Is Satan The Real God?

[Miles]

.

It's commonly claimed that god is a pretty good guy: He:

knows everything…
is all-powerful…
is ever-present…
is sovereign…
is holy…
is absolute truth…
is righteous…
is just…
is love…
is merciful…
is faithful…
never changing

A partial list I'm sure, taken from HERE

Not exactly certain what all of these things are, and some will probably differ depending on whom you ask, but they all seem to be good attributes, and no doubt make him worthy of worship, but on reading about some of the other things he has done:

Sending Bears to Murder Children for making fu of a bald man (4 Kings 2:23-24)

Turning Lot's Wife to Salt for breaking a rule she didn't know existed (Genesis 19:26)

Hating Ugly People (Leviticus 21:17-24)

Committing So Much Genocide (many verses)

Ordering His Underlings to Kill Their Own Children (Genesis 22:1-12)

Killing Egyptian Babies (Numbers 16:41-49)

Killing a Dude for Not Making More Babies (Genesis 38:1-10)

Helping Samson Murder People to Pay Off a Bet (Judges 14:1-19)

Killing People for Complaining About God Killing Them (Numbers 16:1-49)

Everything He Did to Job (Job 1)

Condoning Slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46)

(Also a partial list)

one has to wonder just what kind of guy is running the show. A loving and benevolent god certainly wouldn't deceive people by doing dastardly things. Why would he? But a dastardly god, say one with the scruples of Satan who does a lot of deceitful and harmful things, could well try to deceive people into thinking he is good by occasionally doing the right a proper thing. So, where does this leave us? As I see it "the god of Abraham" reveals himself as more of an evil god (just to note, he does admit to creating evil) than a good god. In which case, it's far more likely that "Satan" is running the show.


What do you think?


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Turning Lot's Wife to Salt for breaking a rule she didn't know existed (Genesis 19:26)

This is something I have never heard before, probably because most critics have actually read the account and know that according to the narrative Lot's wife most certainly did know that she was not to turn back.

GENESIS 19: 16-17 NWT

When he kept lingering, then because of Jehovah’s compassion for him,+ the men seized hold of his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, and they brought him out and stationed him outside the city.+ 17 As soon as they had brought them to the outskirts, he said: “Escape for your life!* Do not look behind you+ and do not stand still in any part of the district!+ Escape to the mountainous region so that you may not be swept away!”

[Miles]

Turning Lot's Wife to Salt for breaking a rule she didn't know existed (Genesis 19:26)

This is something I have never heard before, probably because most critics have actually read the account and know that according to the narrative Lot's wife most certainly did know that she was not to turn back.

GENESIS 19: 16-17 NWT

When he kept lingering, then because of Jehovah’s compassion for him,+ the men seized hold of his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, and they brought him out and stationed him outside the city.+ 17 As soon as they had brought them to the outskirts, he said: “Escape for your life!* Do not look behind you+ and do not stand still in any part of the district!+ Escape to the mountainous region so that you may not be swept away!”

You are absolutely right. And just as bad is that I didn't bother to check my source, one I never used before and never will again. My VERY bad. Thanks for the correction.

Here's what my idiot source said:

"Lot and his family were sent from the city before things went down, and Lot's wife looked back, and God turned her into a pillar of salt. It's generally understood that Lot's wife was looking back in a wistful kind of way at her angel-raping hometown, but the fact is there's nothing in the Bible to suggest this. Nor was Lot's family warned about looking back."
source

.

[Purple Knight]

one has to wonder just what kind of guy is running the show. A loving and benevolent god certainly wouldn't deceive people by doing dastardly things.

It's all-powerful. It can do whatever it wants and define that into goodness and benevolence.

Just don't pretend secular morality is any different. Those with the most power define good.

[Miles]

one has to wonder just what kind of guy is running the show. A loving and benevolent god certainly wouldn't deceive people by doing dastardly things.

It's all-powerful. It can do whatever it wants and define that into goodness and benevolence.

Nah, that's what we do, whether heads of religions interpreting sacred text or bums begging at the corner of your local Walmart. I, for instance, define the god of Abraham's condoning of slavery as none-good. Even despicable. Not to say god can't decide what he does is goodness, but his decision is just one among millions.

Just don't pretend secular morality is any different.

Sure it is. Assuming you mean different than the rule bound morality of religion, secular moral systems are amenable to modification, and that's what's so cool about secular morality. And as an excellent example, while Biblical morality continues to hold that homosexual activity between men is immoral and worthy of killing each, secular society has moved beyond such barbaric notions and by and large embraced gays and their life style.

Those with the most power define good.

In religion, of course, but out in the secular world we ain't beholden to anyone, and are free to define it any way we please, which is typically in keeping with dictionary definitions, but only because dictionaries follow common usage and are open to change.



.

[Athetotheist]

How does one define the Tao? The more you try to define it, the further from the true definition you get because it's beyond definition.

Is that true for anything real, like motorcycles or ice cream cones, or does it only apply to taos and gods?

