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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 134 by catnip]

So, if I am looking at an icy cold beer that would be fun for me to drink on a hot summer day.

1. Is that a sin or not?
2. Is that in line with FAITH or not?
3. Would you recommend it or not?

I CANNOT tell by your conflicting comments.

1) It is not a sin. It does not cause any harm to anyone or to yourself to indulge in a cold beer on a hot day. It is the only time I like beer, myself.

So, how do you reconsile that with your statement that "The whole objective of faith is to rise above the temptations of the personality, the attribution of the needs of the body "

Should I not rise above the temptation or my personal body needs, INSTEAD of having a beer? Water IS better than beer for my body, after all.

2) Alcohol was often drunk in ancient cultures because the water made people sick, thus the watering down of the wine and even children drank it.

Yup.... not my case. I can choose tap water if I want to. Heck, I can drink safely out of my toilet bowl for that matter. It's safe. ( and NO, I haven't done that yet )

This despite what the fundamentalist claim against alcohol. I think I have read that the ancient Egyptians drank a lot of beer.

Me too... so, how does that answer my question?

3) Well, if you came to visit, I might offer you a beer.

I'd gladly take it.. I think we would enjoy our conversation a lot better that way !

I am rather against the whole humorless, stiff-necked, holier than thou image that some apply to religion. Ick. lol And believe it or not--that IS a sin! Pride.

I don't have any opinion on what's holier, beer or no beer. I don't consider ANYTHING sinful, being an atheist. But I'm still confused why you would say that faith is rising ABOVE temptation ... and it's some kind of SIN to as you put it to indulge in "the attribution of the needs of the body "

I don't know what that phrase means, exactly... sounds like giving in to body needs is a no-no for some reason. Indulging in fun be bad. Then, you say that fun is good. I'm still confused.

But I'm really happy that you can enjoy an icy cold beer once in a while... especially after a hard job well done on a hot day...nothing better.

Are you with me ?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 136 by JLB32168]

1. It's presented AS IF it were a fact. But it's not at all a fact. It's your opinion. So, right off the bat, I have to say "Stop right there. If you say that statement is TRUE, you better be prepared to PROVE it true or forget it."

BC, we’re talking about FAITH. Shall Christians preface every post with “This is only valid if God and Satan exist as defined in the Bible, and if they don’t then all bets are off?�

Thanks, that would be good.
Right now, all too many Christians imply that what they believe in is true.

And, since you are talking about FAITH... what about it?

• I know this question isn’t presented to me but I’m going to address it and the alleged inconsistency, which I think is erroneous.

• Catnip says, “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.â€�
  BC says, “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.�

I inferred nothing from what CN said that implies CN thinks fulfilling physical needs is categorically wrong. One cannot infer that CN thinks the needs for food and water – or even wine *gasp* are sinful. One cannot infer that CN thinks that a married man should forever abstain from the desire to sleep w/his wife. I think it’s quite clear to any reasonable person that CN and Paul are talking about sinful things of the body – gluttony, fornication, materialism, etc.

CN, I’m speaking for you so please correct me if I’m out of line.

You're out of line in more ways than one.

You are now trying to interpret what TWO people are saying... adding to the confusion. I asked him to clarify what he meant. I didn't "infer" anything. It would be better if you wrote about your own thoughts and your own arguments.

Back to you BK, I’m sure that CN knows that Christ (again, we’re assuming for the sake of argument that Christ existed and is what the NT says He is because I’m going to have to preface very response I make with a caveat from now on) attended a wedding and that it was rocking so great that they ran out of hooch. Christ fixed the problem by spinning up some [font=Times New Roman]Robuchon au Dôme[/font] from water. Clearly Christ had didn’t have problems with all fun. Most likely He took issue with people getting falling-down-drunk but not having a glass of wine or two and kickin' it with friends.

You're speculating.
I don't see the point of this... can you clarify?

Anyone can SPECULATE.
That was my point. Some Christians speculate about what some Bible passage means and then they BELIEVE that. And that, my friend, is BAD EPISTEMOLOGY.

( logically fallacious reasoning on how they arrive at a conclusion pertaining to knowledge )

I am saying that your COMMENTS are inconsistent.

Someone’s “misunderstanding� strikes me as deliberate.

