Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #1

Post by Willum »

So we have moved beyond rationalizations that Satan can't do that, he has free-will, and is supposedly smarter than you.

So Satan asks God for forgiveness.
What happens?

Does all that prophesy go away?
Are those people in Hell forgiven?
Would Satan be forgiven?

So many questions.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #161

Post by OnceConvinced »

Willum wrote: You both seemed to have come to consensus -even proved that Biblical prophesy can change... indeed did.
I don't think they have changed. At least not from the original English versions. If a prophecy changes, then the original prophecy was clearly a false one.
Willum wrote: I think you have demonstrated something grand in that regard.
But now you keep arguing Revelation, a prophesy as amorphous as liquid.
I apologise that the talk of end times is off topic. I realise that we probably need to stop with the discussion, but it's very hard to let it go.
Willum wrote: Why not give "God" his due, and say he has the wisdom to change his prophecy...
But that would mean that his original prophecies were false ones.

What I see here is not the prophecies changing, but Christians interpretations of them. Now a mark can become a chip, which is clearly not what the bible is describing.

What I see is Christians attempting to make prophecies that are either false or happened centuries ago and trying to make them apply to today. As a result, they are the ones who change the prophecies, trying to manipulate them to conform with modern day events.

This will probably continue on for goodness knows how long as they are proven to be false. They will then have to reinterpret those prophecies in other ways, just as they have been doing for the last 2000 years.
Willum wrote: (of course being timeless, he should be able to have them write the prophesy down right, retroactively - but that's only neat, and not germane).
Well a prophecy should always be 100% accurate, otherwise, if we go by what the bible says, then the prophet is a false one.

But you come up with an interesting thought here.

How many so-called fulfilled bible prophecies were written retro-actively? With the bible we have no idea what may have been edited thousands of years ago, to match up with prophecy.

I am reminded of video games where the writer of the game creates a story line and includes lots of prophecies, ie, that certain characters will rise up and become heroes. Of course you as the player of the video game are the fulfilment of those prophecies. It's easy to write the game so that prophecies are fulfilled. Same when it comes to the written story. For all we know the bible could be another one of those stories, but were edited later so that the prophecies would be fulfilled.

But I fear that is another discussion altogether.
Willum wrote: So God has the wisdom to change prophesy, and (you may have seen this coming), changes the prophesy and; Satan repents, now what?
Oh, so we are talking about another hypothetical scenario now. ie God changes his prophecies as he changes his mind about thing. eg a mark, something that should be clearly visible, now becomes a nano-chip, something invisible to the naked eye. Quite a major difference!

Indeed, Satan could very well repent. It may be that God intended that Satan never repented, but then changes his mind and decides "ok, Satan, you now have the option to repent."

Satan ponders on this and decides this is one amnesty he can't turn down and chooses to repent and change his ways.

Yeah, sure, why not?

In that case Satan has the same options as we humans do. Repent, accept Jesus as his saviour and go to Heaven.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #162

Post by Willum »

Sorry - didn't you both agree that old Nebby, whose name is forever cursed by the Jewish, would never be able to destroy Egypt?

Thus dismissing a prophecy.
Now, for the sake of argument, we assume that there is a God, and he allowed a prophecy to be unfulfilled.
He might have reasons to do that... things are transpiring on Earth after all, and with freewill vying with omnipotence, somehow someone may have amazed him...

So, with that it seems pretty reasonable to me, that you two have demo'd that God can change his mind.

I mean you two don't seem to think much of it, but the ramifications to the religion or the mythology are fantastic.

Why do you think God is perfect because he can't change his mind?
Wouldn't he be more perfect if he could change his mind?

Maybe it's just me, but I think the conversation has blown my mind.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #163

Post by OnceConvinced »

Willum wrote: Sorry - didn't you both agree that old Nebby, whose name is forever cursed by the Jewish, would never be able to destroy Egypt?
Oh that must be TON you're referring to there. I wasn't talking about old Neb.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #164

Post by Danmark »

Willum wrote: So we have moved beyond rationalizations that Satan can't do that, he has free-will, and is supposedly smarter than you.

So Satan asks God for forgiveness.
What happens?

Does all that prophesy go away?
Are those people in Hell forgiven?
Would Satan be forgiven?
For Satan to be held morally responsible he had to have had free will. So if he asked for forgiveness, God would have to forgive him.

But this is really a "Can Superman beat Green Lantern?" question. The 'Satan v. God' scenario in the Bible is one of the more fantastic in Biblical literature. Even some Christian scholars must surely see this as symbolic; that Satan is merely a personification of evil, not a real entity. When obvious myths such as the creation story, Noah, the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel are taken literally it makes Christianity look silly and ridiculous. Jews certainly don't waste much time on Satan as a real entity.

Most Christian scholars see the book of Job as fiction; a story told to make a point without actually believing in an actual Devil walking along with God bargaining over the torture of a man.

Christian apologists would do well to take the more defensible view of Satan as symbolic.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #165

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 164 by Danmark]

Well, I frequently complain that I can't tell which parts of the Bible I am supposed to take literally or figuratively. Which and cannon, and which are suspect.

It seems to me, however, you can have any truth in the Bible without a real Satan.
So Jews would have to be mistaken in this simplification, despite the question left unasked allowing them to ignore a major hole in the religion.

How do you have Gensis without the Serpent?
Who cares about anything in the OT without the Serpent? It has no origin or meaning... a symbolic Satan is a non-existent one...

I think(?)

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #166

Post by Danmark »

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 164 by Danmark]

Well, I frequently complain that I can't tell which parts of the Bible I am supposed to take literally or figuratively. Which and cannon, and which are suspect.

It seems to me, however, you can have any truth in the Bible without a real Satan.
So Jews would have to be mistaken in this simplification, despite the question left unasked allowing them to ignore a major hole in the religion.

How do you have Gensis without the Serpent?
Who cares about anything in the OT without the Serpent? It has no origin or meaning... a symbolic Satan is a non-existent one...

I think(?)
You present a good question. I suggest that Biblical scholars have little difficulty, in most cases, in identifying symbolism and allegory and separating it from historical fact, and can thus retain appreciation for the Bible as man's expression of his desire to understand the transcendent, the eternal... or even to believe in a particular deity.

For example, scholars can see that the serpent is a symbol for evil, or for man's lust, greed, defiance, and pride. The tower of Babel is mythical allegory to explain the variety of speech, the same way other traditions have their own quaint explanations. See:
https://alphaomegatranslations.com/fore ... -language/

The error Christian literalists fall into over and over, is the ethnocentric prejudice that THEIR myth is the only one that actually happened.

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #167

Post by Claire Evans »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: [Replying to post 146 by Claire Evans]
Claire Evans wrote: Where in the Bible does it say Satan rebelled?

