respond with “Do you have any evidence that the stupid tale is real? No you don’t so you rely on fiction of silly writers.� I’ve not countered that poster’s rebuttal. I’ve gone off on a red herring argument that has nothing to do with the question – most likely because I can’t counter the argument that the wolf possesses aspects proper to humans more so than characteristics proper to C. lupus.

You’ve done the same, exact, identical, equal thing.

Your question was answered. You don’t seem to be reading all of the posts or if you’re reading them you’re not giving them due attention and that’s not my fault or a sign of my alleged discomfort.

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

So it’s your speculation that Satan is being a fall guy and you base this upon your speculation that victors right history.

If gods are of equal power then why is there only bad press? Why can’t the god being bad-mouthed get anything out. Why are his spin doctors unable to make any headway? Where’s his Carrie Washington of Scandal fame? The most logical conclusion is that the two “gods� aren’t equal.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� [/b][/color](or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Except that Christians don’t hold that there is only one God – only that there is one that is uncreated, omnipotent. Christians hold that other gods are created entities that Christians call “demons� who mascarade as gods.

The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Yup – you don’t have to accept the truth of my conclusions; however, your only rebuttals thus far are “The Bible is bunk.� You’ve not addressed the substance of one of my rebuttals, which is avoidance.

I have encountered no verifiable evidence that “Satan� is a god or not a god – only tales in religious literature or statements by those who believe the tales.

Okay – so your speculations have no verifiable evidence. I understand.

I identified that as a possibility – not a certainty.

And your possibility is informed by no verifiable evidence – to use your words. Got it.

It relates to claims and stories made in Christian literature.

Right. Is there any reason that Christians should believe something different – other than by realizing that their book and their god might not be real (an idea of which you seem to think Christians are oblivious?)

Thank you for illustrating “addressing the topic� by questioning my use of question marks.

You were upset that I called your debate on the carpet. I said that your question didn’t address your own OP. I’m also an English teacher and didn’t understand the incorrect use of quotation marks.

A question is not a claim. See the “Did Jane go to town?� example to help with understanding.

What evidence are people on either side of the debate supposed to use to defend a position of if Satan is a god or not?

According to Christian lore, “Satan� was made by “God�

Yup and this should be of earth shattering consequence for Christians because . . . why exactly?

Okay, then love did not come from God nor did any good actions – which seems to contradict the statement you made immediately above.

God demonstrates love by seeking our happiness w/o expectation of reciprocation. That is the act of loving and the word we use to describe that abstract action of loving is “Love.� We love because we are made in God’s Image and Likeness - for those who believe that sort of thing.

When I eat I am responsible for the outcome.

You didn’t answer the question but are avoiding it. Do you make “eat� or do you just eat?

Can you present any verifiable evidence that “Satan� is NOT a “God� or can you not present verifiable evidence?

Why is Satan in quotation marks?

God with a capital “G� is commonly identified as the Judeo-Chrsitian deity, which Satan is not. God with a miniscule “g� is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes and in that respect Satan is a god since he has some power over those things; however, he isn’t omnipotent and he isn’t created according to the source you’ve cited that mentions him – unless of course you have other evidence that suggests differently.

There does not appear to be any verifiable evidence to distinguish between “Satan� and “God� – only tales in religious literature and claims by religious dogma / doctrine (often parroted by believers).

So then this entire thread was a ridiculous exercise.

[JLB32168]

Your objection has nothing to do with theology. It is a simple misunderstanding.

Wha?? The process of creation by the Judeo-Creation and the supposed problem of evil has nothing to do with theology??

Artists create beauty.

Artists create paintings/photographs/sculpture/music, etc. We assign words to the abstract emotional responses to those things by saying they are examples of “beauty� or “ugliness.�

Your failure to understand is rather disappointing. I am using mosquito as a physical correlative for evil; there are many other things that one can associate with bad. And God made them, and is responsible for their effects.

Is Ted Bundy’s mother evil because she had him?

Yes, you're missing the point.

No – I get your point – that God created people and some people do bad things; therefore, God is responsible and he “created� evil in that he created people who had the ability to do really bad things. I think it’s an absurd point and since more people do good things than bad things then God is also responsible for the great good that people do. Somehow, I think you’ll compose a special pleading that doesn’t attribute the responsibility for this great good to God.

If he created man and man then messed things up, the artefacts made by God were flawed, faulty, carelessly constructed.

