Theistic Satanism (Age Of Aquarius) Discussion (Continued)

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

^ Yes, and the best explanation will have to involve the fact that the myth of Lucifer / Satan is completely deconstructable and evidently is the product of gradual mythological evolution gaining in complexity over time from initial vague simplicity.

 

That has to be considered first and foremost when approaching anything that has to do with a Satanic claim. The simplest or best explanation can never be concluding on a literal Satan which is an evident literary construct, astro-mythological allegory mixed together with a metaphorical reference for certain tendencies in the human psyche, at best.

Sure you can believe that, but it is not a logical position to hold.

You made an assertion...but you didn't back it up with any actual facts. So, point out how that is not a logical statement if you disagree. Otherwise it's just, blah, blah, blah...

Because a subjective literature analysis is orthogonal to the evidence for the existence of an actual entity. The analysis he refers to is armchair opinion.

 

If you know anything about the ancient Hebrews and other contemporary mythologies as well, the development of the satan figure is an obvious progression from a concept to an anthropomorphic figure. It is firmly based in Zoroastrianism (Persian - which the Hebrews were deeply exposed to - has an 'adversary' - Angra Mainyu) to begin with, and then takes on the characteristics of various pagan gods throughout the ages until we have the figure that today is known as the devil. Even the 'horns' of the devil come from the Roman god Pan (as well as the cloven feet) and Cerunnos from celtic mythology. etc... etc...

 

Th gods of yesterday become the demons of today.

 

The theme of destructive spirits is common through out cultures and stretches back far before zoroastrianism. How is it the pagans found out about angra mainyu. A far better explanations is that there truly is an entity that has deceived humanity for as long as humanity has been spiritual.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

^ Yes, and the best explanation will have to involve the fact that the myth of Lucifer / Satan is completely deconstructable and evidently is the product of gradual mythological evolution gaining in complexity over time from initial vague simplicity.

 

That has to be considered first and foremost when approaching anything that has to do with a Satanic claim. The simplest or best explanation can never be concluding on a literal Satan which is an evident literary construct, astro-mythological allegory mixed together with a metaphorical reference for certain tendencies in the human psyche, at best.

Sure you can believe that, but it is not a logical position to hold.

Excuse me?

 

That's precisely the most logical way of approaching it. It is an established fact that Satan is a concept that didn't appear in full form. It took time to develop. That's not the ear marks of something that started out literal, historical, and full established at the outset.

Actually, a gradual realization of who and what satan is makes sense given he is a an actual deceiving spirit. I fail to see how your point is pertinent.

 

[mymistake]

The theme of destructive spirits is common through out cultures and stretches back far before zoroastrianism. How is it the pagans found out about angra mainyu. A far better explanations is that there truly is an entity that has deceived humanity for as along as humanity has been spiritual.

 

How can you be smart enough to operate a computer?  You just proved that ghosts are real!  Do you even realize that you have failed?  Can you comprehend that mangnitude of your failure?

[OrdinaryClay]

"So your friend admitted she needed a god concept. Most people try and

deny it so that is refreshing. So we have people who 1) talk to the

spirits as if they were sentient, 2) experience events that are not

explainable given science. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a

duck it's probably a duck. I think these people are deceiving

themselves."

 

No.. she did NOT admit she needed a 'god' concept. She admitted it was easier to conceptualize things like feminine and masculine aspects of nature by seeing it as HUMAN, not a god (or goddess). She's not asking those concepts (abstractions) for favors.. sheesh.

Nature does not have feminine and masculine aspects unless you assume it is sentient, which is my point.

 

Favors are indeed asked for by many in the pagan community.

 

There is no experiencing unexplainable events either...where did that come from?  You are placing your own view and interpretation in here.. not hers. (or mine, and I was a pagan for quite a while - still am on some level)

 

Greek mythology is the root (expression) of archetypes. (archetypes are based on human psychology, hence Jung)

As I said ... you have to ask yourself what the origins of these proposed "archetypes" are. What do you think their origins are? Greek mythology does not explain the universality jungians claim.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

As for this rain man situation with the demonic possession, I honestly have no idea what caused that, if it's not actually just some big hoax. From what I had read about Don Decker, maybe an evil spirit could have been involved. Could it have been something other than a demon? I don't know and you really don't know. Neither of us could possibly know what caused this. Unfortunately, some people just can't settle with "I don't know" and they go with whatever explanation they want for it.