Rev.19
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Hmmm. I don't actually notice a thing in this passage referring to either Satan or any rebellion. I do notice that the passage indicates that God is omnipotent. Which means that if Satan did rebel, then God intended for it to occur.
That's the problem with Christianity. They believe that God is omnipotent. If He was, why did He need to die for our sins? Why did He create the devil in the first place? Couldn't He just destroy Him now?

How can Jesus be victorious over evil? That's like Michael Phelps winning a swimming competition against a toddler with water wings and when he wins, crows victory. There is no victory. Satan must have power for Jesus to be victorious over him.

Claire Evans wrote: You know the flood story is pagan. This flood story is based on the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:I agree. The story is an ancient pagan story. And yet it is in the Bible. Which is no surprise. The Bible is a collection of ancient superstitious stories and beliefs.
Not everything.
Claire Evans wrote: I think, though, "repenteth me" means rue. That he regrets he made mankind in the first place.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:One way or another it indicates that God felt that He had made a mistake. How does an omnipotent omniscient Being make a mistake?
Exactly.
Claire Evans wrote: If God is omnipotent, then it poses all sorts of problem to the Christian religion. Why did He create evil in the first place. Evil must have existed prior to Satan's rebellion in order for him to be tempted. Therefore He created corrupted beings. How is that possible? How, as an omnipotent being, could He not have foreseen a rebellion? Christians try to explain this away by saving Satan had free will.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Did you write this or did I? Because it sounds an awful lot like something I would have written.


I wrote it. I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm just as annoyed at you when Christian cannot see how contradictory this is.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Nor is Mainstream Christianity based on what the Bible actually says. Nowhere does the Bible say that Satan had free will. In fact the Bible extends the promise of free will to NO ONE.
Claire Evans wrote: You don't think you have free will? I most certainly do. I make decisions. I have the will to reject God if I wanted to.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Actually I DO think we have free will. And I notice that of no God existed to begin with, free will would be a natural state. But the Bible makes no claim that God has given us us free will. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then things will inevitably turn out exactly as God expects them too and no free will is possible.
Omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean God would control affairs. He could just leave people to do what He wants. Omniscience isn't indicative of not giving free will. I can foresee what someone is going to do, but it doesn't mean I interfere with what they are doing.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:And if God IS NOT omnipotent and omniscient, than he is not really a God at all. He's more like us humans with better technology. And we are catching up.
And that is why I like to call Him the Father. God means the Almighty. I just sometimes call Him God because that is how I always called Him previously.
Claire Evans wrote: Free will is a precious gift from God, for it lets us love him with our “whole heart�—because we want to.—Matthew 22:37.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Matthew 22:
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.


This is a commandment from Jesus (according to Gospel Matthew) to love God. "Thou shalt" is the very antithesis of free will.


If I tell you that you must do something, does that mean you don't have free will? You can choose to reject what Jesus commanded. The word commanded is used to bring attention to the Ten Commandments. As you know you they start off as, "Thy shall not..."

Jesus is saying that once you love God, those things will fall into place. It is not necessary to mention the others anymore.

Claire Evans wrote: We have discussed at lengths about the guards. You can choose to disregard that Isaiah 45 refers to evil as calamity although it means nothing to mean whether it means evil or not.
Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
Isa 45:7
"I Yahweh and·there-is-no further one-forming light and·one-creating darkness one-makingdo well-being and·one-creating evil I Yahweh one-makingdo all-of these"
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /isa45.pdf

If the author of Isaiah 45:7 had intended to convey the idea that God creates calamity then he could just as easily used the Hebrew word that indicated calamity. But he DID NOT. He chose to use the Hebrew word that indicates evil (רָ ע). And that is what the original Hebrew text says.


Then what did Isaiah mean when he said, "Therefore shall evil come upon you..."?



“For you have trusted in your wickedness; you have said, ‘No one sees me;’ [but] your wisdom and your knowledge, it has perverted you, and you have said in your heart, I am, and there is no one else besides me. Therefore shall evil come upon you; you will not know the dawning thereof: and mischief shall fall upon you; you will not be able to put it away: and desolation shall come upon you suddenly, of which you know not.� (Isa. 47:10-11; emp. supplied).

Why didn't Isaiah use the Hebrew word for calamity?

"Evil" in verse 11 is raah in Hebrew. The meaning can mean morally bad or something bad happening naturally.


http://qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/isaiah/47.html

Claire Evans wrote: Not everything in the Christian religion is flatly false. It's just that the Christian Church has not progressed in the extent where they should address these contradictions and amend the beliefs accordingly. The problem is, watch the collection plates dry up should that happen.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:True. This is much in the historical record outside of Scripture to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar was a real person. Many places described in the Bible are real places which exist to this day. And there really is a north pole. But that should not be considered as evidence that reindeer can fly.
Someone shouldn't think that just because accounts have real places in it then it automatically means it is true.
Claire Evans wrote: The ancients believed that extra terrestrials were gods because they had technology that was "god-like" to them. Unlike Satan and God, they were all physical beings. They weren't omniscient and omnipresent.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:So God is actually an extraterrestrial? Not a God at all really, but with superior technology to humans? If we, with our rapidly advancing technology, should discover the secret of time travel and go back in time to the era of Jesus, our technology would be vastly superior to anyone living in Jesus' day. But we wouldn't be Gods. We could certainly make those people fear us. But love us?
No. I said "gods", not God. You can't see God. The ancients, however, claimed to see aliens walk among them.
Claire Evans wrote: God gives peace that is beyond all understanding. I don't live in fear.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Maybe you should. There are devils and demons in your world. There have been many stories of demonic possession over the centuries. Most of these are generally dismissed today as mental illness, brought on by extreme religious belief. But, hey, you could be a candidate. My non belief has always worked well to protect me. In fact I have never met a single non believer who has ever been bothered by devils and demons. Only the religious are ever plagued with demons.
Devils and demons don't always manifest themselves in their true form. They can attack through others. There are non believers who have become believers because of witnessing the supernatural.
Claire Evans wrote: What do you mean he would have gotten you a long time ago? He did. He caused you to become a disbeliever.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:At least I am not forced to lay in bed and wet myself out of a childish and unreasoning fear planted in my head by others.

I credit three main things with causing me to be a non believer. The first is the Bible itself, which I have read. The second is my need to think things through to a logical conclusion. Christianity is bereft of very many logical conclusions. And the third thing was the recognition of just how full of, let's call it sheep dip, so many people in this world actually are. I am deeply skeptical of things that appear to be unbelievable and are without supporting evidence.
People tend to throw the baby out with the bath water. If there is something they don't like in the Bible, or it doesn't make sense, they just throw it out along with faith in God. I would have done the same thing, however, if I had not been rooted in my faith before getting disillusioned with the Bible.
Claire Evans wrote: Some scholars do believe that Ezekiel erred and I think it's got to do with his biased interpretation of an event that may happen thousands of years in the future. The point of these prophecies was to scare the people from straying from Yahweh. The prophets tended to want a quick fulfillment of prophecies else there would have been no punitive relevance to their prophecies.
The prophecy that Egypt will be thoroughly destroyed may be something yet to come. It may even happen in our life-time but, of course, it will not be due to Nebuchadnezzar.