Were you to say that man was created imperfect I’d have no problem since a creature cannot be anything else other than imperfect. As for “carelessly constructed� I don’t see how you can support that. What evidence do you have that men were made less than the best possible way? Is that view informed by the fact that they could fail miserably? It would seem that you’re saying that man should have been created w/o the possibility of moral failure but that is an inferior way to create, which is impossible for God who can only do that which accomplishes the highest good (summum bonum). How is creating with the possibility of moral failure better? Creatures are only “benevolent� in that they freely decide to do good things. If they are automatons then their actions – good or evil – possess no moral aspect to them. Lions aren’t brutal murderers when they rip out the throat of a gazelle because that’s what carnivorous felines do. Creating man without the ability to freely choose to do good was inferior because forced benevolence is false benevolence; therefore, man was created in the superior way and not “carelessly constructed.�

God, in this way, was responsible for the bad things that resulted, including the murder of Abel. The faults in the world, earthquakes and tsunamis, are God's handiwork.

Then God is also responsible for the good done in the same of alleviating all the suffering you’ve described and since most people think that the aggregate good far outweighs the aggregate bad then God the propensity of evidence says that those who ignore the aggregate good just have an axe to grind.

[marco]

Wha?? The process of creation by the Judeo-Creation and the supposed problem of evil has nothing to do with theology??

We are descending into theatricality, my honourable JLB. I said YOUR objection i.e. your limitation on the word "create."

Artists create paintings/photographs/sculpture/music, etc. We assign words to the abstract emotional responses to those things by saying they are examples of “beauty� or “ugliness.�

Quite.

Is Ted Bundy’s mother evil because she had him?

His mum wasn't the creator of the universe. A slight difference.

I think it’s an absurd point and since more people do good things than bad things then God is also responsible for the great good that people do. Somehow, I think you’ll compose a special pleading that doesn’t attribute the responsibility for this great good to God.

Not at all. You continue to misunderstand. I have never said that God was responsible ONLY for evil. He would have to be a clown creator if everything in creation failed to work. Idiot joiners do get some things right. God may have got most things in perfect working order - but if we want to say he created everything, we must attribute the bad things to him as well. It is a problem that has troubled theologians but for you it is a problem over the meaning of a verb.

Were you to say that man was created imperfect I’d have no problem since a creature cannot be anything else other than imperfect. As for “carelessly constructed� I don’t see how you can support that. What evidence do you have that men were made less than the best possible way?

All you need to do is re-read Genesis and form your own opinion of the idiot Adam. Do you really suppose he was created an Einstein? If this pair is an example of perfection, dressing themselves in leaves and then hiding away, then we operate on conflicting definitions.

Then God is also responsible for the good done in the same of alleviating all the suffering you’ve described and since most people think that the aggregate good far outweighs the aggregate bad then God the propensity of evidence says that those who ignore the aggregate good just have an axe to grind.

You have a curious way of adding up good and adding up bad and finding there's more in the good pile than on the bad. We're talking about God, not Bob the Builder. If earthquakes and tsunamis are flaws in creation, then they are God's flaws. It doesn't matter that he gave us hot apple pie to compensate.

Good try!

[JLB32168]

We are descending into theatricality, my honourable JLB. I said YOUR objection i.e. your limitation on the word "create."

Someone suggested that God created evil. Evil isn’t a thing that can be created. It is a word used to describe an abstraction – the consequences of evil actions; therefore, no one creates it and once an evil action has been committed the “evil� ceases to exist.

His mum wasn't the creator of the universe. A slight difference.

That contrast is irrelevant. The comparison showed that we don’t blame the parents of serial murderers for their children’s heinous actions when they created those children. Since the children are responsible for their own choices, there’s no logical reason for why one should hold God responsible for the poor choices of his creatures unless one has an axe to grind and axe-grinding is based upon subjective emotions and inherently illogical.

It is a problem that has troubled theologians but for you it is a problem over the meaning of a verb.

It’s no problem for me. God can’t create evil or good. He creates people and they choose to conform to His Image and Likeness or not. If I teach my son that stealing is wrong and he steals then no one holds me responsible for his theft, in spite of the fact that I created him and the theft wouldn’t have occurred had I simply refrained from creating him.

If this pair is an example of perfection . . .

I don’t believe that they were perfect. I’m Eastern Orthodox. Neither does Jewish theology teach that they were perfect since A)they were able to improve upon themselves or worsen and that isn’t indicative of perfection.

If earthquakes and tsunamis are flaws in creation, then they are God's flaws.

Adam fell and creation with him. You blame God. I don’t. Sue me.

[Zzyzx]

.