Someone's comment strikes me as "personal".

[JLB32168]

Right now, all too many Christians imply that what they believe in is true.

Okay, well . . . I think it’s an unreasonable request to ask every Christian to preface their posts with the caveat “Assuming that God exists and all the stuff about him is true for the sake of debating the question . . .� I’m not going to do it so you’ll just have to infer that all of my posts are predicated upon the conclusion that God exists – a faith based belief. If He doesn’t then everything I say after that is null and void.

Maybe I’ll just cut and paste the 1st paragraph from now on. Naw.

You're out of line in more ways than one.

He didn’t complain and in fact said I was on the money. He impresses me as a person of no mean intelligence and I’m not dumb either and we both inferred the same thing from what you said so it would seem that the problem lies with your articulation of your point.

You're speculating.

Really!!!??? The point seemed clear to both me and CN so your understanding seems to be the problem and I don’t know how to make it much simpler so lets just move on to the next thing.

Some Christians speculate about what some Bible passage means and then they BELIEVE that. And that, my friend, is BAD EPISTEMOLOGY.

Um . . . okay but it doesn’t really have anything to do with Satan being a god until the Hebrews allegedly bad mouthed him and turned him into the monster he is today. Do you have anything to contribute to that discussion?

Do you have evidence that Satan was a pre-Hebraic deity of the conquered peoples of Canaan?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 143 by JLB32168]

Do you have evidence that Satan was a pre-Hebraic deity of the conquered peoples of Canaan?

Tsk, always making this so personal, this has been answered before.


How can Lucifer be a fallen angel?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 143 by JLB32168]

Speculation: The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... peculation

Belief: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... ish/belief

Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/fact

As we can PLAINLY see from the definitions above,

Speculation and Belief don't have the same meaning as Fact

I’m not going to do it so you’ll just have to infer that all of my posts are predicated upon the conclusion that God exists – a faith based belief.

Writing "In my opinion" isn't all that hard. But now, you ask me to "infer". I will be forced to ask you every time if you mean something as a fact or as a faith based belief. There is a difference, you know.

Beliefs aren't necessarily facts or true.

You're out of line in more ways than one.

He didn’t complain and in fact said I was on the money. He impresses me as a person of no mean intelligence and I’m not dumb either and we both inferred the same thing from what you said so it would seem that the problem lies with your articulation of your point.

I don't pretend to be perfect, and I explained what I meant by you're being out of line.
If you don't understand how I articulated something, ask for clarification.

And you're speculating again. Your "impressions" are not facts.You might both agree on something, but that isn't an explanation of why I am wrong. You will have to do better than that.

You're speculating.

Really!!!??? The point seemed clear to both me and CN so your understanding seems to be the problem and I don’t know how to make it much simpler so lets just move on to the next thing.

I didn't say you weren't clear.
I said you were speculating.

And just because two people agree on something doesn't mean that they are correct.

Some Christians speculate about what some Bible passage means and then they BELIEVE that. And that, my friend, is BAD EPISTEMOLOGY.

Um . . . okay but it doesn’t really have anything to do with Satan being a god until the Hebrews allegedly bad mouthed him and turned him into the monster he is today. Do you have anything to contribute to that discussion?

Do you have evidence that Satan was a pre-Hebraic deity of the conquered peoples of Canaan?

In my opinion, one of the reasons for having this debate is to explore epistemological methods. You were questioning the value for even having the debate, and I gave you one.

I don't have any evidence at all about Satan. I'm not a historian, sorry. For all I know, the character popped into someone's head out of the blue. It's a story. Authors write them. Who knows who the first author was, and who knows if he was translated well. Maybe Satan could have been a rival god maligned and called a fallen angel. It's a possibility. But the debate isn't even about the ORIGINS of Satan.. it's about how the character can be interpreted.

Interpretations happen in our heads.
The OP asks us to SPECULATE about Satan.

I'm not trying to CLAIM anything.
I am merely speculating about Satan. What are you trying to do?

[JLB32168]

Speculation and Belief don't have the same meaning as Fact

Why . . . I’m shocked! SHOCKED I tell you!

Yeah – I knew that already.

Writing "In my opinion" isn't all that hard.[/i] But now, you ask me to "infer".