Receiving glimpses into the future does not mean infallibility. They were fallible humans and we all know that they are had confirmation bias.

Absolutely.

So, yes, you have proven that prophecies are not set in stone.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:No Nebuchadnezzar, no possible fufillment of prophecy.

Ezekiel got it wrong. So yes, Ezekiel erred. Nebuchadnezzar's army all but obliterated the Egyptian army at the Battle of Carchemish in about 605 BC. The Egyptian pharaoh withdrew back across the Nile and prepared for invasion. Nebuchadnezzar postured and boasted that he would cross the Nile and visit just the sort of devastation on the land of Egypt as described in Ezekiel. But he never did. The author of Ezekiel and his subsequent revisionists do not seem to have realized that however, and took the threats as historical facts.
Because humans make mistakes and often believe in things that simply are not true.

True, because confirmation bias is human nature.
Claire Evans wrote: Being a pregnant damsel doesn't mean she wasn't a virgin else there would be no miracle to that.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign:

Sign can mean miracle in Hebrew also.

"Old Testament The two Hebrew words most frequently used for “miracle� are translated “sign� (oth ) and “wonder� (mopheth )"
https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries ... nders.html
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:A pregnant virgin is a contradiction in terms. Like a married bachelor. A married bachelor wouldn't be "a miracle," simply a misuse of the words. A pregnant virgin is a sure sign that someone was very gullible. Which is one of the main qualifications for becoming a Christian as it turns out. But Isaiah 7 does not use the word "virgin" (בתולה) .

Hebrew Interlinear Bible
therefore he-shall-give my-Lord he to·you(p) sign behold ! the·damsel (הָ רָ ה) pregnant-one Therefore the Lord and·one-giving-birth son and·she-calls Immanu~El
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/isa7.pdf

A virgin is someone who has not had sexual intercourse. Males can be virgins. A maiden is a young girl. The two concepts do not necessarily overlap. And as with "evil," the author of Isaiah did not choose to use the Hebrew word for virgin (בתולה). He indicated a young girl (הָ רָ ה).

Of course "pregnant virgin" is a contradiction in terms. That is why the word "sign" was used. Why would that be gullible? You know that we have technology today to impregnate virgins? That would be considered a miracle back then. I'm not saying Mary was impregnated by artificial insemination but you could argue that if people wrote that it could happen in thousands of years time, they would be considered gullible.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:A virgin is someone who has not had sexual intercourse. Males can be virgins. A maiden is a young girl. The two concepts do not necessarily overlap. And as with "evil," the author of Isaiah did not choose to use the Hebrew word for virgin (בתולה). He indicated a young girl (הָ רָ ה).
Virgin and maiden can be used to be interchangeable like I mentioned with "evil" and "calamity" .

Here is an example from the scriptures:


16 The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.

The Hebrew translation says;

16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

Then further down below:



43 behold, I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden that cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say: Give me, I pray thee, a little water from thy pitcher to drink;

Now she is just a maiden but we know she is virgin.

הָעַלְמָה is used to indicate maiden:

Parts of Speech: Noun Fem. Sing.
Root:
עַלְמָה
Strong's Number: H5959
Infinitive Definition: 1. virgin, young woman
a. of marriageable age
b. maid or newly married
Transliteration:

Verse 16 refers to betulah, a virgin

Original Word: בְּתוּלָה
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: bethulah
Phonetic Spelling: (beth-oo-law')
Short Definition: virgin

There just aren't cases where a maiden was not a virgin in the Bible.




Claire Evans wrote: You are using the Bible to support the Bible. If you think these scriptures support your case ,then this should support mine:

Matthew 16:


15“But what about you?� Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?� 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.…
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The Bible contradicts itself. The whole point of the Gospels is to convince us that Jesus was somebody terribly important. And yet we are also informed that the friends and family of Jesus, the people in the best position to actually know him well, weren't especially impressed with him.
But you disregarded the scripture where it says Peter acknowledged Jesus is the Son of God. Those are the words of someone impressed. I think Mary knew Jesus was special. Those who vaguely knew of Jesus wouldn't have thought He was special.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:In fact no one was especially impressed with him during his lifetime, because history provided no record of his miraculous exploits while he was still alive. Only years after he died did people become interested in the stories that were being circulated about Jesus. People like you who grew up hearing the stories are impressed. There wasn't any great groundswell of interest in the man when he was actually alive however. No one even mentioned him.
Why should they have records of His "exploits" in the Bible? You seem to think that people just had access to paper and parchments just to record what He did. Many who witnessed the miracles were illiterate. Historians write about people who have a great impact on history. Jesus didn't have access to YouTube, you know.


Claire Evans wrote: Jesus was only mentioned when Christianity started becoming prominent.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Exactly my point. People were impressed by the stories that were being circulated in the years following his death. But the actual man when he was alive made no waves at all.
I wouldn't say Jesus made no waves. He was put to death.
Claire Evans wrote: It's true that beliefs can change and evolve over time but the belief that Jesus is the Son of God holds steadfast to Christians today. Except for religions like Jehovah's Witnesses.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Hinduism is 4,000 years old. Does that establish that the various god's of Hinduism must therefore be valid?

Could be.
Claire Evans wrote: You are wrong to think that these ancient people were ignorant. They knew a lot. There was a clear agenda to manipulate the OT to change Yahweh into a monotheistic God when clearly he was originally one of may.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:There is a huge difference between being ignorant, and being stupid. Ancient people were every bit as smart as we are today. But they were largely ignorant of how the universe operates. We know much more about the nature of reality, as we should with an extra 2,000 years of data collection and experimentation. They didn't yet have the means to figure out relativity and quantum mechanics. So they made up answers. And the answers they made up had nothing to do with what is really going on. Let me put it another way. The ancients did not possess computers or cell phones. They did not have the technology to place robots on Mars. We modern people had to build TO a place of knowledge where these things became possible. I can't even begin to imagine what knowledge the people 2,000 from now will possess. Unless something happens to pull us right back into ignorance again. The way Christianity triggered the dark ages.

]Ancient people believed that there were various gods that exerted control over various natural occurances. Because they were ignorant of quantum mechanics.
Oh, so how were the pyramids built if they were so ignorant? They knew nothing about advanced mathematics? If humans were so ignorant then maybe aliens built the pyramids.

You make the mistake of thinking that civilizations didn't rise and fall. Sophisticated civilizations existed which got wiped out and humans had to start all over again. The knowledge survived but it was exclusive to mystery schools.

