Theists... Satan?
I don't like 'em. 
...just kidding.
Actually, I like theists of all stripes quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself 'a believer', but I'm quite intrigued by theological readings of just about everything. You can get good mileage out of a little superstition and a little psychology, and, with my never quite genuine scholarship, I need as many quick and dirty intellectual tricks as I can find. I've noticed a lot of theists on this little board. Not surprising, given the inate compatibilities of a tech fetish with a God fetish. So, I'm curious: Whaddya all make of the devil and demons? Not really evil, too philosophical. In your opinions, does the intimacy of demons and devils still impress upon modern social forms? Or is it mostly just an archaism now?
...just kidding.
Actually, I like theists of all stripes quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself 'a believer', but I'm quite intrigued by theological readings of just about everything. You can get good mileage out of a little superstition and a little psychology, and, with my never quite genuine scholarship, I need as many quick and dirty intellectual tricks as I can find. I've noticed a lot of theists on this little board. Not surprising, given the inate compatibilities of a tech fetish with a God fetish. So, I'm curious: Whaddya all make of the devil and demons? Not really evil, too philosophical. In your opinions, does the intimacy of demons and devils still impress upon modern social forms? Or is it mostly just an archaism now?
Comments
[quote] The Problems with Hell
ender wiggins
This essay is intended to focus on my problems with the so-called 'Christian' concept of 'hell.' According to Christians (the Catholics at least) hell is supposed to be a "state" in which a person is completely separate from God. But there is also the more traditional belief (that actually held by most of the people with which I converse) that Hell is a place where you will be eternally tortured/burned/etc. Now, you must understand that I am an atheist, specifically meaning that I don't believe in the existence of God. This essay will examine both the classical and contemporary definitions of 'Hell,' and will in turn show just how crooked, perverted and nonsensical they are. Then I will try to explore some reasons why Christianity felt the need to create the idea of Hell in the first place.
So let us first examine the idea of Hell as a place where sinners go to be tortured. According to Christian mythology, it is said that Lucifer, an angel, lead a rebellion against God. For this reason, he was basically damned to Hell, given the name Satan, and was suddenly in charge of the "Torture the Sinners" department. First of all, this story doesn't make any sense. Think about it. Angels are supposed to be completely unsullied -- that is, they are pure, perfect, etc. Obviously, since Christians say that God is omniscient, he could not have created a sinful angel. One might say that he created the angel but did not know he would become sinful. Well that's a useless argument. First of all, a sinful angel is an oxymoron. If an angel is supposed to be pristine and holy, then it is a logical impossibility for it to become sinful. And the other problem follows this -- if God is supposedly omniscient and perfect, then it wouldn't make sense that he's make an imperfect being. And because he's omniscient, he must have known that the angel would become sinful. But let's forget about the numerous problems with the myth of Lucifer's fall to Hell, and analyze more closely the symbolism involved. If Satan was rebelling against God, that must logically mean that he didn't agree with God's rules. Not only that, it means that he was unwilling to follow any of God's rules. Therefor we must conclude that Satan is unholy and recalcitrant in following orders.
So then we are told that if a human is sinful on earth, doesn't follow God's orders, or is a member of another religion, that he will be condemned to spend eternity in Hell. Well isn't that just great. This concept has so many logical fallacies it's amazing that people today continue believing it. Satan is supposedly the ruler of Hell, the Prince of Darkness. It's his role to punish the sinners who come to Hell by burning them alive, etc., etc. Wait a minute -- I thought that Satan himself was unholy and sinful, not to mention rebellious. How does it follow that if you are evil (according to Christians) and Satan is evil (according to Christians) that Satan would punish you? I mean, speaking from experience here, normally people who act the same get along well with each other. So would not Satan rejoice and become elated when a person goes to Hell? After all, it is God who intended us to be punished. Satan wouldn't carry out God's orders because he's rebellious. Would he not befriend for you also were unholy and sinful? Makes sense to me. Satan doesn't seem like that bad of a guy.
