<strong>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><hr></blockquote>
i find it interesting, then, that atheists have made it their mission in life to prove that their position is tenable by attempting to marginalize threatening religions. And considering that most people naturally believe in a God, it would seem to be the atheists who are trying their best to spread their beliefs.
The causal chain that grounds logic, science and reason suggests the very idea of 'god'. The question of god is the one case where the burden of 'proof' is equally shared by theists and atheists alike. You can't rest on simplicity in this case. 'It exists' and 'it does not exist' are equally untestable, and equally simple. Nothing here will supply the moral character of a god, it simply lays bare the essential problem of belief.
Athiests can legitmately gripe that there is no proof of a Christian God, but they cannot legitimately deny a first cause, (or at least they can not do it with any more logical authority than those who assert a first cause.) The 'universe is caused' and 'the universe is uncaused' are both unprovable at least to the satisfaction of reason.
It gets tiring listening to atheists claim their belief/observation fits logic better, when it clearly does not. Both assertions have no real recourse in logic.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I said. Stop copying me.
Shoot I may as well just sit back and read this one, you seem to have it well in hand.
Damn it! Between atheists on the one hand and theists on the other, ya'll aren't leaving much room for reason.
PS. the references to Satan in the Bible and associated apocrypha evolve over time. Most of the 'demonizing' takes place due to secterian concerns penetrating Judea.
Satan, demon, devil are all terms that BEGIN with a meaning quite different from the 'Malevolent evil' of modern usage. Whether it be the Hebrew satan (opposer) or the Greek daimonium or daio (for divider or intermediary) these are all forces that work for god, that intercede between man and the spirit.
So, back to the original question. How do you read satan today? Is the concept still intimate, or is it highly abstract, or perhaps both (which may be the best understanding, even as Jesus may have interpreted it.)
<strong>That's what I said. Stop copying me. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I tried to state it a bit differently! I enjoy approaching explanations of Christian positions based on a logical progression from Judaic foundations to the current Christian beliefs. No slight intended.
[quote]<strong>Shoot I may as well just sit back and read this one, you seem to have it well in hand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I do not discuss matters of salvation in depth over the internet, nor do I argue the existence of God or evidence thereof; I find it pointless. If the discussion takes takes such a turn, I'll sit it out myself.
[quote]<strong>The 'universe is caused' and 'the universe is uncaused' are both unprovable at least to the satisfaction of reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very true. I would argue that nothing in history can be proven to the satisfaction of reason. If I claim that "George Washington crossed the Delaware river to attack the British", there is no scientific test that I can devise that will prove that. I can build a boat and prove that, at present, the Delaware is crossable, but that has no bearing on what actually happened. The only evidence we have is historic, writings made by people who were there. In that sense, at least, the Judeo-Christian tradition of a "caused" universe does have the slight advantage of claiming an observer (not that that makes it true).
<strong>The causal chain that grounds logic, science and reason suggests the very idea of 'god'. </strong><hr></blockquote>Matsu, you said this in another thread (there seem to be lots of religion threads right now), but it doesn't make any sense. You're talking about the first cause argument.
The problem with it is that you could always say "then who made God?" So where do you stop? It's entirely possible to 'stop' with the natural world, e.g., the Big Bang. There is no necessity for a deity. If you say "well everything has to have a cause, even the Big Bang, so God must have caused the Big Bang," then why is God so special that he doesn't need a cause? And then maybe the Big Bang can be special too and not need a cause.
You're still left with the fact that there is an asymmetry between believing in something and not believing in it, even in the case of a deity.
That doesn't prove that there is no God - of course not, because lots of things turn out to be true even if we don't have evidence for them. That's why religions emphasize faith - people must have faith to believe in God. Atheists don't have to have faith in non-existence - they're just in a constant state of "prove it to me."
<strong>the references to Satan in the Bible and associated apocrypha evolve over time. Most of the 'demonizing' takes place due to secterian concerns penetrating Judea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The apocrypha are not scripture. As for the Bible, I could not disagree more. The interpretations have certainly changed when people try to twist them to mean what they want them to mean, but the words themselves have not. The manuscripts of the Hebrew copyists are amazingly accurate, compared with the scribes of other ancient literature. The scrolls found in Qumran Cave I (Dead Sea, 1947) were a thousand years older than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980) Yet they proved to be letter for letter (not word for word) identical to our modern Hebrew Bible over 95% of the text. The other 5% of variation consisted of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling (not phrasing).(1,2)
Compared to other ancient works of which we have copies from different time periods (compare: Egyption Book of the Dead, Papyrus of Ani and the Turin papyrus copied only 200 years apart) the Hebrew scriptures are recognized by secular and religious scholars as absolutely unique in their nearly perfect accuracy over a period of 3000 years, even across the more than 200,000 manuscripts currently known. (3,4,5)
The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of changes that have thus far eluded Hebrew scholars.