The Sumerians knew about the planets.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Sumer ... o-long-ago



Claire Evans wrote: Then what did Isaiah mean when he said, "Therefore shall evil come upon you..."?
Jer.23:
[17] They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:If you are talking about the quote in Jeremiah then the author can hardly be talking about calamity, can he! It is often said that into each life some rain must fall. That is because we all must endure various forms of disasters during the course of our lives, and one's belief has never been a protection from unfortunate things occurring. This is often known as bad things happening to good people. Or another way of looking at it, is that in the real PHYSICAL worldwhen push comes to shove, God regularly acts exactly like a God who never existed in the first place.

I did not refer to Jeremiah. So I am asking you again what did Isaiah mean when he said, "Therefore shall evil come upon you..."?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:But let's look at just a handful of the times the author of Isaiah DID use the word evil.

Isa.1
[16] Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

Isa.3
[9] The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Isa.5
[20] Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isa.7
[5] Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
[15] Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
[16] For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.


Now let's replace the word evil, with calamity.

Isa.1
[16] Wash you, make you clean; put away the calamity of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do calamity;

Isa.3
[9] The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded calamity unto themselves.

Isa.5
[20] Woe unto them that call calamity good, and good calamity; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isa.7
[5] Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken calamity counsel against thee, saying,
[15] Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the calamity, and choose the good.
[16] For before the child shall know to refuse the calamity, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Where the author has very specifically used the word evil, then evil is very specifically what he meant.
Evil does not necessarily mean calamity all the time. But it is clear that evil can refer to calamity in some instances. Evil meaning calamity is used as the same thing in one sentence in Isaiah:

“For you have trusted in your wickedness; you have said, ‘No one sees me;’ [but] your wisdom and your knowledge, it has perverted you, and you have said in your heart, I am, and there is no one else besides me. Therefore shall evil come upon you; you will not know the dawning thereof: and mischief shall fall upon you; you will not be able to put it away: and desolation shall come upon you suddenly, of which you know not.� (Isa. 47:10-11; emp. supplied).



Claire Evans wrote: Yahweh isn't the creator of evil. He just did evil things.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
Isa 45:7
"I Yahweh and·there-is-no further one-forming light and·one-creating darkness one-makingdo well-being and·one-creating evil (רֹ ע) I Yahweh one-makingdo all-of these"
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /isa45.pdf

Whether you like it or not, whether it suits your sensibilities or not, the Bible specifically SAYS that God created evil! Declaring that it is not so is simply self deception. It's rather like claim that there were Roman guards at the tomb of Jesus, when no Roman guards are mentioned at all. Except in the case of Isaiah 45:7, we are dealing with just the reverse situation. Because the word "evil" is very specifically used. Christians do not like this reference however, because it conflicts with their dogma. So they have simply declared it to be invalid. But you see, this is the way all religions work. People make up a scenario that suits them, and then declare it to be true. It's the reason that Christianity currently represents 44,000 different denominations worldwide. In Christianity there is a belief that suits every sensibility.
I am not biased. It means nothing to me if Yahweh created evil or not. He is not the Father.
Claire Evans wrote: But the plague wasn't a prophecy.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The coming end of the world is an old prophecy that goes back at least as far as Zoroastrianism in the second millennium BC. If people were dying all around you, you would almost certainly believe that the end of the world was at hand. And yet life inevitably goes on. The point is that the message of Christianity is that Jesus is going to return at any moment to usher in a new age, the kingdom of God, and each generation has been taught, and has largely believed, that "the end is near."


Image

The plague victims most certainly believed it was the end of the world to them. Yet the time of the plague did not match all the things Revelation says will happen in end times.
Claire Evans wrote: Do you believe the world will go on that long? You don't think nuclear bombs will be used these century? Radiation from Fukushima is poisoning the oceans. Even if we have 2000 years left, Christianity wouldn't exist. There is a agenda to destroy it and it has no place in the New World Order.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The Eve of Distruction, written by P.F. Slone 1964

The eastern world, it is explodin',
Violence flarin', bullets loadin',
You're old enough to kill but not for votin',
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin',
And even the Jordan river has bodies floatin',
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

This song was popular when I was in high school. Fifty three years later and everything is still here.

A major nuclear exchange could destroy civilization, this is true. But destroying all life is unlikely. It could send us right back into the dark ages and profound ignorance again however.
I don't believe it will be a major nuclear exchange; just a limited one. You cant have a New World Order in an uninhabitable war. Even if the world was peaceful, Fukushima radiation will put an end to life eventually.
Claire Evans wrote: Flew away? That's news to me. Strange things happen in this life.
Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:You should read your Bible sometime. Unusual things do sometimes happen in life. But not impossible things. Like a flying reanimated corpse.
That's not flying away. You made out that He got wings.
Claire Evans wrote: Does it have to be noticeable?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:My Visa cards have readable microchips on them. More and more I have been noticing that the little machines designed to read the chip are not functioning correctly and do not read them. And this is fairly new technology.
They aren't chips in your hand, are they? What the public knows about and what there really is are two different things. Technology behind closed doors is far more advanced than we think.
Claire Evans wrote: Why do you think I meant that "stuff" popped into his head? The obvious difference is when the prophecy comes true. I believe, however, that Paul thought this man of perdition would come in his life-time as he believed Jesus would come in his life-time.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:When "prophecy" comes true it's proof of God. When it doesn't come true, which is most of the time, it's simply false prophecy. It's a foolproof system. As it would naturally have to be, given the nature of those who subscribe to it.
It's not necessarily a false prophecy but rather a prophecy not understood. Paul was human and wanted the prophecies to materialize in his life-time. He wanted the Second Coming when he was alive but wanting and what will really happen can be different things.

Claire Evans wrote: It's not going to be about convenience. It's just about getting people used to the idea of a chip. What the real case is, "Take the chip or die".
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:I am ready to stand against totalitarian dictatorship if you are. The problem here in the US however, is that we have mysteriously been saddled with this incredible buffoon Trump as our president. So you may be right, something funny is going on. There may actually be secret forces at work. But not supernatural ones.
If you are in a weakened state as in starving, freezing to death, for example, are you going to be able to fight dictatorship? What if the pneumonic plague, as it exists in Madagascar right now, comes to the Western world? What if there is forced quarantines? What if there is a disaster where people have to go to FEMA camps? The only way out is death.


Claire Evans wrote: They often don't agree. They tussle for power but who are the referees? World leaders, I believe, consult with aliens:

https://truedisclosure.org/news/former- ... ident-eise...
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Yes, you believe in aliens. It's all and alien/Mason conspiracy. Enough said. I should have started at the end. I could have pointed this out to everyone at the very beginning and skipped the rest of my reply.
The belief is not unfounded. The US gov already know about extraterrestrials.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #168

Post by William »

Willum wrote: So we have moved beyond rationalizations that Satan can't do that, he has free-will, and is supposedly smarter than you.

So Satan asks God for forgiveness.
What happens?

Does all that prophesy go away?
Are those people in Hell forgiven?
Would Satan be forgiven?