But let us now look at the more contemporary stance of the church on the concept of 'Hell.' They basically define it as a 'state' where you have complete separation from God. What the hell does that mean? Am I the only one who doesn't understand it? I'll take some educated stabs at what I think it means, but it appears to me that the church purposely made the definition vague and incomprehensible. Maybe they realized that Hell is an immense contradiction to their faith. The church says it's like a 'state.' I take this to mean that it isn't truly a 'place' as is generally the consensus among the church members. So, does that mean that when you die your consciousness continues to function, but that no 'goodness' can enter your thoughts? It seems to me that it's impossible to have your mind functioning without anything for it to be in, or in relation to. When you get down to the workings of the mind, all of the information in your mind comes from external, outside sources. (Because of course the only thing one can know is that he exists.) Therefore, if 'hell' is merely a state, there would be no way to have any thinking at all, because there is nothing 'external' to you and hence you cannot have anything contained in your mind. Wow, doesn't that just contradict the idea of an afterlife/soul. But let's forget the problems with the language of the definition of Hell. What does it mean to have complete separation from God? I'm an atheist, and hence I am separate from 'god,' so does that mean that I am in (if you can say 'in') Hell right now? I mean, I obviously don't adhere to God's will, much less kowtow to Him. I think it's logically possible for me to say that I am separated from God. Therefor, I must be in Hell. And because the only place in which I am is Earth (or the universe), it follows logically that the universe must be hell.
Wow, that's quite shocking. Of course, I could be 'misinterpreting' the definition of hell. But it's not like the church made it to be understandable. Things like that can be taken to mean whatever the hell you want, and I'm sure the people of the Church know it. So they'll just say I'm wrong. But hell, it makes sense to me (a hell of a lot more sense than the church makes of it.) But let's get to my last problem with the idea of Hell. The problem here deals with Hell's origins. Most Christians are adept enough to realize that God could not be in charge of Hell, a place where there is no God. Right. Makes sense to me. But then there is no way of instilling fear into men, and hence making them become Christians. What does one do? Well, they'll look at other religions of the time, take their beliefs, and call them there own. It's a lot like the way Microsoft runs it's business. For instance, most of the Christian belief in angels, hell, demons, Lucifer, etc., come from the Zoroastrian religion. The Zoroastrians had already developed a complex theology around the constant struggle between angels and demons. So, seeing the good opportunity, the Christians stole their belief and tried to incorporate it into their own theology. Big mistake. They failed...miserably. The problem revolves around the idea that the Christian god is loving, caring, forgiving, etc. It makes no sense then to say that God punishes you after your death if you don't follow all of his little rules. Therefore, there must be some 'evil' agent who tortures men in Hell! Aha! But this brings us back to our whole problem with Satan. It is also important to note that because Christians believe that God created everything, then it must necessarily follow that he created Hell. Wow, and this is supposed to be a loving and forgiving God? I knew the Christians were twisted...but sadistic?
Think what you, and believe what you may, but I'm not afraid of going to hell. Of course, I don't believe that it exists at all, but even supposing it did, I still wouldn't be afraid. Personally, I would prefer to be hanging out with Satan. He seems like a pretty decent guy. And even considering the modern definition, I wouldn't mind being in a state without God. Maybe it would allow me to think more purely and to be less sullied by the adverse affects of religion. The purpose of this essay wasn't to bash Christians for being contradictory, ignorant, non creative bastards. I only intend to show why the Christian concept of Hell is so utterly incomprehensible, illogical, and...wrong. <hr></blockquote>
A little strong worded with some faulty logic, but the basic idea makes sence... Hell is an invention of the catholic chuch...
