Satan....

Zombienosh

Why do most christians, believe in god but not satan?
Surely if you believe in one, you must believe in both?

Rev Hellfire

Where do you get the idea 'most Christians, believe in god but not Satan'.
I'm pretty sure that if someone believes in the Christian trinity, then it follows that they would also believe in the devil.

Anyway as they say the greatest trick the devil played was making the world believe god existed

s8n

...You Called, Mortals..........!!!!

Pocari Sweat

Was Satan all a big misunderstanding in the bible?

Maybe there was a bloke called Stan in bible times, who ended up getting referred to as Satan. Poor Stanley.

Rev Hellfire

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Was Satan all a big misunderstanding in the bible?

In a sense you're correct. Satan is an angel who operates under licence by god (not in opposition). His purpose is to test the worthiness of man .

robindch

> Satan is an angel who operates under licence by god

Satan's not only operating a franchise, but if you believe the story of Job, Satan actually works for god directly. However, he's been promoted by the time he turns up in the NT, where his responsibilities now include causing bad stuff to happen, rather just tempting people into doing bad stuff. Islam, not believing the NT, still sticks to his earlier tempter/liar image.

Which is why the 9/11 attacks might be difficult to explain to a Martian: on the one hand, you had the Islamists who believed that they were attacking the USA, the "Great Satan", while Bush turned up on telly to say that the nation had been "attacked by evil", ie Satan.

What a strange world we live in.

Rev Hellfire

Indeed robindch there was an interesting article which I think you linked to on the Atheism/Agnosticism forum which described the mix up of the 'great Satan'. The idea been where america is called satan it was the idea of its role as a liar rather than the personification of evil which the Islamists where refeering to,

Shellie13

So technically according to the bible Satans not a bad dude...just someone who does a nasty job?!

robindch

> there was an interesting article which I think you linked to on the
> Atheism/Agnosticism forum which described the mix up of the 'great Satan'

That sounds like an edition of Radio 4's In Our Time panel discussion program. It's still available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_religion.shtml

in "The Devil - a brief biography". There's other interesting stuff there too.

Rev Hellfire

Yes that would be the case which is further strengthen if we consider Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these". (Emphasis is mine).

Many link lucifer (the morning star) with satan which is not correct. And more interesting since in Revelations jesus is refered to as the morning star. I'm assuming christians don't beleve jesus is satan now do they

robindch

> So technically according to the bible Satans not a bad
> dude...just someone who does a nasty job?

In the old testament, yes, that's not far from the truth -- he's written in as a guy who does bad stuff with god's tacit approval, or at god's direct request. It's only in the new testament that he's actually written as somebody who's working in direct opposition to god, rather than just working for him.

BTW, I've wondered if the upgrade in satan's powers was written in when some scribe somewhere noticed that (the Zoroastrian/Mithraic/Judaic notion of) a battle between good and evil at the end of time made absolutely no sense if one side was actually still working for the other. Unfortunately, the bible is unexpectedly silent on the topic so I guess we'll never know.

Lunoma

It's funny though that many Jews don't actually believe in hell or Satan even though it is featured in the Scriptures. One wonderful thing I find about Judaism is that there is little focus on afterlife but on this existance. It allows more room for to have personal opinion. For example, I believe in reincarnation.

Anyway, the Old Testament focuses less on Satan and hell whilst the New Testament has 81 references to Satan or hell! It sorta makes sense that G-d would control Satan to test humans.

panda100

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Where do you get the idea 'most Christians, believe in god but not Satan'.
I'm pretty sure that if someone believes in the Christian trinity, then it follows that they would also believe in the devil.

the op is right... a lot of people I know believe in God but not in satan.Just like a lot of people believe in Heaven but not hell. I think most people choose nit believe in it because they dont want it to exist.

Pocari Sweat

Surely if you don't believe in something that you are sure is never going to be proven to exist, and has not had any proof of existing in thousands of years despite a lot of waffling, then to all intents and purposes these things do not exist.

In thousands of years, not a single intelligent person who has ever lived has proven a single ghost exists, nor has a single angel been proven, nor has "the soul" been proven, or demons, or santa claus or fairies, goblins, trolls, reincarnation, limbo, heaven, hell, gods, miracles, telekenesis, or any paranormal activity etc, etc.

Being asked by someone to try and disprove that santa does not exist, is also no help in trying to believe in something.

If it sounds a bit unlikely and a bit daft then it probably is and until you are proven otherwise, then it does not exist.

Medina

Robindch, don't you think making statements like the one below is very disrespectful and likely to mislead others?