So many questions.
Well could one suppose this perhaps; - Call the following a thought experiment;

Lets say Satan did ask GOD for forgiveness and GOD agreed to this request with the proviso that since Satan's sins had caused a lot of grief in relation to human beings, that Satan - as a show of genuine penance - had to incarnate as a human being and tell the humans the real nature of GOD as well as live a sinless life and eventually become the ultimate sacrifice as a means of showing GOD he truly had mended his ways?

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #169

Post by Claire Evans »

OnceConvinced wrote:
Claire Evans wrote: And if card facilities aren't used in anymore? And things change overnight.
No they don't there is much testing and development. Much experimentation. Some countries are tested out first (ie used as guinea pigs) to see how it works before the technology unfolds in other countries. Card and chip technology has been something that has been implemented gradually. Once it's seen that it works, that's when it gets rolled out overnight in other places.

We have electronic transfers now but cash is still used. Non chip implantations will continue for decades before it becomes compulsory, if it ever does.



Think back. When did your country first start using EFTPOS? Did it come up over night? Was it there one day and then being pushed out to everyone over a short period of time? How long did it take before almost everyone was using cards and almost every shop had an EFTPOS machine?
You are assuming that life is going to be similar the way it is today. The elites have the technology all ready. They just need the right circumstances, like the New World Order, to implement it.

It's startling how quickly microchipping is being accepted. Like this:

Headine


Would you get your travel card implanted into your HAND? 3,000 Swedish commuters are now using microchips to pay for their journey

In a new BBC interview it was revealed that 3,000 customers use the service
The firm does not microchip people itself, and they must have it done elsewhere
But several companies in Sweden already offer the service to their employees

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... cards.html

These are mere beta tests to see how easily people would accept the chip. Likewise, hurricanes like Harvey are used to see how easily people will go to FEMA camps. Or how much resistance there is to it.





Claire Evans wrote:
Virtually overnight 86% of Indian cash no longer could be use for transactions.
OnceConvinced wrote:Like I said, some countries are used as guinea pigs to see if things work. When things don't work it's back to the drawing board and something else has to be tried. It all takes decades.
You are assuming it won't work.

Claire Evans wrote: This left the poor in a bad way. They didn't have bank accounts. Now they are forced to if they want to buy and sell. Banks have control over people. They can monitor people's transactions and just take money out people's banks when they feel like it. Cash gave people anonymity. Those Indians don't have a choice.
OnceConvinced wrote:Are they being threatened to be beheaded if they don't go cashless?
No, it's a beta test. The beheading will come under the New World Order.
OnceConvinced wrote:A cashless society is coming, I've no doubts about that, but it probably won't be in our lifetimes and nobody is going to be forced into them at threat of death, especially not beheadings.

Like I have said previously. It’s social conditioning, not technology that is needed for all these things to happen and every country has to be conditioned for it, not just one country. So even if in India they are conditioned to not have cash, every other country has to go through the same process.


Assuming life is going to be like it is in the future; most likely the near future.
Claire Evans wrote:
What if you had a small child and they were starving and you knew the only way to help them is to get a chip so you could buy food? Would you still resist it?
OnceConvinced wrote:I don’t know. I would have to be in that situation, but I’m happy to say it’s not going to happen in my life time. What about you? What would you do?
How do you know it won't happen in your life-time??? I would never have children so I could never be put in that position. If I knew I would be damned for taking the chip, then I'd ask for God to give me the strength to cope with starvation. The same goes for the child.
OnceConvinced wrote:Can you really imagine modern governments imposing a rule that you must have your children chipped or they will be executed? Seriously? It just would never happen in this day and age. The death sentence is a thing of the past. We would sooner rebel against the government than have them threatening to kill us if we don’t do everything they say. The latest incident of Robert Mugabe should show you full well what happens to tyrants in government. He lasted a long time, no doubt, but imagine how long he'd last now if he tried that in say some place like the USA. Not long I bet.
You are mentioning modern governments. I'm talking about a one world government. A one world government can easily be a dictatorship.

Robert Mugabe was removed by design by those planning the one world government. Notice how the existing world leaders are falling away? Trump will; my president will go. Saudi Arabia has had a big cleanup. The Brazillian president was impeached. Kim Jung Un better watch out.

I don't know if you have seen The Telegraph's Blackjack animation which is a "fictitious" story about what will happen in the future. In part 4, it is mandatory to present a biometric card to buy and sell. No cash allowed.

Microchips in vaccinations aren't new either:


http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/09 ... tip-needle

What is the most disturbing about this slideshow is that they have encrypted the message "This is not simply entertaiment" in the biometric card. This is done by converted the numbers using the hex-to-string converter.

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/aug2012/jeffrey82.htm



Claire Evans wrote:
Do you really believe the Bible would mention a microchip? A mark is the closest way to describe it 2000 years ago.
OnceConvinced wrote:It’s nothing like a mark at all. That description is so far off it’s not funny. It should be enough for any logical person to be able to scrap the idea that the bible is talking about chipping.

A better description would be do describe it as a piece of metal placed on your hand or forehead. Or a badge of some kind. A chip is not a mark because you will not see that chip. It will be invisible to the human eye.

How else was the Revelation writer meant to convey it will be a microchip?
Claire Evans wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:And do you really think that chips are going to be embedded in someone's forehead? Not a chance. So once again the bible prophecies fall flat when it comes to that one.

Yes. It has already been proposed now to microchip in the brain:
OnceConvinced wrote:A brain implant is most definitely not a mark on the forehead, let alone a chip in the forehead. So it can’t possibly be what the bible is predicting.

Not only is that technology not a chip in the forehead, it’s also not a mark on the forehead. If it’s implanted in the brain it’s hardly a mark. It would be invisible… the furthest thing from a mark.

When you have to start shucking and jiving to make a bible prophecy fit with something today, it’s clearly not what the bible is prophesising.
How was what was the writer of Revelation supposed to describe chip implants into the brain?


Claire Evans wrote:
If one wants to function in society, they will have to have a chip. The modus operandus of the elite is more covert.
OnceConvinced wrote:Indeed,. Which is why social conditioning is used. Social conditioning takes a long time. Covert dictators are going to have to get us all accepting the death penalty again. But why would they condition us to do that when they have conditioned the opposite? Ie having us all oppose the death penalty? Why would they get us all opposed to the death penalty only to bring out guillotines and chop millions of heads off? It makes no sense. They would condition us all with executions. They'd have made the guillotine the main method of execution a long time ago and had us all accepting it and thinking it was good.

That is why I say that your predictions may have worked a couple of thousand of years ago when people were used to death for trivial crimes. Not anymore. Even if they make it illegal to refuse to take a chip, it’s not going to result in anyone’s death let alone a beheading, which is what the bible predicts.
Do you really believe we’re going to regress back to a society that kills its rebels by chopping off their heads?
Absolutely. It's quick.

