Is Jesus Good? Is Satan Evil?

[Simon_Peter]

Here are some facts:

We as humans are imperfect
We have limited perception
We have limited knowledge

What I don’t know is this:

Is Satan, Evil?
Is Jesus, Good?

I need to understand the meaning of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’. So when I talk about Good and Evil, I understand what it is. Until I know these two things, I will not know if Jesus is Good, or if Satan is bad.

[McCulloch]

I believe many of the founding fathers were Christians though, am I correct?

That all depends on who you include in the list of founding fathers and how broad a definition of Christian you use.

John Adams: As a Unitarian, Adams flatly denied the doctrine of eternal punishment believing all would eventually enter heaven. (Many Unitarians reject the Trinity and most accept all religions as valid expressions of faith.) But being a good Unitarian, he was certainly open to the teachings of Christ.

Samuel Adams: Christian

Benjamin Franklin: a thorough Deist (his words)

Alexander Hamilton: Episcopalian

Patrick Henry: Christian

John Jay: Christian

Thomas Jefferson: a Deist who respected Christ's teachings but rejected His divinity, His miracles, and His resurrection.

George Washington
hard to pin down. during his presidency (1789-1797) and in his later life, Washington is not recorded referring to Jesus Christ and rarely to God. He preferred titles such as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion," "Almighty Being," "Providence" and "Grand Designer" (all terms from Deist beliefs).

[Washington] had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe: Deists

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summ ... cular.html

[Cathar1950]

I am getting in this thread a little late.

Why is it your god who gets to define good and evil and not one of the other gods?

If a person believes in another God, then they will believe what their god says.

And if they don't believe in a god at all...?

I consider myself a moral person. My guiding principle in life is to strive for a life lived in mindful awareness of the happiness and well being of all.

Any thoughts on where my morality might originate?

I am guessing the evolution of our species and those before us as social animals.
Reason helps as well as sympathetic relationships.
Most people end up loving because they were loved sometime and cared for by someone.
It is natural. I consider Bernee moral too.

Well, the OT is full of stories and history of people who just don't get it.. and keep on not doing behavior that is correct.

Even though I tend to think Goat and I see pretty much eye to eye on this subject the history was written and maintained by those that wanted “correct� behavior.
I also think that there is some releasing of cognitive dissonance going on in the story telling. Promises were made by prophets that failed to be realized and it seems it was always someone’s fault.
The prophets were always warning of trouble from the North Unless from Egypt that is where they had to come from to get their. Of course we can’t rule out the North as the abode of the gods. Eventually they quit listening to the prophets and they disappeared with the temple cult and the Davidic dynasty.
But their followers lived on and reworked the material always adjusting to new situations and reasons why pronouncement failed. It was usually the people of rulers of course that were at fault and plus the proclamations were usually vague enough to mean anything if you worked it right.

No, you most certainly have the Jewish faith totally wrong. There are many examples that show that animal sacrifice was not needed, nor even preferred.

See Hosea 14:3, and I Kings 8:46-50. Repentence and fasting is also accepted (see Jonah 3).

While there were some sins that was traditional, that wasn't the only way. Prayer, repentance, sacrifice of cereal were all accepted. Indeed, there are passages in what you call the Old Testament that say God does not want animal sacrifice.

An often overlook message especially among the easy Jesus crowd.
Even the idea of repentance is lost among many believers as well as an adequate concept of Evil.
Repentance was supposed to be about change in both mind and behaviors not just some feeling of being sorry.
Feelings seem to be an evolutionary gift that helps us make connections so we learn and stay interested.
Guilt is a feeling that is not so much for feeling bad about what you have done but to give feeling so you don’t do it again and feel guilty. It is preventive.
I highly recommend “Evil: inside human violence and cruelty� by Roy F. Baumeister.

[nygreenguy]

I believe many of the founding fathers were Christians though, am I correct?

That all depends on who you include in the list of founding fathers and how broad a definition of Christian you use.

John Adams: As a Unitarian, Adams flatly denied the doctrine of eternal punishment believing all would eventually enter heaven. (Many Unitarians reject the Trinity and most accept all religions as valid expressions of faith.) But being a good Unitarian, he was certainly open to the teachings of Christ.