"It's a mystery!"

Are you suggesting that the underlying source of all existence should be as easy to define as an ice cream cone or a motorcycle?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Again, a World of much evil or troubles in which the Bible or the Torah is created doesn't speak against a primordial God of goodness, but rather the drama between the 2 primordial forces of goodness and evil.

If a religion that worships God of goodness was never created and we would go with (only) evil instead, would everyone be happy? I doubt it!

So the story, IMO, is that evil has gotten a long way before forces of goodness due to development of language, paper, crafts and other could do much about it.

Free will toward stupidity created all the evil in the World in the name of Satan by the Bible. It doesn't mean that the ways of goodness are lost. No, we seek to refine them and worship them in the name of God, the Holy Spirit and (of the 1000) Jesus Christ. So you may say we have challenges as they did when the Bible was written. It doesn't mean we give up. No, we are charging against in order to create an ever better World all the way to Utopia (comy Thy will on Earth as in Heaven).

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Again, a World of much evil or troubles in which the Bible or the Torah is created doesn't speak against a primordial God of goodness, but rather the drama between the 2 primordial forces of goodness and evil.

So where are these forces of goodness and evil embodied? That is, where do they reside from which to create this drama you refer to?

If a religion that worships God of goodness was never created and we would go with (only) evil instead, would everyone be happy? I doubt it!

You mean that Satan, or whatever you care to call the culprit of evil, couldn't fool people into thinking he deserves to be venerated and worshiped by doing good stuff now and then, all the while wreaking havoc around the world? From my understanding of the theological underpinnings of Judaism and Christianity, he could well do just that. Of course this begs the question, "Why hasn't the all-mighty god of Judeo-Christian belief stopped him?"

So the story, IMO, is that evil has gotten a long way before forces of goodness due to development of language, paper, crafts and other could do much about it.

And again, where's god while all this mayhem is going on? Sitting on the sidelines and simply snacking and watching? Honestly, this war between a super power and an also-ran doesn't make any sense.

Free will toward stupidity created all the evil in the World in the name of Satan by the Bible. It doesn't mean that the ways of goodness are lost. No, we seek to refine them and worship them in the name of God, the Holy Spirit and (of the 1000) Jesus Christ. So you may say we have challenges as they did when the Bible was written. It doesn't mean we give up. No, we are charging against in order to create an ever better World all the way to Utopia (comy Thy will on Earth as in Heaven).

Free will is an illusion, so it has no bearing on the issue.


.

[Difflugia]

Are you suggesting that the underlying source of all existence should be as easy to define as an ice cream cone or a motorcycle?

No, especially since your statement wasn't that the Tao is difficult to define, but that it is beyond definition. I was curious if you could think of anything else beyond definition, but that is also unarguably real.

I hypothesize that beyond definition and not real are synonyms.

[Purple Knight]

It's all-powerful. It can do whatever it wants and define that into goodness and benevolence.

Nah, that's what we do, whether heads of religions interpreting sacred text or bums begging at the corner of your local Walmart. I, for instance, define the god of Abraham's condoning of slavery as none-good. Even despicable. Not to say god can't decide what he does is goodness, but his decision is just one among millions.

Are you suggesting that an all-powerful being lacks the power to declare his actions good and make that true?

He snaps his fingers and we all wake up one day, and in addition to the normal definitions of benevolent, there's one more definition... "...any action done by the all-powerful being God."

Can't he do that if he's all-powerful? And can't he do that without altering the dictionary if he wishes, and then the dictionary is just wrong?

Sure it is. Assuming you mean different than the rule bound morality of religion, secular moral systems are amenable to modification, and that's what's so cool about secular morality. And as an excellent example, while Biblical morality continues to hold that homosexual activity between men is immoral and worthy of killing each, secular society has moved beyond such barbaric notions and by and large embraced gays and their life style.

I didn't mean that secular morality can't change; I meant that people are good because of what they are, not what they do. One example I like to cite is the old movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The old version, not the new. Wonka tells all the children that they can consume anything in this room. The fat kid proceeds to do so and gets punished, supposedly for drinking from the chocolate river, but I know the truth: He is bad because he is fat. He is not bad because of anything he did.

In religion, of course, but out in the secular world we ain't beholden to anyone, and are free to define it any way we please, which is typically in keeping with dictionary definitions, but only because dictionaries follow common usage and are open to change.

As you point out, secular morality changes. Homosexuality was once bad, but now it's good. This is not because something fundamental about putting your thingy in an anus has changed, but because gays organised and lobbied for it. I'm not free to think of racism as good because it isn't. But if I get a bunch of Fourth Reich people and take over the world, then it would be.

Seriously, take your TARDIS and ask around, but only ask the areligious. See if there's any difference in what people in Nazi Germany say is good, and people in modern America, and Englishmen in 1371.

The good guys always win because winner and good guy mean the same thing.

[Athetotheist]

I was curious if you could think of anything else beyond definition, but that is also unarguably real.

X ÷ 0 =_____