 

Why the pages of a Bible used to fight off whatever this thing was did not get wet, according to the source I found, I don't know why. The fact that reading the Bible caused whatever was possessing Don to disappear is something I also do not know how to explain. However, I could try to explain another, unconsidered possibility, with a little humor.

 

Now, the spirit that did the possessing could have just left because it got annoyed by the Bible being read to it. Or it could have just gotten bored with Don at about the same time the Bible reading took place, so the Bible may have had nothing to do with it.

 

Also, I've brought up this point with Christians many times. Based on what the Bible says about god, I have brought up that he must either be: A) a man-made invention, B ), a demon that pretends to be a god, or C) the universe really has been created by a psychotic monster. So, the different personality traits attributed to the Bible god could have been given to him by both people making stuff up and possibly, if supernatural beings do exist, a demon could have screwed around with the heads of people for most of the Earth's history, easily gaining the traits that would warrant my description of "psychotic monster" when describing the Bible god Yahweh.

 

As far as the Bible pages not getting wet, there is a possibility that this demon screwing around with the heads of the ancient Hebrews could have been screwing around with Don and then at the same time, making it look like the Bible had some kind of supernatural power, that it really did not have, to screw around with the minds of gullible people who did not require scientific explanations for everything. I could easily imagine a demon doing so. If that was what happened, then it means that there really is a demon that did pretend to be Yahweh to screw around with people, just for laughs or for sadistic entertainment.

 

Your alternate explanations are ad hoc. Similar to someone claiming that the reason fossils exist is because God created them in situ 6 thousand years ago. Possible, but I prefer to the go with the evidence.

 

 

>> 

I honestly have no idea what causes supernatural events, assuming that they actually do.

 

Based on what I know of the Bible, I actually do not consider what it says about God and devils to be the best explanation for supernatural events.

 

Clearly, once you study the phenomenon of possession the Bible is not the only source of information. The entities themselves confirm that Christ is Lord of all.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible god is a perfect, loving deity. In fact, within the Bible, there is far more evidence that the Bible god is really a narcissist, invented by equally narcissistic people. If demons do exist, there is a possibility that one could have posed as Yahweh at one point or another, to screw with the minds of ancient people. I'm going with the evidence, or lack of, and saying that my alternate explanations are equally as plausible as your explanation. The fact is, if there is such a thing as the supernatural, neither you nor I have the ability to fully understand and comprehend the supernatural, so in reality, we have no way of completely confirming any of the explanations. We would be left with needing to make up stuff, to explain what we could not possibly explain or understand.

 

Also, I know there are sources about demons other than the Bible. If demons, or entities that seem like demons exist, they in no way prove that the Christian Messiah is Lord of all.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible god is a perfect, loving deity. In fact, within the Bible, there is far more evidence that the Bible god is really a narcissist, invented by equally narcissistic people.

 

You have obvioulsy convinced yourself of this, but it is not true. There is indeed very good evidence God exists and that He is who He says He is. The theological problem of evil has many good solutions.

 

If demons do exist, there is a possibility that one could have posed as Yahweh at one point or another, to screw with the minds of ancient people.

 

Your explnation is still ad hoc regardless of your lack of belief in God.

 

I'm going with the evidence, or lack of, and saying that my alternate explanations are equally as plausible as your explanation. The fact is, if there is such a thing as the supernatural, neither you nor I have the ability to fully understand and comprehend the supernatural, so in reality, we have no way of completely confirming any of the explanations. We would be left with needing to make up stuff, to explain what we could not possibly explain or understand.

 

We don't need to to fully understand the supernatrual in order to know it exists and understand many of it's characteristics. I don't fully understand gravity, but I know not to jump from tall buildings.

