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?

[Peds nurse]

Moderator Intervention

Rules
C&A Guidelines



Although I find this thread quite interesting, it seems to me that people are becoming quite irritable and grumpy. Respect goes a long way in debate, and if you really wish to be heard by the opposing posters, being kind is the way to accomplish that!

Thanks, my most wonderful friends!!!
______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 80 by Blastcat]

"I'm so sorry to have to point out that what we may IMAGINE isn't necessarily REAL over and over again. I know it's obvious. But Christians DO take their Bible stories as literally true, don't they?... "

Some of them do some of them don't.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 61 by catnip]

How do you know what Satan is or isn't?
Is it by way of what you think the Bible says?

I will have to remind you that the OP contains this :

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

As I pointed out to Zzyx, there is only one source for the myth of Satan and that is scripture. I did not make any assertions about the validity of those myths. For the record, I don't believe that Satan exists.

Ok, I came into this discussion a little late, and haven't been following your position very much. So, if you don't believe in Satan, do you believe in Yahweh?

In other words, the foundation of this thread requires the Bible to establish it as a topic of conversation. There is no use in then dismissing the Bible as any kind of evidence for the existence of Satan because it has been used to suggest that Satan could be something other than shown in the Biible. Huh?! If Satan is fictional, then Satan can't be a god either. And it logically follows that if there is no Satan then there is no possible role for Satan apart from what is described in the Bible. And it fails as an attack on those who believe in God and Satan as an argument.

I am especially amused about this because, very simply, Christianity would be very much BETTER if it weren't for enhancements given Satan outside of and apart from what is written in scripture! What most Christians believe about him are fictions woven by people such as Dante in his Inferno. For example, you seem to think that Satan has been given special powers. WHERE?! Not in scripture.

If you asked me, I would suggest that Satan is the collective ego/soul (psyche) of all mankind just as Christ, is the collective of all believers, the body of Christ, and is the true self, the spiritual self, the whole self. When we act apart from God, we are ruled by Satan. Satan's real role is as tempter--and if you think about it, we humans need very little help in being tempted. The whole objective of faith is to rise above the temptations of the personality, the attribution of the needs of the body which--in scripture--is explained by Paul to be the source of sin. So, in short, Satan is not real but is the embodiment of evil and wickedness, a symbol, shorthand for what we should begin to see about our own motivations and actions. In short, our demons are our own.

Yes, we know the Bible stories. And we also know that Christians interpret these stories in many different ways. The question here is "what if" Satan had been a rival god, and the Bible talks trash about him .. in an ancient version of a rap war:

It is rather ridiculous to discuss the possibility that Satan is a rival god when it is only in the Bible that we have any basis to suggest that Satan is at all real.

It's only in the Bible that Yahweh is real, too. We aren't really asking if Satan is real. We are asking if Satan couldn't have been a competing god that the Bible authors wrote about so negatively to disparage some rival tribe's beliefs.

Satan is somewhat borrowed from the Zoroastrians. Again, the mythology of the cosmology of the Bible used as a topic of conversation is disingenuous if what is said in scripture is not grounds for rebuttal.

And what can be drawn on as a rebuttal but the only source for the topic of the discussion?

[JLB32168]

According to God's word it can be and is. God himself admits to creating it: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.

How do you create darkness? It isn’t the presence of anything.
It’s like saying, “I’m going to create space� in an empty room. You’ve pulled one verse out of a whole that says things like, “And let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open, let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together.� Your interpretation would have us believe A)righteousness is a form of precipitation while also being a plant and B) that plate tectonics will cause fissures to open up and salvation will pop out, which I guess means that salvation is a thing that has mass, weight, and occupies space.
Clearly the writer is waxing philosophical and not trying to be slavishly literal as your argument suggests.

Theists don't really think this one through at all. If Adam and Eve's sin resulted in the corruption of creation, then clearly there must have been fatal flaws in creation to begin with.

I’m a theist. I’ve thought this through very well – thank you. Assuming God exists, Adam and Eve and all created things imperfect by virtue of the fact that they required something else to will them into existence. The number “2� can be said to be imperfect because there can be no “2� without a number “1.�

If say a scientist created a robot and programmed it to go berserk if the wrong type of oil was applied, then regardless of the freewill of anyone who uses the robot, it was the will of the scientist that the robot go berserk.

I don’t think that’s comparable to the situation with God. Of course, even w/in its own context the robot hasn’t suffered a fatal flaw. It is performing exactly as it was designed. The consumer is informed that the right oil makes it work correctly, and the wrong oil makes it go berserk. It is performing exactly as designed. The only way you could say it had a fatal flaw would be if it acted contrary to how it was designed, that is, you put the right oil in and it went berserk.