Claire Evans wrote:
The idea of guillotines is making a comeback in the US.


Why Did the U.S. Government Purchase 30,000 Guillotines?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-did- ... -melinda-h

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/ ... r-arrival/
An old hoax that's been around since the 90s

https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-u-s- ... illotines/
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-polit ... ries-today
OnceConvinced wrote:It doesn't take much research to determine the veracity of nonsense you find on the Internet.

As if any modern society would accept such a thing. It would have to have made a comeback a long time ago. When criminals were getting the electric chair and lethal injection. That would have been the time to bring back beheadings. Get everybody used to it. Keep those beheadings going right up until the modern day. In fact increase beheadings for crimes, so that when the government brings out the compulsory chipping, they have us ok with it.

As of they're just gonna start lining people up and chopping off their heads. Even the ones taking the chips would be outraged.
How do you know your sources are correct? Bo Gritz may have been silenced to deny it.
OnceConvinced wrote:We don't live in that primitive society anymore, Claire.
I don't know about that:

‘Botched’ Oklahoma Execution Proves It’s Time to Bring Back the Guillotine

"There are other, less dramatic, ways, of course. Hanging and firing squads would probably be quicker and more painless than lethal injection or the electric chair. But the guillotine really seems to solve everyone's problems: It was designed to deliver an efficient, quick, and painless death. It performs that task admirably. I understand the irony of a reactionary such as myself embracing the Terror's preferred method of execution, but one must give credit where it's due."

http://freebeacon.com/blog/botched-okla ... uillotine/


OnceConvinced wrote:All this doom and gloom stuff has been going on for so long now. According to doom and gloomers, governments are always up to some dastardly thing that’s going to enslave us all. It never happens

The western world does not tolerate dictators. They do not tolerate genocide, which is what you're talking here. Lining millions of people up to be guillotined would be worse than what Hitler did to the Jews. We are not going to tolerate such attrocities in this day and age, especially not in our countries. Even the Germans have come to despise Hitler now.
People mustn't put a timeline to things as fact. Just because something hasn't happened now, doesn't mean it will never happen.

Claire Evans wrote:

But when one takes smoking up for the first time, they obviously aren't addicted yet.
OnceConvinced wrote:That is exactly my point! They aren’t addicted yet. Neither is someone faced with having to take a chip! That is why the comparison just can’t be made. Even non-Christians like myself will be opposed to taking the chip, just like non-smokers would be opposed to being forced to smoke. You have to be addicted first before you are going to "do something even though you don't want to."
Nonsense. You don't cease to be recognized as a legal entity because you refuse to smoke. I don't think people are addicted to pain when they give a false confession under torture. People can be coerced to do things against their will.
OnceConvinced wrote:Sorry Claire, but its not just going to be the Christians who refuse to take this invasive technology. In fact I shall start up a thread here to see how many members of this website would take such a chip.
Please do!

Claire Evans wrote:

You assume society is going to be the same when the chip becomes mandatory.
OnceConvinced wrote:That’s just it, I’m saying society would HAVE to be different. It could not be the same as it is today. Thus it can only be a future generation, not ours. Generations will have to have passed before society was once again willing to accept dictators and the death penalty. That is why I say it can’t possibly happen in our life times.
You think nuclear warfare can't happen in our life-time? Everything changes then and very abruptly.


Claire Evans wrote:

The New World Order is going to be very different.
OnceConvinced wrote:I have heard enough about this new world order to know it’s not what Christians claim it to be. People like you have been dooming and glooming since I was a kid, going on about all these terrible things the government has up its sleeve. They never come to pass. I’m confident that your stuff won’t either.
Okay, we'll see.

Claire Evans wrote:
How can helpless people fight the government? A one world government, that is.
OnceConvinced wrote:Revolution. Just like has happened with some past dictatorships.


What will this revolution look like?

Claire Evans wrote: The US is already facing nuclear war.
OnceConvinced wrote:It was facing nuclear war in the 70s and 80s too. What's new? We have been living with the threat of nuclear annihilation for decades now. Even if there was a nuclear war that doesn't prove any bible predictions, even the ones that sound a little like a nuclear war.
I'm not trying to say it aligns with Bible predictions. I'm illustrating how life changes after nuclear warfare.

Claire Evans wrote: How would you force people to take a vaccination they don't want?
OnceConvinced wrote:By social conditioning. Forcing people doesn’t work. It never has.
Really?

France to make vaccination mandatory from 2018 as it is 'unacceptable children are still dying of measles'


Parents in France will be legally obliged to vaccinate their children from 2018, the government has announced.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 24246.html
Claire Evans wrote: "If you want to survive, take the vaccination!" See how they back people into a corner to comply.
OnceConvinced wrote:It’s one thing to say “take it if you wish to survive�. It’s a way way different thing to say “take it or we’ll chop your head off.�
It's to make people more malleable but death rebelling against vaccinations is not here. At least not yet. First put people into jail for refusing it.


Claire Evans wrote:

You are merely seeing the surface. Circumstances we have now won't be the same in the near future.
OnceConvinced wrote:So doom and gloomers have been preaching since the day of Paul. You are simply another Paul, going on about how the end is eminent. Paul clearly couldn’t be taken seriously, yet he was around in a time when they had dictators everywhere and had to do things at the threat of death.

Hopefully some day down the track you’ll realise that taking bible prophecies so seriously is futile.
Paul didn't have access to Revelation.

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Satan asks God for forgiveness, now what?

Post #170

Post by Claire Evans »

Claire Evans wrote: Why does Jesus say to lead us from temptation when not everyone is tempted? Why do you believe everyone sins if some can't be tempted?
OnceConvinced wrote:We are all different. We all have different desires and urges. One person may have an urge to do a particular act, while another will find that act detestable. It all depends on the individual. It is up to us as humans to control our urges and prevent ourselves from harming others. For most of us, we can do this easily because we have compassion and empathy. Others lack that compassion and empathy. Some even have mental illnesses and aberrations of the brain. Talk to a psychiatrist and you can learn all about that sort of stuff.
Why does evil appeal to people?


Claire Evans wrote:
So we see that Jesus was tempted by the devil. Led us from temptation means asking the Lord to help us not give in to it.
OnceConvinced wrote:That is what I have been trying to tell you. It’s about helping you not give into your harmful desires. That’s all it’s talking about. Harmful desires that come from your OWN brain as a result of your OWN urges.
It says that Jesus was tempted by the devil, not Himself.



Claire Evans wrote: Things are going to change soon.
OnceConvinced wrote:That’s what Paul said 2000 years ago. In fact he believed the end was eminent. Christians have been crying wolf like you are for the last 2000 years.