 

 

Also, I know there are sources about demons other than the Bible. If demons, or entities that seem like demons exist, they in no way prove that the Christian Messiah is Lord of all.

It's the bahvior of the demons outside the Bile that I'm refering to.

[JadedAtheist]

 

There is indeed very good evidence God exists

Without quoting the Bible (or using it in of itself as evidence) and using solely reason and intellect, show me this 'good evidence'.I'm sure you of course have plenty of scientific papers at your disposal that prove that some kind of deity exists, and further evidence to prove that it's the Christian God.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible god is a perfect, loving deity. In fact, within the Bible, there is far more evidence that the Bible god is really a narcissist, invented by equally narcissistic people.

 

You have obvioulsy convinced yourself of this, but it is not true. There is indeed very good evidence God exists and that He is who He says He is. The theological problem of evil has many good solutions.

 

I am convinced of this, because it is true. The Bible presents a monster of a god and the authors of the many books within it have claimed that this monster is a perfect god. If the Bible god is perfect, then the only trait that makes him perfect would be all of the power he is supposed to have right? I guess might makes right, but only for the one that has the most might. There is no good evidence that the Bible god is the creator of everything, much less a perfect, loving deity.

 

I also don't think that the Christian theology has a good solution to the problem of evil. In fact, the "solution", as described in the Bible, is extreme punishments, which are far more severe than the evil actions of any created being.

 

 

 

If

demons do exist, there is a possibility that one could have posed as

Yahweh at one point or another, to screw with the minds of ancient

people.

 

Your explnation is still ad hoc regardless of your lack of belief in God.

 

Maybe so. But the alternate explanations and your explanation are still equally plausible.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm

going with the evidence, or lack of, and saying that my alternate

explanations are equally as plausible as your explanation. The fact is,

if there is such a thing as the supernatural, neither you nor I have the

ability to fully understand and comprehend the supernatural, so in

reality, we have no way of completely confirming any of the

explanations. We would be left with needing to make up stuff, to explain

what we could not possibly explain or understand.

 

We

don't need to to fully understand the supernatrual in order to know it

exists and understand many of it's characteristics. I don't fully

understand gravity, but I know not to jump from tall buildings.

 

 

I agree that you don't need to fully understand it to believe it exists. If there really was enough evidence for the existence of demons, then of course people who have experienced them might know their characteristics, but they couldn't possibly know whether or not demons have posed as gods, specifically Yahweh.

 

 

 

 

 

Also,

I know there are sources about demons other than the Bible. If demons,

or entities that seem like demons exist, they in no way prove that the

Christian Messiah is Lord of all.

It's the bahvior of the demons outside the Bile that I'm refering to.

 

 

So the behavior of demons or demon-like entities is proof that the Christ of the Bible is really the Lord of everything? I doubt it.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

There is indeed very good evidence God exists

Without quoting the Bible (or using it in of itself as evidence) and using solely reason and intellect, show me this 'good evidence'.I'm sure you of course have plenty of scientific papers at your disposal that prove that some kind of deity exists, and further evidence to prove that it's the Christian God.

God is supernatural therefore by defintion you can not use emperical evidence.

 

To start with the evidence can be found here ...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-transcripts

[mymistake]

 

 

 

There is indeed very good evidence God exists

Without quoting the Bible (or using it in of itself as evidence) and using solely reason and intellect, show me this 'good evidence'.I'm sure you of course have plenty of scientific papers at your disposal that prove that some kind of deity exists, and further evidence to prove that it's the Christian God.

God is supernatural therefore by defintion you can not use emperical evidence.

 

To start with the evidence can be found here ...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-transcripts

 

 

So once again OC makes a total fool of himself. 

 

 

"There is indeed very good evidence God exists" . . . oh wait . . . no there isn't . . . "by defintion you can not use emperical evidence"

 

 

Good job refuting yourself OC! 

[JadedAtheist]

God is supernatural therefore by defintion you can not use emperical evidence.

