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 168 by JehovahsWitness]

Ok, here is the thing about not being able to see or feel things... HOW DO WE KNOW they exist?

Well, in my opinion, if you cannot see or feel something you are left with using your intelligent assessment of what is around to come to a reasonable conclusion. My analysis of the world around me (which I can see) is what I have used to come to conclusions about what I believe cannot be seen.

Ok, first of all, you say that you are feeling something.. you said, I think, that you "feel" the holy spirit. I don't know what it is you're feeling, exactly, but you I think you said that... you feel something.

Secondly, if I am not mistaken, you said that you DON'T directly feel God at all... But that you have reasoned it out. You have arrived at the conclusion "God exists" using good, sound reasoning.

I love that kind of stuff... if your reasoning IS sound, then I should be able to agree that:

1. Your premises are true.

and that

2. The conclusion follows logically from those premises without gaps or errors.

Id LOVE to know what that reasoning is.. from something that you CAN see to something that you cannot... what a leap. And you fill that gap with some reasoning?

Fascinating.

I THINK that's where you and I will start to have problems. I think youre going to have a whale of a time proving that your premises are true... and I will have trouble just ACCEPTING them as true.

Back to the rock for a sec:

I think we can both agree on the premise that rocks exist.
We cannot both agree on the premise that God does. So, we have to start somewhere else to get to the conclusion that "God exists".

And as far as I can tell, all of those standard apologetic arguments fail.

And you made a bit of a mistake by saying that you can't FEEL God and then you can FEEL this spirit you call God. ( his holy spirit - active force ). In my mind, you can feel it or you can't feel it, but you can't have it BOTH WAYS.

I said humans cannot see God or feel God himself (his body) the person.

I said humans can feel (the effects) of his holy spirit (not the same thing as God)

JW

I'm easily confused.

You say that you cannot FEEL God, but you can feel God's EFFECTS. ( or perhaps, how I described it as feelings about the idea of God ) .

To me, that saying the same thing in two different ways:

Take the rock again for example:

It's like you're saying that we humans can't FEEL the rock, but only the effect the rock makes on our senses. That's pretty much what we MEAN by "feeling" something"... we feel EFFECTS. We see effects. If something is said to exist, it has SOME kind of an effect on something.

To me, saying we feel the effects of a rock is the same as saying we feel the rock, but not in so many words.

Same with your god. You say you feel the EFFECTS that god has.. yeah.. that's what we feel.. we feel "effects".

So..... what's the "effect" that you "feel" when it comes to God?

1. None at all?
2. Indirect, as in the holy spirit but not God itself?
3. Feelings about the idea of God?

[JehovahsWitness]

But now God isn't real in the same way that a rock is real?

I didn''t say he was. I said I believe God is real in every sense of THE WORD

The normal definition of the word "real":

"Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: Julius Caesar was a real person her many illnesses, real and imaginary"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/real

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Ok, first of all, you say that you are feeling something.. you said, I think, that you "feel" the holy spirit. [...]

Yes, that is correct. It is possible to feel the effects of holy spirit.

JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 172 by JehovahsWitness]

I didn''t say he was. I said I believe God is real in every sense of THE WORD

Yes, a rock is real in every sense of the word.
However, God doesn't exist in every sense of the word, he doesn't exist in the same way that a rock does. So no, God is not real in every sense of the word. His 'realness' is different to that of the rock.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 174 by rikuoamero]

Yes, that's true. I believe A rock really exists as a physical entity and that God really exists as a spiritual one.

JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 174 by rikuoamero]

Yes, that's true. I believe A rock really exists as a physical entity and that God really exists as a spiritual one.

JW

So then will you retract your earlier claim? God isn't real in every sense of the word, since he doesn't exist in the same sense as a rock?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 176 by rikuoamero]

No.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 177 by JehovahsWitness]

I feel like we're chasing tails here. So God IS real in every sense of the word, in the same sense as a rock?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 170 by catnip]

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.

Mostly, we Christians have no particular diet unless we are practicing self-denial and that can be specific and assigned to whatever we choose, such as not eating meat.

The body isn't a bad thing. It just is. It is a benign thing and can be used either for good or ill. In scripture it is the Temple of God or the pot created by the potter. In either case, it is a container and it is corruptible (it rots without preservation after death)--it isn't the essential me.

I hear they think that beer may offset breast cancer . . . well, seriously, what does a beer or two or three do that is harmful to us? It is only a danger when overindulged in.

Ok, then... so why RISE ABOVE the bodily temptations?
Where should we aspire to RISE TO?

Why did you even mention it in the first place?
Is the Bible just telling us to not ingest things that are BAD FOR US?