(1)Archer, Gleason L., Jy A Survey of Old Testiment Introduction. Chicago, Moody Press, 1964, 1974. pgs 23-25
(2) Wilson, Robert Dick. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. Chicago, Moody Press, 1959. pgs 64, 71
(3) ibid, pgs 71-72
(4) Bruce, F. F. The Books and Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible. Old Tappan, N.J.: Flemm=ing H. Revell Co., 1984. pgs 178
(5) Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. "Bible Manuscripts in the U.S.," Textus 3, 1962
[quote]<strong>So, back to the original question. How do you read satan today? Is the concept still intimate, or is it highly abstract, or perhaps both (which may be the best understanding, even as Jesus may have interpreted it.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You betray your biases. Jesus did not interpret anything, He was told the truth directly by the Father. But as for myself, I believe that Satan is a fallen angel who hates God and all of His creation to such a degree that he has spent the past several thousand years devoted solely to the separation of God and Man, and the eventual destruction of the latter.
<strong>If you say "well everything has to have a cause, even the Big Bang, so God must have caused the Big Bang," then why is God so special that he doesn't need a cause? And then maybe the Big Bang can be special too and not need a cause.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference is that the Big Bang is by necessity bound by the laws of the universe, and as of yet there is no known law that will allow for the Big Bang as a self creating phenomena. But if God created the universe then He must be above it and greater than it. God is not subject to time or space, since He created them both. Since God exists outside of time, space and physics, there is no requirement that He obey the physical laws that He himself placed in motion. By extension, He can see the past, present and future and thus there is no difficulty with the prophecies that He has made in Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible. To God, all of space-time is simply a speck in His reality. It is also then, by definition, not possible for us to truly understand His position with our minds, bound by space-time as they are. That is what faith means... trusting in someone so far greater than yourself that there can be no understanding beyond what He might give you. That flies in the face of the myth that we like to tell ourselves - that we can somehow amass all knowledge if we advance far enough technologically. We are still bound by the universe, and will never scientifically know what lies beyond our tiny sliver of reality.
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whew! I warned you at the start that my ideas are a bit unorthodox...
We obviously come from very different backgrounds, so I'm not going to get into a bickerfest with you about this. Disagreement over doctrine is as old as Christianity itself (for example, James and Peter vs. Paul over circumscision).
The link between Christianity and Neo-Platonism is long and complicated. Here's a taste of it: <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm"; target="_blank">Catholic Encyclopedia on Neo-Platonism</a>. From my understanding of it, the immortality of the soul was not originally part of Christianity. We find no mention of it in any of Paul's writings, for example, of which I am aware. It is an idea that gradually crept in from Neo-Platonism. Rather, the description in the BIble is one of "going to sleep" in death, and awakening on Judgement Day. I believe I do have a soul, but not that it is necessarily immortal. It is the part of me which is made in God's image. By consciously rejecting God, I can kill it - thereby destroying my humanity and turning me into simply a highly intelligent animal. Consequently, when it comes time to be resurrected there will be nothing to resurrect, and I will be gone for good. The point, though, is that the Bible teaches resurrection of all the believers, not the immediate promotion of the soul to heaven at death.
As for Satan, yes, he is mentioned numerous times, but his history is largely nonexistent. There are a few allusions to his fall from Heaven, but nothing explicit. Isaiah 14, for example, is often cited as part of this, but Satan is never actually mentioned - in fact, the "bright morning star" more likely refers to Israel itself than Satan. Jude also makes some oblique references, but nothing terribly specific. The whole story of the war in Heaven, of Lucifer being cast out, and so forth is purely fiction - built, perhaps, on the scraps found in the Bible, but 90% of the story is completely made up. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as everyone understands that the story is not, in fact, Biblical.
Well, I don't want to make this too long (it's probably too long already), and as I mentioned at the start we're probably never going to agree on much of this. My attitude on doctrine is that (outside the core beliefs) whatever helps you have a better relationship with God is fine by me. I certainly have no franchise on the Truth, so who am I to be critical of your beliefs? I've developed mine slowly over more than 20 years of study and contemplation. I'm certain they will continue to change as I learn and grow the rest of my life.
