Another question about Satan

[Athetotheist]

Another poster recently commented:

The devil calls himself an "ATHEIST". Look closely!

He is actually calling himself "A THEIST". Crafty, huh? Isaiah 14:14 says he exalted himself about God & Heaven. He says does not believe but wants so desparately to be worshipped as God.

This raises another question about the existence of Satan in the Christian context.
If Satan wants to be worshipped, why would he promote atheism?

[historia]

I have to admit that I often have difficulty figuring out what positions you do hold.

In that scenario, I would recommend asking your interlocutor to further define his or her position, rather than asking a series of leading questions based on your own presuppositions.

The point I'm trying to make is that if the Bible is to be regarded as in any way special, then it has to occupy unambiguous ground on some level.

Why would that have be the case?

Consider an analogy: The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #11]

Consider an analogy: The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

The Constitution is considered a "living" document subject to change.

[historia]

[Replying to historia in post #11]

Consider an analogy: The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

The Constitution is considered a "living" document subject to change.

That is irrelevant to the analogy.

The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #13]

The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

Courts have to make a final ruling on what the Constitution means. Who makes the final ruling on what the Bible means?

[historia]

[Replying to historia in post #13]

The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

Courts have to make a final ruling on what the Constitution means.

Exactly! In any system -- religious, political, or otherwise -- we don't simply have texts -- no matter how special -- and just leave it up to each reader to decide what those texts mean.

Who makes the final ruling on what the Bible means?

From the Catechism (§ 100):

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #15]

The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

Courts have to make a final ruling on what the Constitution means.

Exactly! In any system -- religious, political, or otherwise -- we don't simply have texts -- no matter how special -- and just leave it up to each reader to decide what those texts mean.

Then even if "people interpret it differently", at some point it has to be unambiguous. Right?


Who makes the final ruling on what the Bible means?

From the Catechism (§ 100):
CCC wrote:

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Tell that to Martin Luther.

[historia]

[Replying to historia in post #15]

The Constitution is considered special within the American legal system. Is the Constitution unambiguous? Clearly not, as people interpret it differently. So, a text doesn't have to be unambiguous to be special, right?

Courts have to make a final ruling on what the Constitution means.

Exactly! In any system -- religious, political, or otherwise -- we don't simply have texts -- no matter how special -- and just leave it up to each reader to decide what those texts mean.

Then even if "people interpret it differently", at some point it has to be unambiguous. Right?

The text itself?

If a section of the Constitution is ambiguous, but the Court clarifies what it means through a ruling, that doesn't retroactively make the original text unambiguous. The text itself remains ambiguous. But the Court's interpretation is unambiguous, and that becomes the basis for applying the law.

Let's go back to your original question:

If the Bible can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for doctrine?

We could ask the same question about the Constitution: If the Constitution can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for the law?

The answer, of course, is that "the reader" doesn't decide what the law is. Your opinion and my opinion about what the Constitution means holds no authority. Only the Court has the authority to decide what the Constitution means and how it impacts the law.

The same is true of the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church when it comes to doctrine.

Who makes the final ruling on what the Bible means?

From the Catechism (§ 100):
CCC wrote:

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Tell that to Martin Luther.

He's dead.

Imagine someone takes the Constitution and goes and forms their own country, telling people the Constitution's meaning is clear and unambiguous and can be simply read and applied by everyone. And then the citizens of that new country disagree about its meaning, splintering and forming hundreds of new countries with different interpretations of the Constitution.

Does that say anything about the Constitution itself and its place within the American legal system? Or do all of those splintering countries with their various interpretations show that the Constitution was simply not intended to be used in that way?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #17]

If the Bible can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for doctrine?

We could ask the same question about the Constitution: If the Constitution can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for the law?

You're making my point.


Tell that to Martin Luther.

He's dead.

His ideas aren't.

Imagine someone takes the Constitution and goes and forms their own country, telling people the Constitution's meaning is clear and unambiguous and can be simply read and applied by everyone. And then the citizens of that new country disagree about its meaning, splintering and forming hundreds of new countries with different interpretations of the Constitution.

Does that say anything about the Constitution itself and its place within the American legal system? Or do all of those splintering countries with their various interpretations show that the Constitution was simply not intended to be used in that way?

Imagine someone takes the Bible and goes and forms their own denomination, telling people the Bible's meaning is clear and unambiguous and can be simply read and applied by everyone. And then the followers of that new denomination disagree about its meaning, splintering and forming hundreds of new denominations with different interpretations of the Bible.

Does that say anything about the Bible itself and its place within the Abrahamic religious system? Or do all of those splintering denominations with their various interpretations show that the Bible was simply not intended to be used in that way?

[historia]

Imagine someone takes the Constitution and goes and forms their own country, telling people the Constitution's meaning is clear and unambiguous and can be simply read and applied by everyone. And then the citizens of that new country disagree about its meaning, splintering and forming hundreds of new countries with different interpretations of the Constitution.

Does that say anything about the Constitution itself and its place within the American legal system? Or do all of those splintering countries with their various interpretations show that the Constitution was simply not intended to be used in that way?

Imagine someone takes the Bible and goes and forms their own denomination, telling people the Bible's meaning is clear and unambiguous and can be simply read and applied by everyone. And then the followers of that new denomination disagree about its meaning, splintering and forming hundreds of new denominations with different interpretations of the Bible.

Does that say anything about the Bible itself and its place within the Abrahamic religious system? Or do all of those splintering denominations with their various interpretations show that the Bible was simply not intended to be used in that way?

You've understood the analogy -- although we're talking about Christianity not the "Abrahamic religious system," as that is not a thing.

[Replying to historia in post #17]

If the Bible can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for doctrine?

We could ask the same question about the Constitution: If the Constitution can mean whatever the reader thinks it means, how is it profitable for the law?

You're making my point.

What is your point?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #19]

You've understood the analogy -- although we're talking about Christianity not the "Abrahamic religious system," as that is not a thing.

Jewish scripture is at the core of the Abrahamic religions. Even Muslims recognize "the people of the Book".


You're making my point.

What is your point?

The point that on some level, text has to be unambiguous in order to be "special" as opposed to just being preferred by a particular group.