 

 

To start with the evidence can be found here ...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-transcripts

I'm not supposed to be helping you, but here we go. If God is supernatural and he is not an impersonal God then that means he must have or continue to have interaction with humans. His interactions are supposed to give us some kind of evidence. If there is none, there is no personal God. Even a rationalist would agree to this. Also since you believe your faith to be reasonable and rational, give me your arguments in favor for it. Not someone else's. After all, you've looked at this issue with a great deal of intellectual thought so you must've developed your own sound reasons. Give them to me.

[OrdinaryClay]

crazyguy123, I can not quote you because the quoting funciton on this site is broken. But here is my repsonse to your last post.

 

Punishment is not a solution to the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil is the theological question asking why evil exists given an all loving God. A solution is called  a theodicy.
 

No, mine is not ad hoc.

Your resoning does not follow. Knowing characteristics can provide a basis for making inferences about whether demons and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where the same.

Yes, their behavior is evidence that the Christ of the Bible is really the Lord of all.
 

[Astreja]

OC, let Me say this a bit louder, because obviously you missed it the first time:

 

Your so-called "evidence" is not up to our standards.

 

Kindly ask your alleged god to manifest physically in My study at its earliest convenience.  No more middlemen!

[OrdinaryClay]

 

God is supernatural therefore by defintion you can not use emperical evidence.

 

 

To start with the evidence can be found here ...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-transcripts

I'm not supposed to be helping you, but here we go. If God is supernatural and he is not an impersonal God then that means he must have or continue to have interaction with humans. His interactions are supposed to give us some kind of evidence. If there is none, there is no personal God. Even a rationalist would agree to this. Also since you believe your faith to be reasonable and rational, give me your arguments in favor for it. Not someone else's. After all, you've looked at this issue with a great deal of intellectual thought so you must've developed your own sound reasons. Give them to me.

First, there is personal evidence. What I think you meant to say is that God does not perform tricks for you personally.

 

The evidence for God is a collection. I understand the arguments well so they are mine also.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

OC, let Me say this a bit louder, because obviously you missed it the first time:

 

Your so-called "evidence" is not up to our standards.

Why does that matter.

 

Kindly ask your alleged god to manifest physically in My study at its earliest convenience.  No more middlemen!

It seems He does not do tricks.

[mymistake]

crazyguy123, I can not quote you because the quoting funciton on this site is broken. But here is my repsonse to your last post.

 

Punishment is not a solution to the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil is the theological question asking why evil exists given an all loving God. A solution is called  a theodicy.

 

No, mine is not ad hoc.

 

Your resoning does not follow. Knowing characteristics can provide a basis for making inferences about whether demons and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where the same.

 

Yes, their behavior is evidence that the Christ of the Bible is really the Lord of all.

 

 

Don't you need to be stupid somewhere else?

[mymistake]

 

OC, let Me say this a bit louder, because obviously you missed it the first time:

 

Your so-called "evidence" is not up to our standards.

Why does that matter.

 

Do you do realize that according to your myth Satan is more intelligent and powerful than God?  What Satan did with one conversation God is unable to undo even with thousands of years to put together a plan and offering his own son as a blood offering.  God sucks.  Your myth says God desires that none should perish but Satan caused most humans to perish and God can't do a damn thing to stop it.  All God would need to do is provide the kind of evidence your myth says God use to provide all the time during the First Century and it would all be okay.  But that doesn't happen because we don't live in a fictional story.

 

Of course you don't realize . . . you are too busy accepting it without question.

 

 

Kindly ask your alleged god to manifest physically in My study at its earliest convenience.  No more middlemen!

It seems He does not do tricks.

 

Sure God does.  God only does one trick but he is the ultimate master at it.  What is the trick?  God pretends that He is imaginary.  His skill level is infinity!

[Astreja]

 

OC, let Me say this a bit louder, because obviously you missed it the first time:

 

Your so-called "evidence" is not up to our standards.

Why does that matter.

 

/>Kindly ask your alleged god to manifest physically in My study at its earliest convenience.  No more middlemen!

It seems He does not do tricks.