I know it’s not hard. I’m just hard-headed so I won’t be writing it.

I don't pretend to be perfect, and I explained what I meant by you're being out of line.
If you don't understand how I articulated something, ask for clarification.

Well, we both got the same thing from what you said. How were we supposed to know that you didn’t convey what you meant to convey?

Do you have evidence that Satan was a pre-Hebraic deity of the conquered peoples of Canaan?

No – but I didn’t say he was. Someone of like opinion as you, however, brought up the question that Satan might have been a deity that was maligned by the conquering Hebrews – a case of “We kicked your grass so our deity RULES!� I merely asked, “Okay – let’s look at any evidence you have for it.� If it was just a speculation pulled out of someone’s colon (which seems to be the case) then a person needs to say that. If the purpose was to say, “We’re speculating here just like speculating about the Judeo-Christian deity and Christians need to know that their speculations aren’t known truth� then say it – not that any Christian doesn’t know this already. It’s called a faith after all.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 146 by JLB32168]

Mathew 13:13

"That is why I use these parables, For they look, but they don't really see. They hear, but they don't really listen or understand."
- New Living Translation

Speculation and Belief don't have the same meaning as Fact

Why . . . I’m shocked! SHOCKED I tell you!

Yeah – I knew that already.

Good, then we both agree that presenting speculation as if it were a fact is an error.
And speculation isn't evidence, either.


So you can stop making those errors.

Writing "In my opinion" isn't all that hard.[/i] But now, you ask me to "infer".

I know it’s not hard. I’m just hard-headed so I won’t be writing it.

It seems that you prefer obstinacy over comprehensibility. It's a LOT more work for others to have to guess as to your actual meaning if you won't be TELLING us.

Do you imagine that it helps your position if you present it vaguely?
I seek clarity... not making my opponents have to GUESS at my position.

You have a very odd way to debate. I GUESS.

Hardheadedness = 1
Clarity = 0

I don't pretend to be perfect, and I explained what I meant by you're being out of line.
If you don't understand how I articulated something, ask for clarification.

Well, we both got the same thing from what you said. How were we supposed to know that you didn’t convey what you meant to convey?

Here's a hint:

If something I write doesn't make sense to you, ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.

Do you have evidence that Satan was a pre-Hebraic deity of the conquered peoples of Canaan?

No – but I didn’t say he was. Someone of like opinion as you, however, brought up the question that Satan might have been a deity that was maligned by the conquering Hebrews – a case of “We kicked your grass so our deity RULES!� I merely asked, “Okay – let’s look at any evidence you have for it.� If it was just a speculation pulled out of someone’s colon (which seems to be the case) then a person needs to say that. If the purpose was to say, “We’re speculating here just like speculating about the Judeo-Christian deity and Christians need to know that their speculations aren’t known truth� then say it – not that any Christian doesn’t know this already. It’s called a faith after all.

CORRECTION:

You just quoted yourself and attributed to me... and then answered your own question.
It's the last line of this post:

ref:Is%20%E2%80%9CSatan%E2%80%9D%20actually%20a%20competing%20%E2%80%9Cgod%E2%80%9D?

I never said I had evidence. I SAID that I was merely speculating.

So, for the record, once and for all:


I AM MERELY SPECULATING ABOUT SATAN AND HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.

I've stated this about a half dozen times already. Please notice the above statement this time as it is VERY IMPORTANT.

My POINT has been that Christians don't seem to realize that they are SPECULATING that whatever the Bible has to say about GOD, or SATAN is in ANY WAY ACCURATE.

I'm repeating THAT point, too, because you seem to not have noticed it the FIRST FEW TIMES I wrote it.

I am ALSO going to repeat the very last question of the post you are answering here.. you seem to have missed THAT ONE TOO:

"I'm not trying to CLAIM anything.
I am merely speculating about Satan. What are you trying to do?"

[JLB32168]

Good, then we both agree that presenting speculation as if it were a fact is an error.
And speculation isn't evidence, either.

I don’t present speculation as if it were fact; I’m not going to write caveats before every post. Anyone who expects me to is going to be disappointed.

It seems that you prefer obstinacy over comprehensibility.