So you think it is not likely that WW3 will break out? Don't you know that everything changes because of war. And the ways to ruin the world are endless. The crash of the world economy will change everything. Those were not the circumstances when Paul was around.
Claire Evans wrote: Christians aren't beheading gays.
OnceConvinced wrote:No, but they are certainly persecuting them. I’ve seen it all my life. I was guilty of it too as a Christian. As an ex-Christian, I no longer persecute gays. I accept them for who they are, even though I may find the things they do repellent.
That's a great attitude to have. However, I'm talking about people being persecuted for their religious beliefs. And Christians themselves are being persecuted because of their beliefs even in America.

Claire Evans wrote:
Claire Evans wrote:
Satan doesn't always do blatant attacks. He attacked your faith and succeeded. You are now a non believer.
OnceConvinced wrote:Satan did no such thing. What caused my faith to die was seeing a lack of truth in Christianity and a lack of God.

Besides the bible promises that can never happen:
Rom. 8:38
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul is referring to those who have experienced the Holy Spirit.
OnceConvinced wrote:Which the bible promises everyone will who repents.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I did both. I believed I had the holy spirit and experience it regularly.

So the bible's own words show us that it's impossible for Satan to draw us away, so myself as a Christian who repented and was baptised can't possibly have been lured away from the faith by Satan. This would be absolutely impossible. Thus it could only have been as a result of own reasoning and beliefs that saw me become an ex-Christian. Satan could not have possibly had anything to do with it. The bible backs me up on that.
We've been through this but I say if one truly knows the Spirit, it is impossible to became a disbeliever. You cannot abandon the Spirit Who loves us.

Why are you using the Bible to back you up when you don't believe what Paul says is true?

Satan is always trying to lure people away by deceiving. He goes, "Look how illogical that is! Where is God now? It's all His fault!"

The mistake people make is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Claire Evans wrote:
I am not terrified by Satan but I do sometimes get intimidated by what he does but God always corrects that.
OnceConvinced wrote:Intimidation is a form of fear.

Meaning of intimidate:
to frighten or threaten someone, usually in order to persuade them to do something that you want them to do:
Terrified as in being in a perpetual state of fear. There are intimidating moments but they do pass. One can't say that Jesus wasn't never intimidated. It is just that the Lord helps everyone to overcome that intimidation.

Claire Evans wrote:
Did not Jesus feel fear in the Garden of Gethsemane? Yet Jesus gave Him the strength to overcome it.
OnceConvinced wrote:Like I told you, that was not fear of Satan. That was fear of the suffering he was going to have to go through at the hands of his accusers.
Trust me, anything but spiritual hell is preferable.


Claire Evans wrote:
Of course it is perturbing at first. It's not something that happens everyday!
OnceConvinced wrote:For me things often disappear and reappear in weird places. I don’t put it down to Satan. I find it extremely frustrating and perplexing some times. Sometimes I will even drop something and go looking where I dropped it, but it’s not there. And then it turns up further away in a place I thought it was impossible it could have ever reached. But I don’t put that down to anything supernatural either. Sometimes your brain doesn’t always register correctly what has happened.

That incident where I accidentally punched my own bedroom window is a classic example. All my brain registered was a sound something like a clink. I thought I’d only lightly touched the window. However I had completely shattered it and it had disturbed the next door neighbour. I’d completely shattered the window and there was blood streaming down my hand, yet all my brain registered was a small clink sound.

The brain does some weird things. It can deceive us. TV shows like “Brain Games� explain a lot of that stuff. It’s really an enlightening documentary show if you ever get a chance to see it. It even gets you to do tests that you can try out for yourself, thus proving just how easily the human brain can be tricked and manipulated without the need for supernatural beings.
Of course not every incident is supernatural. We can be forgetful but there can be some strange incidences.

There are instances of teleportation. I came across this story yesterday. It was about man who was sedated because he had just had a stomach operation. He's family said he couldn't work. The nurse went out the room to get some fresh linen and when she came back after about 5 minutes, he was gone. Now remember that this guy was heavily sedated. They couldn't find him for 13 days. Eventually he was found above the ceiling in a very difficult to access place. The ceiling was not broken to access it. It is impossible. No one can explain it. The only conclusion the family of the man has come to is that foul play must have been involved. That is extremely improbable. It would entail someone coming into the room and dragging the sedated man out of the room and finding the access to the roof of the ward and placing the body there. It would take more than one person.

I think this is a case of teleportation.

https://www.medicalbrief.co.za/archives ... l-ceiling/


Claire Evans wrote:
Claire Evans wrote: I don't fear the devil but sometimes what he does can shock me.
OnceConvinced wrote:You seemed to be describing things as if they freaked you out and scared you. What about the night terrors?
What about the night terrors?
OnceConvinced wrote:By definition alone you were suffering terror. Fear.

So you can’t possibly say that you don’t fear the devil. You suffered night terrors and put them down to the devil.
At the time I did fear the devil! When my uncle, a priest, blessed my room, there was a lull and then it came back worse than ever.



Claire Evans wrote:
Claire Evans wrote: How could I have a relationship with God if I lived in fear of the devil?
OnceConvinced wrote:I very much doubt you have a relationship with God.

Now if you don’t fear the devil, then why do you make such a big deal of him? If you were not afraid of the devil, you would not be promoting him as this big scary godlike being.

Because he is powerful!
OnceConvinced wrote:How can a being that will flee if you resist him be considered powerful?
You can only resist him with the help of God and that can takes time. Exorcisms can take years.



Claire Evans wrote: Why do you think there is evil that is unfathomable?
OnceConvinced wrote:The worst evil out there is a result of these possibilities or a combination of them:
- Lack of empathy
- Lack of compassion
- Mental aberrations
- Mental illnesses
- Selfishness
- Ego

Speak to a psychologist and they will be able to explain better than I how you can get people who appear to be so evil. There is simply no need to conjure up evil entities to explain that stuff.
That isn't the worse. I was expecting you to mention child sex trafficking as an example. This act committed is not due to the factors you listed above. So can you give me examples of the worst things that can be committed?


Claire Evans wrote:

There are always other ways. Those bird killing every day have stopped since I felt the joy of rescuing of the last bird. It goes to show that joy trumps intimidation. Once the fear factor is gone, the tactic Satan uses is useless.
OnceConvinced wrote:And yet you’re still talking about Satan. So I guess we can now do away with the idea that Satan attempts to do things to scare you whenever you talk about him?


He will always try again. He will just use another tactic. It's a constant battle with the devil.

My cat still brought in a bird but it wasn't subsequent to me writing about him. That form of intimidation seems to have gone.

Claire Evans wrote:

There's a difference between being human who can have weak moments and living in perpetual fear of the devil. However, when I had my night terrors, I was terrified of the devil.
OnceConvinced wrote:So how could you consider yourself a true Christian back then?
Yes, I did love Him as I do today but we have to go through hardship to draw nearer to God. If I didn't have the experience of fearing Satan, how could I have appreciated God delivering me from that fear?