Samuel Adams: Christian

Benjamin Franklin: a thorough Deist (his words)

Alexander Hamilton: Episcopalian

Patrick Henry: Christian

John Jay: Christian

Thomas Jefferson: a Deist who respected Christ's teachings but rejected His divinity, His miracles, and His resurrection.

George Washington
hard to pin down. during his presidency (1789-1797) and in his later life, Washington is not recorded referring to Jesus Christ and rarely to God. He preferred titles such as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion," "Almighty Being," "Providence" and "Grand Designer" (all terms from Deist beliefs).

[Washington] had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe: Deists

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summ ... cular.html

Why does everyone ignore Tom Paine? He named this country!

Diest, borderline atheist

[McCulloch]

Why does everyone ignore Tom Paine? He named this country!

Sorry. I missed Tom Paine. But I have to disagree about the name thing. Strictly speaking, your country does not have a name. United is not a name, it is an adjective. States is a plural noun, not a name. America is a name, but it is not the name of your country, it is the name of two continents and the bit in between. Up to the American Civil war, the common usage was to treat the expression United States of America grammatically correctly as a plural. As in, "The United States of America are going to elect a new president" not "The United States of America is going to elect a new president."

[nygreenguy]

Why does everyone ignore Tom Paine? He named this country!

Sorry. I missed Tom Paine. But I have to disagree about the name thing. Strictly speaking, your country does not have a name. United is not a name, it is an adjective. States is a plural noun, not a name. America is a name, but it is not the name of your country, it is the name of two continents and the bit in between. Up to the American Civil war, the common usage was to treat the expression United States of America grammatically correctly as a plural. As in, "The United States of America are going to elect a new president" not "The United States of America is going to elect a new president."

Thats like saying Great Britan doesnt really have a name because great is an adjective. Same with South Africa. Its South, and its really not africa.

To suggest that because there is an adjective in the name disqualifies it as a name a ludicrous position altogether.

A name is simply something by which something is known. If I was named Round, it would still be my name even though its an adjective. Sure, it was originally a descriptive term, but because of common use, it became our name.

[McCulloch]

Thats like saying Great Britan doesnt really have a name because great is an adjective. Same with South Africa. Its South, and its really not africa.

To suggest that because there is an adjective in the name disqualifies it as a name a ludicrous position altogether.

A name is simply something by which something is known. If I was named Round, it would still be my name even though its an adjective. Sure, it was originally a descriptive term, but because of common use, it became our name.

Britain is a name. Great Britain is the name given to differentiate it from Brittany, once known as lesser Britain. You are correct, however, the Republic of South Africa also seems to lack a name. However, according to my atlas, it does occupy the southern extremity of the continent of Africa. It is not that there is an adjective in the phrase that, in my mind disqualifies it from being a name, but that there is no part of the name which is in any way uniquely refers to the entity that it presumes to name. How many other states are there in America (North, Central and South)? Have not some of them united in various ways?

I will grant that you might be named Round, and then Round would be a name. But what if you were to try to go by the name, The New York Botanist? Would that really fly as a name?

[nygreenguy]

Britain is a name. Great Britain is the name given to differentiate it from Brittany, once known as lesser Britain. You are correct, however, the Republic of South Africa also seems to lack a name. However, according to my atlas, it does occupy the southern extremity of the continent of Africa. It is not that there is an adjective in the phrase that, in my mind disqualifies it from being a name, but that there is no part of the name which is in any way uniquely refers to the entity that it presumes to name. How many other states are there in America (North, Central and South)? Have not some of them united in various ways?

MY name is James and it hardly uniquely refers to me!

But since there is not OTHER United States of America, and when that is said the meaning is clearly understood, it is the name of our country. A name is simply a label to which something is recognized!

I will grant that you might be named Round, and then Round would be a name. But what if you were to try to go by the name, The New York Botanist? Would that really fly as a name?

I wish!

[InHocSignoVinces]

Jesus' ethical teachings were hundreds of years ahead of his time. However, is Satan evil because he fights against God? Because he led a heavenly host against God? If God is all- powerful, how did the evil arise in Satan's heart?