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 59%
Assembly of God: 56%
Christian - non-denominational (mostly Fundamentalist) 48%
Pentecostal / Foursquare: 47%
Seventh-day Adventist: 37%
Church of Christ: 36%
Baptist: 34%
Presbyterian: 22%
Lutheran: 21%
Episcopal: 20%
Methodist: 18%
Roman Catholics: 17% <hr></blockquote>
[edit:
<a href="http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=92&Reference=A " target="_blank">Here's the link.</a> There's quite a lot of other interesting figures from the survey about all kinds of different beliefs among denominations.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
Oh, The...we believe in The...God Bless The...
Anyways...
<a href="http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html"; target="_blank">Here are Famous Dead Non-Theists...</a>
It's an HTML file...about 135 KB's long... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>This is an essay I found on a hotline server not too long ago...
* snip *
A little strong worded with some faulty logic, but the basic idea makes sence... Hell is an invention of the catholic chuch...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not only faulty logic, but he really doesn't have any idea of the Christian concept of hell. Sinners do not go to hell to be tortured, that was never a belief or teaching of the church. Satan does not rule hell, and he does not torture sinners. The author also does not understand the role of angels, what "good" means with respect to God, the entire concept of the soul, or the history of Hell and Hades in the Christian church.
I certainly hope this essay isn't indicative of the current state of critical thinking among the atheistic community.
<strong>
Not only faulty logic, but he really doesn't have any idea of the Christian concept of hell. Sinners do not go to hell to be tortured, that was never a belief or teaching of the church. Satan does not rule hell, and he does not torture sinners. The author also does not understand the role of angels, what "good" means with respect to God, the entire concept of the soul, or the history of Hell and Hades in the Christian church.
I certainly hope this essay isn't indicative of the current state of critical thinking among the atheistic community.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shoot you beat me to it. Almost everything you said here was what I was going to say. Spooky... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
Shoot you beat me to it. Almost everything you said here was what I was going to say. Spooky... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, we have to disagree about something. Um, a 500MHz G4 is faster than a 2.2GHz P4! See, I've got these BYTEmarks here...
<strong>I certainly hope this essay isn't indicative of the current state of critical thinking among the atheistic community.</strong><hr></blockquote>Wow, "the atheistic community." How PC of you.
Isn't it believed that even Jesus went to hell, for a few days, before going to heaven?
<strong>Semantics. Hades or Sheol, actually. Hades is kind of a holding place, while Hell is reserved for Satan and his followers after the final judgement. Judaic tradition holds that the souls of both the righteous and the unrighteous were kept in Sheol awaiting the great white throne judgement. Early Christian belief was that Jesus, as a man who died bearing all of the sins of humanity, naturally entered into Hades. He witnessed to those who had not been given a chance to believe during their lives, and it is believed that He opened the way for the righteous to enter heaven at that time. There are a lot of different theories about the relationship between Sheol and Hell; many believe that Hades no longer exists, and was present only for that time in which there was no salvation from death, while others believe that those who are lost still wait in Hades for the judgement. The Bible doesn't really say much about it. Either way it amounts to the same in the end.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And again we agree! Knock it off!!!
Oh and you are way off on that 500Mhz G4, now if you had said 500Mhz G5...
<strong>
Not only faulty logic, but he really doesn't have any idea of the Christian concept of hell. Sinners do not go to hell to be tortured, that was never a belief or teaching of the church. Satan does not rule hell, and he does not torture sinners. The author also does not understand the role of angels, what "good" means with respect to God, the entire concept of the soul, or the history of Hell and Hades in the Christian church.
I certainly hope this essay isn't indicative of the current state of critical thinking among the atheistic community.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting thread! So why do "sinners" go to Hell and where does the traditional idea of the roasting flames torturing sinners come from?
Hieronymous Bosch obviously thought sinners were sent to Hell for a bit of light eternal torture...
The Blue Meanie's stance would be that there is no such place as Hell, no Devil, and nobody needing "saving" because life is eternal anyway. I have never understood such concepts as Jesus having to "save" humankind - it seems an extraordinarily awkward system to have been established by a supposedly loving God
<strong>
Interesting thread! So why do "sinners" go to Hell and where does the traditional idea of the roasting flames torturing sinners come from?