Robindch wrote:

Islam, not believing the NT, still sticks to his earlier tempter/liar image.
Which is why the 9/11 attacks might be difficult to explain to a Martian: on the one hand, you had the Islamists who believed that they were attacking the USA, the "Great Satan", while Bush turned up on telly to say that the nation had been "attacked by evil", ie Satan.

I am not a Muslim, but frankly this is shocking. Obviously you know nothing except what the media tell you about Islam.
Faithful Sunni Muslims do believe in the New Testament. Remember it is only after the bible that Jesus was accorded any divinity by the Nicaen council. Sunni Muslims also believe in Jesus as a prophet and his message to return to God. And a Muslim following Sunnah (the example of the Prophet Muhammed) would never perform such an atrocious act.

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Surely if you don't believe in something that you are sure is never going to be proven to exist, and has not had any proof of existing in thousands of years despite a lot of waffling, then to all intents and purposes these things do not exist.

Pocari Sweat, this post is rubbish. You need to investigate Islam and Christianity a lot more deeply before issuing such claptrap. I'm actually angry. If ur going to post rubbish at least do it on rubbish forums Thanks.

robindch

> don't you think making statements like the one below is very
> disrespectful and likely to mislead others?

No, I don't think it's disrespectful to point out that the Islamists who carried out the WTC attacks, and the president of the national government of the country which they attacked, both viewed themselves as not only having god's direct support and were actively carrying out his "will", but each side also viewed themselves as attacking a personification of "evil" in the other side. It is unlikely to mislead people very significantly, as it happens to be true.

> Obviously you know nothing except what the media tell you about Islam.

I would respectfully suggest that I am quite familiar with Islam, having read about it fairly extensively as well as being a frequent traveller to the Middle East.

My point above, which seems to have been missed, is that most religions will cheerfully and easily provide a quick and infallible justification for somebody looking for a reason to murder somebody else. It worked with Islam for the WTC attackers, just as it did for the London and Madrid bombers, as did fundamentalist Judaism lead to the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, and fundamentalist Christianty lead to the deaths of millions during the Crusades and elsewhere.

Finally, I would suggest that if you view religion not as how it talks about itself, but as the sum of what it produces, you will find that its sword of truth is somewhat bent.

Medina

robindch wrote:

Finally, I would suggest that if you view religion not as how it talks about itself, but as the sum of what it produces, you will find that its sword of truth is somewhat bent.

Is this not what you are doing yourself Robindch when you say:

robindch wrote:

most religions will cheerfully and easily provide a quick and infallible justification for somebody looking for a reason to murder somebody else. .

Religion is often used as a tool by irreligious people as an excuse to murder/torture etc. People use religion for their own purposes, they deliberately ignore context etc. That is what those terrorists did (I won't even give them the dignity of calling them Islamists-which they are not).

Its easy to pick a line that validates whatever you want to do, but if you ignore the context then you're deliberately misinterpreting it. Surely you have to agree?

You can't condemn Islam as a religion or 2 billion muslims for 9/11. You yourself are looking at what corruption in the religion produced (terrorists).

robindch

> Is this not what you are doing yourself Robindch [...]

Nope. I'm pointing out that *other* people do it. I don't look cull bronze-age literature looking for justifications for my own murderous prejudices (don't have many, anyway )!

> Religion is often used as a tool by irreligious people as an excuse
> to murder/torture etc. People use religion for their own purposes,
> they deliberately ignore context etc.

I think the people who did all those things would strenuously disagree that they were irreligious. In their eyes, I've little doubt that they felt that they were the most religious people around, holding a belief which was strong enough to instruct them to kill themselves and many others, in order to win favour with the god whom they believe was wathcing them and approving their actions (or whatever else they might have believed would result).

Anyhow, this isn't ignoring context, but exactly the opposite -- the context of the entire bible, and every other religion from beginning to end, specifically and continually glorifies the notion of unsubstantiated belief. The difference between more conventional church-, mosque- and synagogue-goers and the terrorists who carried out the WTC and other attacks is not so much a matter of differing beliefs, but what actions they are prepared to carry out based upon the unsubstantiated beliefs they hold. It's simply a matter of action and degree.

> You can't condemn Islam as a religion or 2 billion muslims for 9/11. You
> yourself are looking at what corruption in the religion produced (terrorists).

Again, I'm not condemning Islam, muslims or any other religious group. I am, however, specifically condemning the idea that all religions propagate which is that unsubstantiated belief is a good thing.

Most emphatically, it is not.