At some point would you kindly address the OP question Is "Satan" actually a competing "god"? rather than complaining about the question . . . Fancy footwork and avoidance may fool some people, but not likely too many.

That question was answered in the post from Thu Jul 28, 2016 made @ 2:11 pm. Satan is described as a creature.

The Satan character in stories who is variously described.

Creatures cannot be God from the Abrahamic perspective since an aspect of deity is being uncreated.

The Jesus character from that same book is identified as being human (a creature) and also a “god� (or part of one or whatever).

Characters in stories from competing religions have similar god / creature entities.

Is there anything to affirm that Satan isn't one of the god characters from other religions? Christianity has no copyright or patent on gods.

The OP includes:

“Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Thus, debate is NOT bound to concepts put forth in the Bible or its proponents.

Uncreated and Creature are mutually exclusive concepts.

Substantiation? Verification?

Your “rebuttal� was to simply dismiss the Scripture, which provided you with material for your OP, as the rambling fiction by people thinking about imaginary beings.

Correction: I ask if Satan is a competing god – and ask for substantiation and verification of whatever is presented.

Let’s say that I wanted to discuss if the BigBad Wolf was wrong to eat Grandmother and to want to eat LRRHood. I would say that A)Animals don’t have moral agency; therefore, they can’t be faulted with moral failures, and B)Wolves are carnivores so there’s nothing wrong with them eating that for which they are evolutionary developed and that C)LRRHood and the Woodsmen were actually in the wrong for killing the wolf who was merely doing what wolves do. One might rebut that point by saying that the wolf has moral agency in the tale; therefore, he can be faulted with moral failings. If I followed your MO, I would respond with “Do you have any evidence that the stupid tale is real? No you don’t so you rely on fiction of silly writers.�

We can verify from outside the tale that wolves are carnivores whose diet could include humans.

What can be verified outside the tale about God and Satan?

Your question was answered. You don’t seem to be reading all of the posts or if you’re reading them

Rereading the OP might be in order.

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

So it’s your speculation that Satan is being a fall guy and you base this upon your speculation that victors right history.

It is difficult to overlook the bold red font – that clearly identifies the statement as offering a POSSIBILITY rather than speculating about what is true and accurate.

If gods are of equal power then why is there only bad press?

There is NOT “only bad press� (except in Christendom). Satanists offer good press.

Why can’t the god being bad-mouthed get anything out. Why are his spin doctors unable to make any headway? Where’s his Carrie Washington of Scandal fame? The most logical conclusion is that the two “gods� aren’t equal.

Perhaps Christianity has a better PR program?

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� [/b][/color](or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Except that Christians don’t hold that there is only one God – only that there is one that is uncreated, omnipotent.

Notice that Christianity is not given preferential treatment in these debates.

“One un-created omnipotent 'god'� is Christian dogma that has not been shown to be valid.

Christians hold that other gods are created entities that Christians call “demons� who mascarade as gods.

Are Christians magically empowered to decide about gods of other religions?

The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Yup – you don’t have to accept the truth of my conclusions; however, your only rebuttals thus far are “The Bible is bunk.� You’ve not addressed the substance of one of my rebuttals, which is avoidance.

Since I have NEVER said “The Bible is bunk� that is in error at best and dishonest at worst.

I have asked for verification of Bible-based claims using information / sources outside the Bible.

I have encountered no verifiable evidence that “Satan� is a god or not a god – only tales in religious literature or statements by those who believe the tales.

Okay – so your speculations have no verifiable evidence. I understand.

I trust that readers understand what I actually say.

I identified that as a possibility – not a certainty.

And your possibility is informed by no verifiable evidence – to use your words. Got it.

Exactly. When I identify possibilities I am NOT claiming knowledge of which, if any, are true. If I identified certainties, I would provide verifiable evidence.

It relates to claims and stories made in Christian literature.

Right. Is there any reason that Christians should believe something different – other than by realizing that their book and their god might not be real (an idea of which you seem to think Christians are oblivious?)

I have no opinion or position regarding what Christians should do or what they know or don't know. I leave them to fight that out among themselves.

Will Rogers said, “I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.�

Thank you for illustrating “addressing the topic� by questioning my use of question marks.

You were upset that I called your debate on the carpet. I said that your question didn’t address your own OP.

“Upset�? It might be difficult for emotional people to understand that it would take far more than an internet debate to upset a person who is not overly emotional.

“Called on carpet�? Notice this isn't a classroom.

I’m also an English teacher and didn’t understand the incorrect use of quotation marks.

