Another question about Satan

[Athetotheist]

Another poster recently commented:

The devil calls himself an "ATHEIST". Look closely!

He is actually calling himself "A THEIST". Crafty, huh? Isaiah 14:14 says he exalted himself about God & Heaven. He says does not believe but wants so desparately to be worshipped as God.

This raises another question about the existence of Satan in the Christian context.
If Satan wants to be worshipped, why would he promote atheism?

[Tcg]

Another poster recently commented:

The devil calls himself an "ATHEIST". Look closely!

He is actually calling himself "A THEIST". Crafty, huh? Isaiah 14:14 says he exalted himself about God & Heaven. He says does not believe but wants so desparately to be worshipped as God.

This raises another question about the existence of Satan in the Christian context.
If Satan wants to be worshipped, why would he promote atheism?

Isaiah 14 is not about Satan. Isaiah 14:3-4 makes it plain as day who this passage is referring to:

"3 When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:"

Of course, it's no surprise that Christians will ignore the clear context and twist the written word into something it clearly isn't stating.

You also shouldn't expect any accurate teaching about atheists from Christians.


Tcg

[AquinasForGod]

Another poster recently commented:

The devil calls himself an "ATHEIST". Look closely!

He is actually calling himself "A THEIST". Crafty, huh? Isaiah 14:14 says he exalted himself about God & Heaven. He says does not believe but wants so desparately to be worshipped as God.

This raises another question about the existence of Satan in the Christian context.
If Satan wants to be worshipped, why would he promote atheism?

Isa 14 is not about Satan anyway. Just read verse 3, then keep reading. It is about a man as it says that died, the king of Babylon.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #3]

Isa 14 is not about Satan anyway. Just read verse 3, then keep reading. It is about a man as it says that died, the king of Babylon.

And that weakens the "fallen angel" scenario.

[historia]

Isa 14 is not about Satan anyway. Just read verse 3, then keep reading. It is about a man as it says that died, the king of Babylon.

Of course, it's no surprise that Christians will ignore the clear context and twist the written word into something it clearly isn't stating.

For both Jews and Christians, verses of the Bible can have more than one meaning. So, in this case, it's not that the quoted portion of the OP is ignoring the context, so much as he or she is seeing a secondary meaning in the text.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #5]

For both Jews and Christians, verses of the Bible can have more than one meaning. So, in this case, it's not that the quoted portion of the OP is ignoring the context, so much as he or she is seeing a secondary meaning in the text.

If the Bible can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for doctrine?

[historia]

[Replying to historia in post #5]

For both Jews and Christians, verses of the Bible can have more than one meaning. So, in this case, it's not that the quoted portion of the OP is ignoring the context, so much as he or she is seeing a secondary meaning in the text.

If the Bible can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for doctrine?

That question assumes a particular relationship between the reader, the Bible, and doctrine that I think is fundamentally mistaken.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #7]

If the Bible can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for doctrine?

That question assumes a particular relationship between the reader, the Bible, and doctrine that I think is fundamentally mistaken.

Then is 2 Timothy 3:16 fundamentally mistaken?

[historia]

Then is 2 Timothy 3:16 fundamentally mistaken?

No.

Do you want to make an actual argument here, or just continue to ask me loaded questions based on presuppositions I do not hold?

[Athetotheist]

Then is 2 Timothy 3:16 fundamentally mistaken?

No.

Do you want to make an actual argument here, or just continue to ask me loaded questions based on presuppositions I do not hold?

I have to admit that I often have difficulty figuring out what positions you do hold. The point I'm trying to make is that if the Bible is to be regarded as in any way special, then it has to occupy unambiguous ground on some level.