Mommy pretty much told me all there was to know about that when I was a TODDLER. No Bible involved, either, even THOUGH she was extremely devout.

Is preferring good things over bad things considered "spiritual wisdom"?

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 )

I was just pointing out the historical reason it is not only not forbidden, it is part of our celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out.

I don't CARE what ancient people thought about spirits. I like em and drink em as I see fit. ( I live in a free kind of society )

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?

You appear to have a very Fundamentalist view of Christianity.

Atheists sure get that comment a lot in these forums. LOOK.. I don't have any real "VIEW" of Christianity... there are THOUSANDS of kinds of Christianities out there... maybe millions.. who knows?

I can't keep up.

When I discuss religious beliefs of ANY KIND with a believer of ANY KIND... not just Christians, it ALWAYS has to start off by trying to figure out just what it IS they believe. I generalize. If you want to talk about your own SPECIFIC brand of belief, go for it. Explain your beliefs, and the we will deal with THOSE.

I don't have a "set" idea about what Christianity is. But there ARE fundamentalist Christians. They're the kinds that generally cause all the problems.

So, that "appearance" is just wrong.

You tell ME what you believe.
End of story. It doesn't matter what I think you believe, if I got it wrong.

JLB and I both come from older traditions (Churches). Having a beer or a glass of wine is thought to be quite normal. Historically, the first Baptists were recruiting from among the most poor, the meaner levels of society and I think battling alcoholism and teaching a "sober" life was instrumental to them. It isn't entirely bad, it just isn't the view held by the majority of Christians in this world.

I'm responding to what YOU wrote. You said that spirituality was about rising above the body needs. I think that's weird, so I asked you what the heck that MEANS, and why it's such a good idea. I think it's a pretty TERRIBLE idea.

If that's spirituality, it's pretty INHUMANE.

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 "

It is knowing why we do the things we do and eliminating the actions that cause ourselves or others harm. Drinking a beer or two or three harms no one.

So, a SIN, according to you, is something that causes HARM?

Then the word "sin" is just another word for "immoral act", which is a purely secular term. Why put in all the religious baggage? ... I don't see how it HELPS anything to call it that. It seems like religious appropriation of quite normal rules of civility. Nothing at ALL to do with gods.

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.

It just generally comes down to self-control and not using the body as an excuse.

Not using the body as an excuse for........ WHAT precisely?
So, the big deal about spirituality is that it's about SELF-CONTROL?

By that standard, this atheist is VERY spiritual. I don't think that's what you mean. Again.. redundant, and I would say superstitious word for a very SIMPLE concept.

Consider gluttony--going to excess on creature comforts--that is a sin because it will deprive others of what they need. "All things in moderation."

Yeah.. same deal. The way you explain "sin", it seems to mean "Doing something wrong".

I have to tell you that this "wisdom"... seems something from BELOW grade school level. Were people THAT dumb back in the day?

Too bad humanity ( especially ATHEISTS ) are too stupid to notice that doing something wrong isn't as good as doing something good, and they need a GOD to tell em that.

( I wonder how atheists can even SURVIVE if they keep sinning? )

We need not be comfortless or self-deprecating. We can take things so far that they become sin in themselves.

So, by your definition, sin seems to mean "excess".

Did we need a God to explain that to us?
Or just a mom?

As I said, being "holier that thou" can be a sin in itself. And yet trying to lead a holy life is a good thing.

BUT WHY is trying to lead a "holy life" a good thing?
Any idea?

As Jesus pointed out for those who are fasting to not go around with a dour face, looking like and announcing we are fasting, but to not show that we are fasting and make a big deal of it. No, I can't remember the exact quote! lol

Why is it a good thing for an immortal soul to stop eating for a while.... ?
For some reason, whatever Jesus said about medicine doesn't impress me very much. I will consult with my doctor, instead. He seems to know a bit more than Jesus ever bothered to explain about the subject.

I'm thinking of all of those bodily needs Jesus never talked about... like washing our hands after pooing. Germy hands must be spiritual.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 173 by JehovahsWitness]

Ok, first of all, you say that you are feeling something.. you said, I think, that you "feel" the holy spirit. [...]

Yes, that is correct. It is possible to feel the effects of holy spirit.

JW

Ok, that sounds like a truth claim.

"It is possible to feel the effects of the holy spirit. "

So, just to be clear, let my see if I got your position so far, please correct what I got wrong :

1. You can't feel God directly.
2. You can't feel the holy spirit directly, either ( I'm extrapolating here )
3. You can feel the EFFECTS of the holy spirit.

If all of that correctly represents what you are trying to explain to us, I need to ask you:

WHAT EFFECTS ARE YOU FEELING?

And then I have some more questions about how those feelings lead you to the experience of "God".. and what THAT is.