Whoa, there. The Apocrypha certainly are scripture if you are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. They were scripture for all Christians until the Reformation when Martin Luther rejected them because they weren't written in Hebrew originally and hadn't been accepted by the Jews. Be a little more inclusive. American Protestantism is not the only form of Christianity in the world.
<strong>Damn it! Between atheists on the one hand and theists on the other, ya'll aren't leaving much room for reason.
PS. the references to Satan in the Bible and associated apocrypha evolve over time. Most of the 'demonizing' takes place due to secterian concerns penetrating Judea.
Satan, demon, devil are all terms that BEGIN with a meaning quite different from the 'Malevolent evil' of modern usage. Whether it be the Hebrew satan (opposer) or the Greek daimonium or daio (for divider or intermediary) these are all forces that work for god, that intercede between man and the spirit.
So, back to the original question. How do you read satan today? Is the concept still intimate, or is it highly abstract, or perhaps both (which may be the best understanding, even as Jesus may have interpreted it.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are absolutely right on Satan in the Scriptures. The Old Testament Satan (ha satan) is simply "the opposer" - actually an angel working for God whose job was to foil the plans of men who are trying to evade God's will. The story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22 involves just such a satan (small "s"). By the time Job was written, he had morphed into "the Accuser" - still on God's side, but now the "Prosecuting Attorney" bringing the sins of various people to God's attention. It is only in the last century or so B.C. that he becomes embodiment of all opposition to God. In fact, in Revelation 12 he is still referred to as "the Accuser" who is thrown out of heaven to show symbolically that God no longer even wants to hear about our sins.
As for Jesus, I think he simply spoke in the vernacular of the day. For example, He may have known precisely what the cause of epilepsy was, but there would be no point in describing the problem in terms of neural misfirings. His miracles were meant to be a sign to show his power, so talking over the people's heads would serve no purpose. They understood epilepsy as demon posession, so he cured it in a way that would be meaningful to the people viewing it. Similarly, it is difficult to determine what His actual opinion of Satan was - whenever He mentions Satan, it is always while speaking to others. These were largely ignorant peasants, so waxing metaphysical on the true causes of evil would again be pointless. He was there to show the love of God, not give Graduate level Theology lectures. The people understood Satan, so that's how He described the source of evil. He may have actually believed in Satan himself, but simply the fact that He used the name doesn't in and of itself prove it.
I'm not going to get into a long lecture on my ideas on Good and Evil and so on, but I can summarize my ideas on Satan pretty simply: he is a euphemism for/personification of our internal evil urges. Much the way we talk about Mother Nature, or Santa Claus as the spirit of giving at Christmas. We don't know where these urges come from - in fact they feel like something coming from outside of us. So, we presume some entity must be putting those urges into us; hence, Satan. My own opinion is that these urges to do evil are purely internal and need no external causative agent, but that's beyond what I want to talk about here.
<strong>Whoa, there. The Apocrypha certainly are scripture if you are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. They were scripture for all Christians until the Reformation when Martin Luther rejected them because they weren't written in Hebrew originally and hadn't been accepted by the Jews. Be a little more inclusive. American Protestantism is not the only form of Christianity in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume you are speaking of the Old Testament apocrypha. Catholics do indeed venerate the apocrypha, and I don't know enough about them to comment authoritatively. I also do not know on what they base their support of the books. I withdraw my statement, but must at least make the point that they are not accepted by a large portion of Christians and Jews.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But this is a circular argument You are saying that an omnipotent God decided that those who commit "sin" (whatever that is) could not be with Him (and is God really a "him"?) so God decided to pay the penalty he himself had decided was necessary. Why not set up a universe without this cumbersome concept of sin and sacrifice being necessary in the first place?
The Blue Meanie is not of course suggesting that there is no such thing as evil and wrong - I just think the Universe (or God if you prefer that term) deals with it in a different way - through Karma (law of consequences) and reincarnation
(*Is that the sound of sitars I hear in the background? )
PS - I'm just about to post another reply for you in the 'Big Bloke In Black' thread
<strong>Why not set up a universe without this cumbersome concept of sin and sacrifice being necessary in the first place?