 

 

I must conclude, therefore, that I am infinitely more powerful than your alleged god.  I can force it to not show up in My study by insisting that it do show up.

 

Perhaps I should follow up by commanding your god, OC, to answer all your prayers and all the prayers of everyone you know and love, exactly as you pray them.   (And then I'll take credit for any that *do* happen to come true, of course.)

 

As to why the standard of evidence is important, just this:  If you want to convince us, you have to learn to speak in terms of evidence that we will accept.  Hint:  We don't give a flying fuck what the Bible says, unless we happen to be in the process of tearing it to shreds.  As far as I'm concerned, it's a bunch of mythological trash. And the pseudo-philosophy of the average Christian apologist, such as at "Reasonable [sic] Faith, is just plain sad:  It's all "There must have been/There has to be/There couldn't ever possibly be... Therefore, Biblegod" arguments from incredulity.

 

And on the subject of "personal evidence," your personal evidence is useless to Me.  Absolutely useless.  That's why I asked for the physical manifestation.  That's why I say "No more middlemen."  I've had it up to *here* with people who expect us to just take their word for something that clearly violates everything we currently know about Life, the Universe and Everything, and if you or your imaginary friend can't come up with anything more substantial, you're wasting your time and ours.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Your time is running out, OC.

"Time and tide wait for no man."

 

Exactly!

 

Prepare to be swept away by a tide (tsunami, even) of evidence.

[Ravenstar]

 

"So your friend admitted she needed a god concept. Most people try and

deny it so that is refreshing. So we have people who 1) talk to the

spirits as if they were sentient, 2) experience events that are not

explainable given science. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a

duck it's probably a duck. I think these people are deceiving

themselves."

 

No.. she did NOT admit she needed a 'god' concept. She admitted it was easier to conceptualize things like feminine and masculine aspects of nature by seeing it as HUMAN, not a god (or goddess). She's not asking those concepts (abstractions) for favors.. sheesh.

Nature does not have feminine and masculine aspects unless you assume it is sentient, which is my point.

 

Favors are indeed asked for by many in the pagan community.

 

>There is no experiencing unexplainable events either...where did that come from?  You are placing your own view and interpretation in here.. not hers. (or mine, and I was a pagan for quite a while - still am on some level)

 

Greek mythology is the root (expression) of archetypes. (archetypes are based on human psychology, hence Jung)

As I said ... you have to ask yourself what the origins of these proposed "archetypes" are. What do you think their origins are? Greek mythology does not explain the universality jungians claim.

You ignored your slipping in the experiencing unexplainable events.... and unexplainable events aren't proof of anything other than some people report events (or more likely perceptions) that have not yet been explained.

 

Case's in point: (using your logic)

~ UFO's - they are 'unexplained events' that people report... does that mean we can positively say aliens exist?

~ Witnesses to alien abductions... is their testimony proof of an actual phenomenon?.. why not?

~ Seeing hags at night: is that proof of succubi? (or maybe it's just sleep paralysis?)

~ Stories of people encountering fairies... do we now have proof of the existence of the fay?

~ Finding large footprints: (actual physical evidence) supporting tons of stories about a large ape-like creature - from many places all over the world... Can we assert that Bigfoot exists then?

~ Toy 'planes' in archaeology: (more real evidence) Do we believe that the ancients had flight?

~ Ancient texts (older than the Bible, in original form and even more physical evidence) that tell us we were made by beings from a rogue planet... is that proof of the Annunaki?

~ All the experiences from all over the world, throughout history by non-christians about their 'spiritual' experiences... why is this not evidence and proof of their deities?

 

So.. how do we know what to take as true and what to reject? In your logic all of these are true.

 

Masculine and feminine are abstract qualities that have nothing to do with sentience (ie: 'ships' are considered 'feminine', are ships sentient? - take a french class) ... also you have no ability for abstract thought, at all.. and how many pagans (or pagan rituals have you been to) do you know? example: The earth is considered feminine and the sky is considered masculine...The Oak tree is masculine, the Willow is feminine... but not sentient. Most neo-pagans also follow the alchemical idea that all is either earth, air, water or fire - as abstract qualities, not reality though. Chemistry tells us different... oh goodness...