Claire Evans wrote:
Now that they are over, it has proven that God triumphs over Satan always in the lives of those who love Him.
OnceConvinced wrote:That is not what it shows me. Did you under go any medical or psychiatric treatment? Or did you simply condition your mind to overcome them?
I did go to a psychiatrist. He says it was not the devil, of course! The medication I got put me to sleep instantly. I was frightened when I was falling asleep so going to sleep instantly broke the cycle of fear. I will always be grateful for that.
OnceConvinced wrote:I can talk about my own life and like anyone I had nightmares. However about 15 or so years ago I conditioned my mind to recognise nightmares. Dreams of creatures or people chasing me are quickly dealt with by yelling at myself in the dream to wake up. The occasional nightmare I have I am usually able to recognise as being a dream now, at least when it involves extremely frightening things.

The human mind is an amazing thing. We can teach it to overcome certain difficulties. We don’t need any god to help us with that.
I sense you are a bit sensitive to the supernatural.


Claire Evans wrote:
I think you have a limited understanding of evil.
OnceConvinced wrote:I think it’s you that has that limited understanding. You clearly know little about how the brain works. You are basing your understanding on ancient religious literature from people who knew little about the brain. They were people who believed that deep emotions and deep thought came from the heart. :shock: Why would we take anything they say seriously when it comes to how the brain works or how evil thoughts eventuate?

Please do some research on how the human brain works. Please talk to a psychologist or read something about psychology.
People practice black magic for a reason and that is to get power from supernatural entities. Yet they have to commit atrocious things to get this power. This is nothing to do with how the brain works.

Claire Evans wrote: How did human nature get corrupted in the first place?
OnceConvinced wrote:It is what it is. Evolution has determined what it is. Just like animals we all have urges and some of those are harmful. We as humans are learning to control those urges.

Just because human nature may be bad doesn’t mean it was ever actually corrupted, at least not by some outside intelligence.
Do you know how evolution determined what it is? How is committing evil beneficial for natural selection?


Claire Evans wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote:If the devil doesn’t exist, then there is definitely no need to resist him. But if we are going by the hypothetical scenario that there is a devil (as the bible describes), then all one has to do is resist him and he will flee. Don’t you believe the bible when it says “resist the devil and he will flee�?


But to resist the devil in the first place means he makes himself known to people. You can't resist Satan if he isn't present.
OnceConvinced wrote:Well yes, we must be aware of him first before we can resist him. That doesn't mean he's going around trying to manipulate everyone on the planet. The point is that he's extremely weak and scared. Resist him and he flees! That's not the attributes of a powerful entity. If all you have to do is tell him to rack off, he'll scarper with his tail between his legs, like a scared little kitty cat.
Resisting him is not easy. Why else do you believe people relapse and go back to sin? In the wilderness story when the devil was getting nowhere, he left Jesus alone. Yet he always came back to tempt Jesus some more. It is an ongoing process.

Claire Evans wrote:
How did we get that ugly human nature if God created people perfectly?
OnceConvinced wrote:I don’t believe that we were created by any god, but ok, let’s take your hypothetical scenario that there is a god and he created people. It can’t be a perfect creation if that creation can become corrupted. The word “perfect� by definition means it would be incorruptible. The fact that it can become corrupted in the first place means it wasn’t perfect. If it could become corrupted, then there must have been fatal flaws there when it was created.

However, when it comes to evolution, we don’t need any super being coming along and corrupting things. Corruption will take place naturally over thousands and thousands of years. We see this evolution all the time even now when a child adopts negative genes that their parents have… when a child has similar urges to their parents.

Actually a perfect creation can be corrupted but not because there was a flaw in the design. Ancient texts said that human genes were spliced to have genes to be like the aliens who manipulated their genes. Splicing of genes happen today. And the text say that there were some disastrous results from the experiments. That is how I believe we get deformities today.

Claire Evans wrote:
As I said, it was Yahweh, not the Father.
OnceConvinced wrote:Which is your opinion. Most Christians agree that Yahweh IS the father.
Appealing to the masses? Even if the truth is in the minority, it still makes it the truth.

Claire Evans wrote:
I am an Anglican, not Catholic.
OnceConvinced wrote:Ah ok. Perhaps you might want to amend your earlier statement and say that it’s the Anglican church who is reluctant to teach about Satan. I have never been in any churches that were reluctant to teach about Satan.
What do these churches teach about Satan?
Claire Evans wrote: Perhaps Satan corrupted their nature, too.
OnceConvinced wrote:Ok, check, so Satan is tempting all the animal in the world too, including insects, bacteria and viruses. It's Satan manipulating cats to tear apart birds. It's Satan manipulating female praying mantises to bite the heads off their partners. It's Satan that's manipulating animals to rape each other. It's Satan that's manipulating viruses to cause great suffering to humans and animals alike.

He’s a very busy guy, isn’t he?
It's not temptation. It's a corruption of the way nature works. Did God intend for death to come into the world? Did God make viruses and bacteria which harm? Did He make the flea? Absolutely not. There is a negative form that is creating bad things and corrupting what God has already made.
Claire Evans wrote:
I mean, did God intend chimps to murder each other and enjoy it?
OnceConvinced wrote:Evolution made chimps the way they are. It is instinct to kill.

Chimps also show great compassion too. A few years back I watched a documentary on TV where a tribe of chimps had turned on one and were all ganging up on him beating him down. Then the alpha male stepped in, broke it up and led the chimp away and let him escape.

Evolution needs no evil being to attempt to lead everything to evil. It makes more sense to believe in evolution than some evil super being whose mission is to corrupt everything and turn it evil.
For the sake of the argument, just believe God is the creator. Why would He make a chimp enjoy killing?


Claire Evans wrote:
Claire Evans wrote: I was writing about Jesus but it is people talking about Satan that angers him the most.
OnceConvinced wrote:Why would Satan be angry about being talked about? I’d think that such a proud being would love to be talked about.

No, because exposing the enemy's tactics blows their cover. The more intelligence you have in war, the more powerful you are against your enemy.
OnceConvinced wrote:But the bible preaches that Satan is proud. His pride would always get in the way.
Really? His pride hasn't exactly opened up all the eyes in the world! Even Christians get deceived by the devil. Pride doesn't mean carelessness.

OnceConvinced wrote:Anyway, If I were Satan I’d be misleading people making them think I was doing certain evil things when I wasn’t. I'd be making out I'm way more powerful than I actually am.
Why would he actually draw attention to himself? People would be on guard against him. He actually wants Christians to believe he is weak so that they don't take him that seriously.
OnceConvinced wrote:The fact that you think Satan is more powerful than what he actually is, and are promoting him as such, must have Satan cackling away with glee.
No. If one takes note that an evil being is powerful, people would be more aware. It would make people think. It would also make people stop blaming God for every evil that is committed. They will stop believing He is a God who won't stop suffering. Satan likes a the blame to be put on God's shoulders.

Post Reply