The Blue Meanie is not of course suggesting that there is no such thing as evil and wrong - I just think the Universe (or God if you prefer that term) deals with it in a different way - through Karma (law of consequences) and reincarnation</strong><hr></blockquote>
God wants us to love 'him' as much as 'he' loves us. Without the CHOICE to NOT love him, it would not be real love. It is this choice and free will that MUST BE PROVIDED by god in order to really love him....
Karma may make more rational sense, but then how do you explain the bible?
Dont use an event that has no witnesses and may not have happened(The Big Bang Never Happened - great book) in an argument involving something just as etheral. I would say I just don't get religoius folks.... but I think I do.
You ever seen a kid dressed in a suit? People say "hey he looks little adult". I've found it much more to my advantage to look at grown people and think "there goes a child in an adults body". Think of all pettyness you experience from other people and think about who your really deally with.... a child whom was granted full rights and respect merely for surviving past a certain age.
Now understand that this child still holds all the fear you had as a child. Understand this.... you will die.... even if people lived to 200yrs they would still eventually die.... your death may be peaceful or painful.... short or take several years... when you die, thats it..... sorry... no angels, no god... maybe you fade into your last thought... but your probably beyond thinking by then anyway... the afterdeath is not to be feared as you will no longer exist... to an extent the world ends with you.... ie you do not have to care what happens to your children, dog, country...etc.... sure, you will be appreciated before and after your death by those around you if you do.... but planning for after your death is in no way required.
So that sounds like a pretty bad deal. Maybe you could try to refinance your life if only there was someone to bargain for. But there isn't. I'm not trying to be mean... trust me... im in the same sinking boat as you.
And sure I watched davey and goliath when i was a kid. But I never went to church but three times, well past the age of being easily lied to(like 8yrs old). How could you believe? Because everyone else does it? You would think a mac user would not fall for that. I never rejected religion, I just never had it forced on me. Did you have it forced on you, or did you seek it out.... and why? If you needed help... thats what other people are for. I'm more than willing to help people. I dont know.
I guess its better to be a wolf in a world of sheep than a wolf in a world of wolves. Maybe thats why those in power(wolves) encourage sheep to exist? Hey thats not a bad deal... Maybe I should get on that band wagon.
Anyway... you should really look into how the big bang was actually created to appease, as it worked well(though not perfectly) for both scientists and theologians. Course its been years since i read that book... its finding could have very well been enchanced or overturned since then. Yep,,, good luck with that whole thing....
<strong>The whole story of the war in Heaven, of Lucifer being cast out, and so forth is purely fiction - built, perhaps, on the scraps found in the Bible, but 90% of the story is completely made up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"And there was war in heaven: Micheal and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Rev 12,7-9.
[quote]<strong>
From my understanding of it, the immortality of the soul was not originally part of Christianity. We find no mention of it in any of Paul's writings, for example, of which I am aware. It is an idea that gradually crept in from Neo-Platonism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find that stance odd, considering Jesus' constant teachings on eternal life, the assurance that believers would never die, and that he would prepare an eternal place for us in His Father's house. Paul also was adamant about the spiritual resurrection from the dead, and eternal life. All of 1 Corinthians 15 was devoted to those who did not believe in the ressurection of the dead into eternal life.
The Jews (most of them) believed in the same thing, so there is no more reason to attribute the Christian belief in the immortal soul to Neo-Platonism than to Judaism.
[quote]<strong> Rather, the description in the BIble is one of "going to sleep" in death, and awakening on Judgement Day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not see how this is incompatible with teachings on the immortal soul?
[quote]<strong>As for Jesus, I think he simply spoke in the vernacular of the day. For example, He may have known precisely what the cause of epilepsy was, but there would be no point in describing the problem in terms of neural misfirings. His miracles were meant to be a sign to show his power, so talking over the people's heads would serve no purpose. They understood epilepsy as demon posession, so he cured it in a way that would be meaningful to the people viewing it. Similarly, it is difficult to determine what His actual opinion of Satan was - whenever He mentions Satan, it is always while speaking to others. These were largely ignorant peasants, so waxing metaphysical on the true causes of evil would again be pointless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We will have to disagree then. You seem to believe that Jesus cured epilepsy... what evidence is there that they were not demon possessed? Your assumptions? We could assume they had epilepsy, but then the scriptures record a conversation between Jesus and the demons He had excised. Perhaps He spoke to the errant neurons? And they were ignorant (by your definition) peasants, but Jesus had no trouble waxing metaphysical about everything else, to the point that nobody seemed to understand Him, and He grew quite frustrated with their inability to see the truth. There seems to be no reason to lie about this... He didn't lie about or simplify anything else. As for His mentioning Satan only when speaking to others, that is not true. He went into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan, and had several conversations with him. Unless you believe that it was hunger induced dementia.