Medina

robindch wrote:

Anyhow, this isn't ignoring context, but exactly the opposite -- the context of the entire bible, and every other religion from beginning to end, specifically and continually glorifies the notion of unsubstantiated belief. The difference between more conventional church-, mosque- and synagogue-goers and the terrorists who carried out the WTC and other attacks is not so much a matter of differing beliefs, but what actions they are prepared to carry out based upon the unsubstantiated beliefs they hold. It's simply a matter of action and degree.


Again, I'm not condemning Islam, muslims or any other religious group. I am, however, specifically condemning the idea that all religions propagate which is that unsubstantiated belief is a good thing.

Most emphatically, it is not.

Islam claims to have many proofs which were things written down by ordinary people which centuries later were proved by scientists who didn't know it was written in the Qu'ran.

-Embryology
-The manufacture of Iron
-That light has a speed
-That time is relative (the thing Stephen Hawking proved scientifically)

These are all things they would refute with you to say that God provided ordinary people with these things so that later generations would have proof as the earlier generations had the Prophet Muhammed.

Whatever the chances of them hitting on one of those topics and making it up successfully..what are the chances or making up all successfully? Its a mathematical nightmare.

Terrorists know in their hearts that they are doing wrong, all humans have a conscience. With them its a bit of peer pressure I would say too. But they don't listen to their consciences because they are not trying to live God's law in any case. They're ignoring the context and doing what the hell they like

stevejazzx

Medina wrote:

Islam claims to have many proofs which were things written down by ordinary people which centuries later were proved by scientists who didn't know it was written in the Qu'ran.

-Embryology
-The manufacture of Iron
-That light has a speed
-That time is relative (the thing Stephen Hawking proved scientifically)

the list above is not written down directly in any text anywhere before they existed in totality, by contextulising and wordsmithying you can derive any sense from phrases and words to mean as you please.
There are ancient wondrous records things like flight for examle amoung the people of maya, but this only underlines the natural curiosity of man, not divine existence,

Medina wrote:

Whatever the chances of them hitting on one of those topics and making it up successfully..what are the chances or making up all successfully? Its a mathematical nightmare.

You will have to substantiate this claim with countless bona fide sources for it to have any impact/relevance whatsoever. The fact is you won't be able to. If God wanted absolute proof of his existence to be known why not just come amounst the earth and show us.
No need for bible codes and all that nonsnese. Anyways if we did have proof of his existence through the things you outline this would directly impeed and prevent the main ideas of free will and faith.
So in short claiming that ancient texts predited this and that is rubbish and quite frankly should left to hollywood.
The da vinci code part 2,,,,this times its personal!

Medina wrote:

Terrorists know in their hearts that they are doing wrong, all humans have a conscience. With them its a bit of peer pressure I would say too. But they don't listen to their consciences because they are not trying to live God's law in any case. They're ignoring the context and doing what the hell they like

Terrorists, like robindich has suggested, believe they are the most powerful doers of gods will on the planet. They are brainwashed into being suicide bombers etc in exchange for a glorious afterlife with allah. It's sickening.

Medina

http://islamtomorrow.com/proofs/

http://sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1.htm


Perhaps it is more pleasing to God to have individuals who worship Him and turn to Him, even though they face doubts from all sides, rather than a race who have to 'see to believe' and who go through no trials in their faith.

robindch

> Islam claims to have many proofs which were things written down by
> ordinary people which centuries later were proved by scientists who
> didn't know it was written in the Qu'ran.

To say the very least, the "scientific proofs" described on the sites you mention are simply rationalizations derived after the fact from very pleasant, allegorical prose. To pick one example from many "God is the one who created the heavens, the earth and what is between them..." which is said to describe the "modern discovery of bridges of matter which are present outside organized astronomical systems"? I'm afraid not!

> Whatever the chances of them hitting on one of those topics and making
> it up successfully..what are the chances or making up all successfully?

When you don't have to describe something precisely, and allow yourself to make extremely generous literal interpretations of flowery prose, well, you can get just about any text to say just about anything you want. The Qu'ran is no different to the bible or any other religious text in how its followers bend it well past its breaking point to justify the costs of their own belief in it.

> Terrorists know in their hearts that they are doing wrong

You have missed my main point entirely. Religions tell people that unsubstantiated belief is a good thing, ie, that somebody who has a strong belief in something (usually the religion) is a good person by simply holding that belief. This is wrong.

It should be no surprise to anyone that some sad, murderous people take the religion at its word, develop unsubstantiated beliefs of their own (usually prompted by selected texts from some holy book), then go out and kill people. It happens time and time again. And do any religious people question why this *really* happens? No they don't. Almost invariably, we're told that the person's "interpretation" or their "context" are wrong, but are they? Not at all -- they have done exactly what the religion has programmed these impressionable, murderous fools to do: which is to believe without question.