Improper design isn’t the case of man. He was designed correctly and possessed the ability to obtain immortality in addition to relative perfection (anything that is created cannot be perfect since it had to be brought into existence by a force from w/o.) He used his freewill to choose poorly. The charge is often made that God should have designed man to choose only good; however, this removes freewill. Goodness done by compulsion – forced goodness – is false goodness. We don’t praise calculators for their integrity when they return us correct results. Being created as an automaton is a fatal flaw because it removes the moral element of a good action and is therefore inferior to creating w/freewill. Creating in inferior ways is inconsistent w/God so God couldn’t create man in an inferior, flawed fashion.

Yes, I’ve thought this through quite thoroughly.

[marco]

How do you create darkness? It isn’t the presence of anything.

Are you STILL arguing this point? Here is Isaiah, and it is usually you who throws the Bible down to make a point,


"Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness."

You who accept what the Bible says, read this and accept it. It is a commonplace in English to talk of creating: misery, wealth, happiness, a scene, redundancy and so on for ever and ever....

You've got it into your head that the verb 'create' cannot have as its direct object an abstract noun and you are quite wrong. I am surprised you persist.

[ttruscott]

As I pointed out to Zzyx, there is only one source for the myth of Satan and that is scripture.

Well, theistic Satanism contends that the pagan gods from before YHWH's revelations were indeed all Satan worship under different names...and is the original worship of gods other than YHWH though (capital P) Pagans (Wiccan) repudiate that. While the Theistic claims may be true, and they have their own works of literature about their own gods, none are specifically pro Satan.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 93 by catnip]

.

I meant Yahweh !!!

Ok, I came into this discussion a little late, and haven't been following your position very much. So, if you don't believe in Satan, do you believe in Yahweh?

In other words, the foundation of this thread requires the Bible to establish it as a topic of conversation. There is no use in then dismissing the Bible as any kind of evidence for the existence of Satan because it has been used to suggest that Satan could be something other than shown in the Biible. Huh?!

YEAH, HUH?

Could you try that again... I don't know what it means.

If Satan is fictional, then Satan can't be a god either.

Right.

If both God and Satan are just fictional characters and not real at all.. then they aren't real gods at all, but just story book gods. Got me there.

And it logically follows that if there is no Satan then there is no possible role for Satan apart from what is described in the Bible.

You mean as a character in stories?

And it fails as an attack on those who believe in God and Satan as an argument.

The OP is meant as a question, not an attack.

I am especially amused about this because, very simply, Christianity would be very much BETTER if it weren't for enhancements given Satan outside of and apart from what is written in scripture!

Kinda hard to prove that one, isn't it?

What most Christians believe about him are fictions woven by people such as Dante in his Inferno. For example, you seem to think that Satan has been given special powers. WHERE?! Not in scripture.

Meh... Satan is thought of as a fallen angel.. so he has at least angelic powers.

1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel"... one guy against a nation?.. seems to me he needs some kind of super power to even TRY that.

Psalm 109:6b "and let Satan stand at his right hand" Gee wiz... You'd think that someone who stands at his right hand must have SOME kind of power.

In the Job story, Satan seems to be pretty cozy with God. Maybe not magical powers.. but kinda, too. He does stuff to poor old Job.

I also remember that in the Garden of Eden, that Satan guy was in the form of a talking walking snake?.. who could outsmart humans? That's kinda magical to me.

It also seems that he can stand a lot of heat, since he was thrown into a lake of fire and survives. Neat trick !

If you asked me, I would suggest that Satan is the collective ego/soul (psyche) of all mankind just as Christ, is the collective of all believers, the body of Christ, and is the true self, the spiritual self, the whole self.

I actually asked you if you believed that Yahweh was real.. but never mind, I suppose. I am not too sure what you are saying exactly. Are you saying that these Bible characters are only metaphors?

When we act apart from God, we are ruled by Satan.

That's like saying "If you aren't with us, you are again' us."

Satan's real role is as tempter--and if you think about it, we humans need very little help in being tempted.

I don't need any help at all.
I'm fine, thanks, Satan, I have all the temptation I need.

Cake?.. thank you, I'll have the piece with the rose on it.

The whole objective of faith is to rise above the temptations of the personality, the attribution of the needs of the body which--in scripture--is explained by Paul to be the source of sin.

OHHHHH you are against people fulfilling their physical NEEDS... yikes. I usually urge people to have as much fun as possible in life. We are different.

So, in short, Satan is not real but is the embodiment of evil and wickedness, a symbol, shorthand for what we should begin to see about our own motivations and actions. In short, our demons are our own.

So, ok ... I get it that you think Satan isn't real. I was actually asking you about Yahweh, though.

It's only in the Bible that Yahweh is real, too. We aren't really asking if Satan is real. We are asking if Satan couldn't have been a competing god that the Bible authors wrote about so negatively to disparage some rival tribe's beliefs.

Satan is somewhat borrowed from the Zoroastrians.

And Yahweh too, right?

Again, the mythology of the cosmology of the Bible used as a topic of conversation is disingenuous if what is said in scripture is not grounds for rebuttal.

Not sure what you mean.

And what can be drawn on as a rebuttal but the only source for the topic of the discussion?

You may want to review the rules of debate for your answer:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

[JLB32168]

"Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness."