Hieronymous Bosch obviously thought sinners were sent to Hell for a bit of light eternal torture...
The Blue Meanie's stance would be that there is no such place as Hell, no Devil, and nobody needing "saving" because life is eternal anyway. I have never understood such concepts as Jesus having to "save" humankind - it seems an extraordinarily awkward system to have been established by a supposedly loving God</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you are approaching it from the wrong stance. You are assuming that since the sould (life) is eternal then it is only right that everyone end up with God, but it is made clear in many scriptures that God cannot abide sin. if you are a sinful person you cannot be with God or in the presence of God. So the sacrifice Jesus made wiped away that sin for us. It is in the bible that the wages of sin is death. So when Jesus, who had done no wrong and never sinned took the sin of the world on himself he paid those wages so we no longer have to die (be removed from God's presence, or go to hell). And the way to receive this is to accept that this was done for you at the cross, and to accept that Jesus is the one that did it. The love of God comes in that he would send his son to become sin and die for you so that you did not have to die.
Hell is not essentially a bad place, it is an 'other' place. Church doctrine that looks to justify the philosophical neccessity of hell (and not everyone agrees about its philosophical neccessity) would probably point to a cosmic interaction of free will. It is not 'lakes of fire' it is a move away from commune with God, which God freely allows. The space without God, which God provides for us, so that we may choose it if we will. In a sense, it marks God's respect for choice. You may move 'to' God or 'away', and with the enormity of God, there could be no 'away' place unless the deity made some provision for those who wanted it.
The rest is convenient and paranoid fire and brimstone. Which is not to say that Hell is a good place. If it is bad, then it is because of the character of those who would occupy it, God only makes the space available as a concession to the autonomy of choice of the individual spirit.
Something like that would be the current Church line.
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
[quote]
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
etc.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Interesting thread! So why do "sinners" go to Hell and where does the traditional idea of the roasting flames torturing sinners come from?
Hieronymous Bosch obviously thought sinners were sent to Hell for a bit of light eternal torture...
The Blue Meanie's stance would be that there is no such place as Hell, no Devil, and nobody needing "saving" because life is eternal anyway. I have never understood such concepts as Jesus having to "save" humankind - it seems an extraordinarily awkward system to have been established by a supposedly loving God</strong><hr></blockquote>
PS - No such place as Hell but darker areas in the "next world"created by the negativity of certain people who congregate there, but who are nevertheless free to leave at any time when they are ready to face the karma created by their actions - but then again, maybe I'm just nuts
You have an incorrect version, I'm looking at my Catechism right now, it's the 'dead'
"... descended to the dead, on the third day he rose again..."
<strong>I have never understood such concepts as Jesus having to "save" humankind - it seems an extraordinarily awkward system to have been established by a supposedly loving God
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's really very simple. God is the master of the universe. His law is absolute, and the penalty for disobedience is death (spiritual death, i.e. separation from God). Anyone who has ever broken the Law has been sentenced to death. Lying, stealing, murder, rape, adultery... they are all the same. There is no variance of degree of disobedience. However, once the first sin was committed God promised that He would mend the damage by sending a messiah. From that point on the priests were commanded to offer animal sacrifices as a symbol of the sacrifice to come. God then came to earth and died in our place that we might not be separated from Him because of our sin. Sounds like a decent thing for an omnipotent being to do, in my opinion.
Part of the problem is that the Bible portrays conflicting images about what "damnation" means. There are a few places where it is described as a place of eternal torture, but there are many other places that refer to the Final Judgement as being like pruning the dead wood off the trees and burning them in a fire. Not an eternal fire, just destruction.
For me, this "destruction" image is much more compatible with the idea of a just, merciful God. Whoever isn't Saved (which I'm not going to get into - in the end it's God's decision, not mine, anyway) will simply die and be dead, gone forever. In this case "eternal damnation" simply means oblivion, never to be rescued from death. The Saved will be resurrected to a new life with God - the New Jerusalem, New Heaven and New Earth stuff. Rather than torturing the unsaved eternally, they're simply gone.