Your lack of understanding may well be your problem

A question is not a claim. See the “Did Jane go to town?� example to help with understanding.

What evidence are people on either side of the debate supposed to use to defend a position of if Satan is a god or not?

I am not empowered or expected to decide what evidence anyone is “supposed to use�.

According to Christian lore, “Satan� was made by “God�

Yup and this should be of earth shattering consequence for Christians because . . . why exactly?

Has earth shattering consequence for Christians been mentioned by anyone but you?

Okay, then love did not come from God nor did any good actions – which seems to contradict the statement you made immediately above.

God demonstrates love by seeking our happiness w/o expectation of reciprocation. That is the act of loving and the word we use to describe that abstract action of loving is “Love.� We love because we are made in God’s Image and Likeness - for those who believe that sort of thing.

That is a sermon suitable for church or revival meeting – not for reasoned and honorable public debate wherein subscribing to Christian beliefs is not required or expected.

When I eat I am responsible for the outcome.

You didn’t answer the question but are avoiding it. Do you make “eat� or do you just eat?

Both. Eat did not happen until I made it happen.

Is word play an important aspect of your arguments?

Can you present any verifiable evidence that “Satan� is NOT a “God� or can you not present verifiable evidence?

Why is Satan in quotation marks?

Because I chose to put them there. An English teacher might be expected to be aware of “scare quotes� or “distancing quotes�.

Quotation marks can also highlight that a word is being used somehow peculiarly – a writer may wish to indicate irony, inaccuracy, or scepticism, for example; used this way, they’re called scare quotes. In the line: At the party I met a teacher, a journalist, and an ‘artist’, the scare quotes around artist act as a distancing device, probably signalling doubt about the person’s credentials as an artist. http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/ ... tion-marks

Also

Scare quotes are used to cast doubt on a word or phrase, or to emphasize that the word or phrase is being used as a euphemism. Scare quotes are best used in moderation.

He rarely spoke of the “incident� that caused him to leave his previous employer.

The think tank’s “analysis� of the issue left much to be desired. http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/quot ... carequotes

Is that new information?

God with a capital “G� is commonly identified as the Judeo-Chrsitian deity, which Satan is not.

Both are capitalized. Is that to signal deity? Or might it be to signify a proper noun?

God with a miniscule “g� is a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes and in that respect Satan is a god since he has some power over those things; however, he isn’t omnipotent and he isn’t created according to the source you’ve cited that mentions him – unless of course you have other evidence that suggests differently.

The OP and these debates are NOT bound by Christian beliefs, definitions, literature.

There does not appear to be any verifiable evidence to distinguish between “Satan� and “God� – only tales in religious literature and claims by religious dogma / doctrine (often parroted by believers).

So then this entire thread was a ridiculous exercise.

Perhaps all discussion of proposed entities for which there is no verifiable evidence is a “ridiculous exercise�. However, many people seem intent upon defending their favorite god stories (no matter how ridiculous).

[marco]

Someone suggested that God created evil. Evil isn’t a thing that can be created. It is a word used to describe an abstraction

JLB - evil is certainly an abstract noun. That is a grammatical point. We can "create chaos". You are arguing about English usage, rather pointlessly.

His mum wasn't the creator of the universe. A slight difference.

That contrast is irrelevant. The comparison showed that we don’t blame the parents of serial murderers for their children’s heinous actions when they created those children.

Your parallel is false. Parents of children did NOT create as did God. God is better compared with the maker of something that proves to be faulty, and so he has responsibility for what he has made. Mothers don't "make" children in this way; they undergo a process, over which they have little control.

God can’t create evil or good.

Well he did, miraculously then - earthquakes, disease .....

I don’t believe that they [Adam and Eve] were perfect. I’m Eastern Orthodox. Neither does Jewish theology teach that they were perfect since A)they were able to improve upon themselves or worsen and that isn’t indicative of perfection.

I don't believe it either. I was answering your point that God made men perfect but they succumbed to evil. I had said that God made imperfect artefacts and you denied this. You can't have it both ways.

If earthquakes and tsunamis are flaws in creation, then they are God's flaws.

Adam fell and creation with him. You blame God. I don’t. Sue me.

You've nothing to do with the existence of earthquakes, unless I am debating with someone possessed of energies far in excess of normal. Adam fell - therefore earthquakes! Adam did not, in his fall, create an earthquake. God did it. He didn't have to but such was his divine annoyance that he made evil things. I had better not use poetic licence and say he made evil, for as we have learned, God doesn't make abstract nouns.