And the same section says he will make righteousness rain from heaven and spring up from the earth so your refusal to defer to metaphor says that righteousness is a form of precipitation as well as a species of plant.

You who accept what the Bible says . . .

I accept what it says. I reject what you say it says. Let that be clear.

[Monta]

According to God's word it can be and is. God himself admits to creating it:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.

Well thank you for that, OnceConvinced. I never thought good old Isaiah would help me out of a problem.

So God DID create evil after all. I just knew it.

It says light and darkness, not good and evil.

[OnceConvinced]

According to God's word it can be and is. God himself admits to creating it: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.

How do you create darkness? It isn’t the presence of anything.

That is clearly not the type of darkness that scripture is referring to.

That is clearly not the darkenss You’ve pulled one verse out of a whole that says things like, “And let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open, let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together.�

It also quite blatantly states that God creates evil. Don't argue with me about it. Argue with God!

Your interpretation would have us believe A)righteousness is a form of precipitation

When it speaks of precipitation it's clearly speaking metaphorically. Righteousness however is not a metaphorical term. Neither is "evil"

while also being a plant and B) that plate tectonics will cause fissures to open up and salvation will pop out, which I guess means that salvation is a thing that has mass, weight, and occupies space.
Clearly the writer is waxing philosophical and not trying to be slavishly literal as your argument suggests.

It says there in plain English "I create EVIL". What do you think it means when it says "evil"?

Note that the scripture is made up of LITERAL words being used amongst metaphors, the metaphors clearly being used to make a more colourful description. The word "Evil" however cannot possibly be a metaphor in context, just as "righteousness" is not.

If say a scientist created a robot and programmed it to go berserk if the wrong type of oil was applied, then regardless of the freewill of anyone who uses the robot, it was the will of the scientist that the robot go berserk.

I don’t think that’s comparable to the situation with God. Of course, even w/in its own context the robot hasn’t suffered a fatal flaw. It is performing exactly as it was designed.

Is is what creation is doing when sin enters it. It does exactly as it was designed. It becomes corrupted.

The consumer is informed that the right oil makes it work correctly, and the wrong oil makes it go berserk. It is performing exactly as designed.

Exactly. So if Adam (the consumer) sins and the world (the robot) becomes corrupted, it is doing exactly as designed. You can't blame the corruption on Adam.

The only way you could say it had a fatal flaw would be if it acted contrary to how it was designed, that is, you put the right oil in and it went berserk.

Adam is the consumer. He is the one applying the oil. He's not the robot. The world is the robot. If natural disasters start happening, herbivores become carnivores, non-venomous animals become venomous, things start dying.... that's the robot! That's the robot going berserk because the wrong oil was applied. That can only happen if the designer of the robot intended it to be that way. You can't blame Adam applying the oil for that corruption. You may be able to punish him for breaking the rules but you can't blame him for the corruption that occurred. Only the designer can be blamed for the corruption.

The sensible thing to do was create a robot that does NOT go berserk if the wrong oil is applied. ie, don't create the world in a way that becomes corrupted when sin enters.

Improper design isn’t the case of man.

I'm not saying it is. I'm talking about the rest of it... the rest that you claim became corrupted due to man's sin.

He was designed correctly and possessed the ability to obtain immortality in addition to relative perfection (anything that is created cannot be perfect since it had to be brought into existence by a force from w/o.) He used his freewill to choose poorly.

It fits with my earlier analogy. Mankind can be created "perfectly" and then based on his own freewill decides to apply the incorrect oil to the robot. It is the robot that has been designed (wittingly or unwittingly) to go berserk if the wrong oil is applied.

It was The charge is often made that God should have designed man to choose only good;

Why are you talking about man? I'm talking about creation in general. ie, the creation that becomes corrupted once man sins. It can only become corrupted if it was the designer's intention... unless that designer unwittingly made it that way.

Let's try another analogy because you don't seem to be getting the robot one.

Let's say that a builder creates the world's most amazing house for you to live in. You as the "perfect creation" move into this house. But the builder warns you not to go into the basement. You of course have the freewill to disobey so you go down to the basement and open the door. The entire house crumbles down around you. Who gets the blame for the house falling down around your ears?

Does the builder come storming back to the house accusing you of destroying the house? You may be responsible for disobeying the builder, but it wasn't you who designed the house for it to crumble to the ground as soon as the basement door was opened. The builder would be held accountable for that.

Can you not see that we have exactly the same situation here with Adam? He sins and all the corruption occurs. However the corruption cannot possibly occur unless it was designed by the builder to work that way.

however, this removes freewill.

freewill has never been removed in any of my scenarios. In fact I have quite clearly stated that freewill kicks into action. The free will of the person applying the oil to the robot or the freewill of you opening up that basement door.

But why did the robot go berserk? Why did the house fall down? Because the designer designed it to behave that way. Either it was done deliberately or it was done unwittingly.

Yes, I’ve thought this through quite thoroughly.

Clearly you haven't thought it through all the way.