The "immortality of the soul" concept really isn't Christian - it's borrowed from Platonism. Rather than immediately being promoted to heaven, the portrait the Bible paints is that everyone who dies simply remains dead until the Final Judgement, where the Saved are resurrected (see above). I think difference is at least partly a matter of semantics - from a practical perspective, when I die, then next thing I will be conscious of is being face-to-face with Jesus. I wouldn't be able to tell if it had happened immediately or if I had lain in "suspended animation", as it were, for a few centuries or millenia.
Anyway, the consequence is that I don't believe in Hell as traditionally conceived. I also don't believe in Satan as a real, supernatural being contesting with God. The Dualism most Christians profess is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. There is actually very little in the Bible about Satan/Lucifer/whoever. Most of it comes from Christian Mythology like Paradise Lost.
Hell: The state of a person sitting in front of a Windows OS machine.
Heaven: The state of a person grooving with a Mac.
Purgatory: The state of a person waiting for his Mac to start up.
Aries 1B
PS: The burden of proof as to the claim of the existance of God (someone care to define that?) rests with the theist; NOT with the Atheist (an Atheist does not have a belief in a deity. It is the theist who bears that burden and wishes to spread it .)
<strong>The "immortality of the soul" concept really isn't Christian - it's borrowed from Platonism. Rather than immediately being promoted to heaven, the portrait the Bible paints is that everyone who dies simply remains dead until the Final Judgement, where the Saved are resurrected (see above). I think difference is at least partly a matter of semantics - from a practical perspective, when I die, then next thing I will be conscious of is being face-to-face with Jesus. I wouldn't be able to tell if it had happened immediately or if I had lain in "suspended animation", as it were, for a few centuries or millenia.
Anyway, the consequence is that I don't believe in Hell as traditionally conceived. I also don't believe in Satan as a real, supernatural being contesting with God. The Dualism most Christians profess is borrowed from Zoroastrianism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is your evidence that the immortality of the soul is derived from Platonism? What is your evidence that dualism is derived from Zoroastrianism? The similarity of two belief systems in no way implies that one is derived from the other.
The problem with that position is that you have decided a priori that Christianity is simply another belief system that is derived from other, more primitive religions, and so you draw your conclusions based on that belief. However, if the truth is that there is in fact a dualistic nature to the afterlife, and there is in fact an immortal soul, and that knowledge was known to the first humans as Christianity and Judaism claim, then there is no reason that similar ideas would not appear (altered to various degrees) in different religions. For example, there is a recurring theme throughout the religions of history of the concept of death and resurrection as atonement for sin. The ancient Babylonians, the Egyptions, Assyrians, etc. all held beliefs such as these. It may mean that Christianity simply borrowed from these beliefs, or it may mean that both have inherited the truth, made known to the first men by God. You must choose what you believe. Understandably, you have been indoctrinated into a secular world view that has predisposed you to choose one option over the other, based on what you have been taught (usually under the myth of "objectivity"). But that in no way means that your perceptions are true.
Obviously if I have mis-characterized your beliefs, disregard.
[quote]<strong> There is actually very little in the Bible about Satan/Lucifer/whoever. Most of it comes from Christian Mythology like Paradise Lost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. There is a great deal in the Bible about Satan. But even if there were only one or two references, if the Bible is divinely inspired then that is enough. Once again, if you accept the Bible as divine, then there is no problem. If not, then of course it is natural for you to search for explanations for the different aspects of Christian belief.
There really is no reconciling the two viewpoints because of this very basic difference in foundation. If I were to debate with a 17th century doctor about the causes of disease, there simply would be no way to resolve the matter or win the debate. I cannot show him actual germs without a machine (of which he would be suspicious) and there is no way that he would be able to convince me of his philosophy of the bodily humors' role in keeping the body in balance.