From now on when reading my posts, if it’s speculation you may infer that I am not presenting it as fact. I’ll specify when I’m presenting fact.

If something I write doesn't make sense to you, ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.

Well . . . lots of people actually write things that don’t make sense and their clarifications make even less sense, but okay.

I never said I had evidence. I SAID that I was merely speculating.

Okay – so we’re pulling things out of our colon for the purpose of teaching everyone here who doesn’t know that speculation isn’t fact.

Of course, I don’t need to be taught that speculation isn’t fact. In fact, I don’t think that any member of the Christian faith needs to be taught that speculation is not fact since the Christian faith is called a faith for a reason.

My POINT has been that Christians don't seem to realize that they are SPECULATING that whatever the Bible has to say about GOD, or SATAN is in ANY WAY ACCURATE.

Correct – their speculations only might be accurate. And you feel that they don’t know this already since . . . well . . . we theists are stupid and have to be told these things.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 137 by catnip]

I didn't say that THE purpose of he thread is to demonstrate that... I said that I could see it that way. I didn't make a TRUTH CLAIM. And, unfortunately, one of the reasons that I have to debate Christians is that all too many DO mistake their speculations for the truth. I have to deal with that kind of thinking ALL THE TIME.

Maybe you don't think that way.. but I really can't tell. You don't seem to want to clarify just what it IS you believe in, in spite of my REPETITIOUS questions, such as :

1. What do you mean by "Liberal Christian"?

In short and to explain it, it is a way of reading the scriptures. We consider time, place, culture and what the intent of the author is (and we don't believe God dictated the scriptures).

And what do you think of the Wikipedia entry for "Liberal Christianity"?...It doesn't seem to match precisely with what you all... ( "we" ) consider or believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

I'm also VERY skeptical when someone tells me that they can know the INTENTIONS of anonymous Bible authors. That seems like something rather... difficult to prove, no?

I'm not aware that anyone has invented a time traveling mind reading machine yet.

2. Do you believe in a LITERAL "God"?

I am not sure about this question. Does God sit on a throne somewhere out there? No. Is God Spirit and everywhere and in and through all things? Yes.

I don't care about a throne or not. You seem to believe in a literal existing god that is not MERELY some metaphoric deified anthropomorphism but some kind of "real thing".

In what WAY is it a real thing?

3. What IS the nature of this god?

I think of God as the source of all life and as pure consciousness.

That's like saying what he DOES. I play bongos. I'm the source of all of that noise. It's what I DO when the "spirit moves me" and I "got the power". God concepts are always SO difficult to nail down. I ask what is the NATURE of this god, and I am given what he is the SOURCE of. To me, the word "source" can mean "cause".

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your god is the cause of all life. Do you have any reason to think so?... any evidence? Any proof?

And, then, you give your god the characteristic "pure consciousness". I'm an atheist. I don't want to be DIFFICULT, but the term has no meaning to me. I already struggle with the concept of CONSCIOUSNESS itself, let alone PURE CONSCIOUSNESS.

I am not being facetious when I say that I have NO IDEA what pure consciousness means. To me, the term, until defined, is meaningless. It explains to me NOTHING.

And of course, I would have to ask you the same darn question about it as I did about god being the source of life.... any evidence or proof for the proposition?....any reason?

And so on... You're using these terms, and I really don't know what you mean by them. I don't even really know what you mean by "Satan", frankly. I have to GUESS that you mean it's ONLY A METAPHOR.

We can tempt ourselves--we are good at temptation. We don't need any help with that at all.

Right, so what's the USE of this Satan if it's just another word for ( metaphor for ) temptation. Seems an EXTRAVAGANT deification of a very easy to understand concept.

Children in grade 1 understand the word, Christian or NOT.

In the abscense of faith and reliance on God, then we allow temptation to reign in our lives. This is Satan, the collective ego/soul/psyche, the personality.

CORRECTION:

This is Satan?... No.

This is your OPINION about what Satan is.

As an atheist now for about 20 years or so, I have to tell you that my experience is ABSENT of faith in or reliance in any gods of any kind. I don't allow myself to indulge all of my temptations. So... Satan is a complete redundancy. I don't NEED the belief... to believe in what... that temptation exists?