 

You don't understand paganism.

 

You are right about Jungian universality, however we are storytellers... we use these archetypes to explain the world to ourselves, or at least we did until we found the scientific method. Poetry, metaphor and allegory are ways of conveying difficult abstractions... and I suggest reflects more about human psychology than any 'outer' reality. Even if this 'universality' points to a metaphysical reality underlying all - it still doesn't prove anything about a god, and definitely not about Yahweh the Terrible.

[JadedAtheist]

 

First, there is personal evidence. What I think you meant to say is that God does not perform tricks for you personally.

 

The evidence for God is a collection. I understand the arguments well so they are mine also.

I see you can't actually defend your views personally, that's fine. Most Christians can't.

 

Let's just have a little warm up match. Can you tell me your personal view on salvation? Do you believe in the penal substitution theory?

[florduh]

 

 

"So your friend admitted she needed a god concept. Most people try and

deny it so that is refreshing. So we have people who 1) talk to the

spirits as if they were sentient, 2) experience events that are not

explainable given science. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a

duck it's probably a duck. I think these people are deceiving

themselves."

 

No.. she did NOT admit she needed a 'god' concept. She admitted it was easier to conceptualize things like feminine and masculine aspects of nature by seeing it as HUMAN, not a god (or goddess). She's not asking those concepts (abstractions) for favors.. sheesh.

Nature does not have feminine and masculine aspects unless you assume it is sentient, which is my point.

 

Favors are indeed asked for by many in the pagan community.

 

 

>There is no experiencing unexplainable events either...where did that come from?  You are placing your own view and interpretation in here.. not hers. (or mine, and I was a pagan for quite a while - still am on some level)

 

Greek mythology is the root (expression) of archetypes. (archetypes are based on human psychology, hence Jung)

blockquote>

As I said ... you have to ask yourself what the origins of these proposed "archetypes" are. What do you think their origins are? Greek mythology does not explain the universality jungians claim.

You ignored your slipping in the experiencing unexplainable events.... and unexplainable events aren't proof of anything other than some people report events (or more likely perceptions) that have not yet been explained.

 

Case's in point: (using your logic)

~ UFO's - they are 'unexplained events' that people report... does that mean we can positively say aliens exist?

~ Witnesses to alien abductions... is their testimony proof of an actual phenomenon?.. why not?

~ Seeing hags at night: is that proof of succubi? (or maybe it's just sleep paralysis?)

~ Stories of people encountering fairies... do we now have proof of the existence of the fay?

~ Finding large footprints: (actual physical evidence) supporting tons of stories about a large ape-like creature - from many places all over the world... Can we assert that Bigfoot exists then?

~ Toy 'planes' in archaeology: (more real evidence) Do we believe that the ancients had flight?

~ Ancient texts (older than the Bible, in original form and even more physical evidence) that tell us we were made by beings from a rogue planet... is that proof of the Annunaki?

~ All the experiences from all over the world, throughout history by non-christians about their 'spiritual' experiences... why is this not evidence and proof of their deities?

 

So.. how do we know what to take as true and what to reject? In your logic all of these are true.

 

Masculine and feminine are abstract qualities that have nothing to do with sentience (ie: 'ships' are considered 'feminine', are ships sentient? - take a french class) ... also you have no ability for abstract thought, at all.. and how many pagans (or pagan rituals have you been to) do you know? example: The earth is considered feminine and the sky is considered masculine...The Oak tree is masculine, the Willow is feminine... but not sentient. Most neo-pagans also follow the alchemical idea that all is either earth, air, water or fire - as abstract qualities, not reality though. Chemistry tells us different... oh goodness...

 

You don't understand paganism.

 

You are right about Jungian universality, however we are storytellers... we use these archetypes to explain the world to ourselves, or at least we did until we found the scientific method. Poetry, metaphor and allegory are ways of conveying difficult abstractions... and I suggest reflects more about human psychology than any 'outer' reality. Even if this 'universality' points to a metaphysical reality underlying all - it still doesn't prove anything about a god, and definitely not about Yahweh the Terrible.

 

 

Ravenstar, you have neatly tied up this package. OC is soundly defeated (though he'll never admit it, possibly not even see it). And by a woman! A Canadian, no less! Will wonders never cease?

 

Seriously, well done, Ravenstar.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

 

^ Yes, and the best explanation will have to involve the fact that the myth of Lucifer / Satan is completely deconstructable and evidently is the product of gradual mythological evolution gaining in complexity over time from initial vague simplicity.

 

That has to be considered first and foremost when approaching anything that has to do with a Satanic claim. The simplest or best explanation can never be concluding on a literal Satan which is an evident literary construct, astro-mythological allegory mixed together with a metaphorical reference for certain tendencies in the human psyche, at best.

Sure you can believe that, but it is not a logical position to hold.

Excuse me?

 

That's precisely the most logical way of approaching it. It is an established fact that Satan is a concept that didn't appear in full form. It took time to develop. That's not the ear marks of something that started out literal, historical, and full established at the outset.

Actually, a gradual realization of who and what satan is makes sense given he is a an actual deceiving spirit. I fail to see how your point is pertinent.

 

Oh it makes sense does it? That's a logical conclusion, eh?

 

So you mean to suggest that the God who inspired Bible by your logic, a God who not only would have known full and well who Lucifer was and about his transitional fall to Satan in advance of the creation of the world and the inspiration of the book of Genesis, failed to so much as mention any word or any history about who or what Satan was during the entire Pentateuch?

 

Do you mean to suggest that Satan managed to stay illusive from any direct mention in the first books of God's inspired word because:

 

"a gradual realization of who and what satan is makes sense given he is a an actual deceiving spirit."

 

So Satan deceived even God and his divine inspiration to relate truth to men until God finally stepped it up and finally made mention of him in Job, even though Satan had been around the entire time between Adam and Job?

 

You're setting out to dig yourself quite the hole aren't you?

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

crazyguy123, I can not quote you because the quoting funciton on this site is broken. But here is my repsonse to your last post.

 

Punishment is not a solution to the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil is the theological question asking why evil exists given an all loving God. A solution is called  a theodicy.

 

No, mine is not ad hoc.

 

Your resoning does not follow. Knowing characteristics can provide a basis for making inferences about whether demons and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where the same.

 

Yes, their behavior is evidence that the Christ of the Bible is really the Lord of all.

 

 

Ok then, so I guess I misunderstood what you meant by the solution to it. Actually, there is no solution whatsoever. A theodicy does not even come close to being a solution. If a god exists and evil exists, then the god could not possibly be a good, loving god, if it allowed evil to exist. I am still convinced that the Bible god is a sadistic narcissist, who was invented by people and given those negative qualities by people who also had those negative qualities. Yahweh was used as a tool to control people and Yahweh is nothing more than that. I am convinced of this because there is enough evidence to convince me that it is the case.

 

Yes, my reasoning does follow. Based on the very characteristics of the Bible god, which show him to be a monster and a hypocrite, guilty of committing actions that would have been sin if done by humans without his permission. If you believe demons exist, do you also believe that they are extremely deceptive? Satan as a being is supposed to be very deceptive, as well as his demons, right? Couldn't it be possible for a demon, or possibly even Satan as a being, to pretend to be Yahweh sometimes, by messing with the minds of people, just to get them to worship and obey out of fear? The fact is, there is no evidence that the god of the Bible is actually the creator of everything.

[centauri]

Your resoning does not follow. Knowing characteristics can provide a basis for making inferences about whether demons and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where the same.

 

Yes, their behavior is evidence that the Christ of the Bible is really the Lord of all.

 

Using the theological whims of William Lane Craig as evidence is not establishing your version of God as existing.

His whims are opinions, just as the whims of any other religious cleric are opinions.

With regard to your claim about "Christ" being Lord, that's not validated by the Old Testament.

The character "Jesus" did not meet to requirements for the title of an anointed king messiah.