Why should I dress up the concept "temptation" with horns and a red cape or whatever? I just don't GET IT. Seems like a "demonic" waste of TIME to me.

Just as you are what you are, I am what I am.

Ain't it the truth. I am what I am and you are what you are.

HOWEVER: what we are discussing here are the REASONS for what we are. Some have good reasons, some don't.

We might not have reasons that are "JUST AS" good.
Thank you for clarifying your beliefs.

On with the justifications !

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 148 by JLB32168]

"Not so far! I taste metal."
- Colonoscopy patient

Good, then we both agree that presenting speculation as if it were a fact is an error.
And speculation isn't evidence, either.

I don’t present speculation as if it were fact; I’m not going to write caveats before every post. Anyone who expects me to is going to be disappointed.

IF you are dealing with me, you better expect me to POINT IT OUT loudly and clearly if you present an OPINION as if it were a fact.

I've already caught you at it about a dozen times now. It never works, That's why I bother to point it out EACH AND EVERY TIME you try it. Be my guest to make as many errors as you desire. It's my fun to catch them.

Hide and seek... maybe I'll miss a few and they will sneak by, eh?

Good luck !!

It seems that you prefer obstinacy over comprehensibility.

From now on when reading my posts, if it’s speculation you may infer that I am not presenting it as fact. I’ll specify when I’m presenting fact.

Oh, so you are TOO OBSTINATE to use a phrase like "IMO", but you ARE going to trouble yourself to point out that you are stating a fact when you are. OK... that's fine. As long as you are clear, we are set to go.

I'm all for clarity, however it's achieved.

I'll be watching out for that.

If something I write doesn't make sense to you, ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.

Well . . . lots of people actually write things that don’t make sense and their clarifications make even less sense, but okay.

If everything I write doesn't make sense to you, the I suggest that you don't pay me any attention. I would be babbling.

I do my best to make myself comprehensible.
That's all I can do.

I never said I had evidence. I SAID that I was merely speculating.

Okay – so we’re pulling things out of our colon for the purpose of teaching everyone here who doesn’t know that speculation isn’t fact.

Is that a speculation or a fact?
You promised to tell if it was a fact, so I will have to infer that you are merely speculating. ( or as you say.. "pulled out of the colon" )

Of course, I don’t need to be taught that speculation isn’t fact.

Good for YOU !!

In fact, I don’t think that any member of the Christian faith needs to be taught that speculation is not fact since the Christian faith is called a faith for a reason.

Is that a speculation or a fact?
You DID use the phrase "In fact" ... so I guess you are making a truth claim.

IF SO:

You will now need to prove that it's true. You would have to prove that NO member AT ALL of the WHOLE Christian faith needs to be taught that speculation is not fact. That's not going to be fun... all the Christians?... that's a big bunch to poll.

OR...

The "fact" that you are expressing is that you THINK no Christians do, and are merely SPECULATING about all the Christians in the world.

I have to guess. Your method is VERY clunky.
Too bad you don't go for clarity right off the bat...

So, I have to ask you for clarification, since I can guess until the cows come home and never really arrive at your actual meaning.

What do you MEAN when you say that:

"In fact, I don’t think that any member of the Christian faith needs to be taught that speculation is not fact since the Christian faith is called a faith for a reason." ?

My POINT has been that Christians don't seem to realize that they are SPECULATING that whatever the Bible has to say about GOD, or SATAN is in ANY WAY ACCURATE.

Correct – their speculations only might be accurate. [/quote]

We agree... the operative word there is MIGHT be accurate.
It might be accurate and it might be INACCURATE.

Too many apologists only seem to consider that they might be accurate while completely ignoring the other side of the same darn coin.

And you feel that they don’t know this already since . . . well . . . we theists are stupid and have to be told these things.

Are you presenting your speculation or a fact?
You promised to tell if you were presenting a fact, so I will take that statement as mere speculation.

Go ahead and speculate.
Do you care if you are right or wrong, though?

And could you PLEASE tell us where you get the idea that I consider theists STUPID ??????????? maybe it's that "colon" you like to talk about.

Oh, and you still seem to not have answered my question, so I will repeat it one more time:

"I'm not trying to CLAIM anything.
I am merely speculating about Satan. What are you trying to do?"