Whether you believe in Satan or not, I think it is clear that the intention of the Biblical texts is to indicate that he is a real being, and not a metaphysical construct.
<strong>And sure I watched davey and goliath when i was a kid. But I never went to church but three times, well past the age of being easily lied to(like 8yrs old). How could you believe? Because everyone else does it? You would think a mac user would not fall for that. I never rejected religion, I just never had it forced on me. Did you have it forced on you, or did you seek it out.... and why? If you needed help... thats what other people are for. I'm more than willing to help people. I dont know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You assume that the church is the lie and the world is the truth. You have spent most of your life (all but three hours or so) in the world, so of course you have been taught and conditioned to think in those terms. Instead you could say that a person raised in the church is less apt to be successfully lied to by the world than one who is saturated with the world's propaganda from birth. They are both sides of the same coin, and only one is true. In any case believe what you will, and consider yourself warned.
The statement that Jesus interpreted anything indicates that you believe that He had less than perfect knowledge about a subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two approaches to this. Actually more, but we can confine ourselves to two: Grammatic, and dogmatic.
While it is most common to use 'interpret' in the sense of 'understand.' -- that is to code information for yourself -- it is also possible, though less common, to use interpret in the sense of 'explain', or to code/use information for others. A teacher, especially one of the devine, would neccessarily intrepret (for us) so that we may understand.
Which leads to the dogmatic. God and Angels and Man. God is joined to man, not angels. Jesus has a corruptible component, the very human form. This imposes limits on communication, if nothing else. We 'get it' only so far, it needs interpretation if only for communication. The temptation, the wreck made of Jesus's body, and the marks left after ressurection, all point to a kind of human imperfection. It can be raised up, certainly, but it is human especially because it needs raising.
Comments
<strong>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><hr></blockquote>
i find it interesting, then, that atheists have made it their mission in life to prove that their position is tenable by attempting to marginalize threatening religions. And considering that most people naturally believe in a God, it would seem to be the atheists who are trying their best to spread their beliefs.
Athiests can legitmately gripe that there is no proof of a Christian God, but they cannot legitimately deny a first cause, (or at least they can not do it with any more logical authority than those who assert a first cause.) The 'universe is caused' and 'the universe is uncaused' are both unprovable at least to the satisfaction of reason.
It gets tiring listening to atheists claim their belief/observation fits logic better, when it clearly does not. Both assertions have no real recourse in logic.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I said. Stop copying me.
Shoot I may as well just sit back and read this one, you seem to have it well in hand.
PS. the references to Satan in the Bible and associated apocrypha evolve over time. Most of the 'demonizing' takes place due to secterian concerns penetrating Judea.
Satan, demon, devil are all terms that BEGIN with a meaning quite different from the 'Malevolent evil' of modern usage. Whether it be the Hebrew satan (opposer) or the Greek daimonium or daio (for divider or intermediary) these are all forces that work for god, that intercede between man and the spirit.
So, back to the original question. How do you read satan today? Is the concept still intimate, or is it highly abstract, or perhaps both (which may be the best understanding, even as Jesus may have interpreted it.)
<strong>That's what I said. Stop copying me.
I tried to state it a bit differently! I enjoy approaching explanations of Christian positions based on a logical progression from Judaic foundations to the current Christian beliefs. No slight intended.
[quote]<strong>Shoot I may as well just sit back and read this one, you seem to have it well in hand.
Not at all. I do not discuss matters of salvation in depth over the internet, nor do I argue the existence of God or evidence thereof; I find it pointless. If the discussion takes takes such a turn, I'll sit it out myself.
[quote]<strong>The 'universe is caused' and 'the universe is uncaused' are both unprovable at least to the satisfaction of reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very true. I would argue that nothing in history can be proven to the satisfaction of reason. If I claim that "George Washington crossed the Delaware river to attack the British", there is no scientific test that I can devise that will prove that. I can build a boat and prove that, at present, the Delaware is crossable, but that has no bearing on what actually happened. The only evidence we have is historic, writings made by people who were there. In that sense, at least, the Judeo-Christian tradition of a "caused" universe does have the slight advantage of claiming an observer (not that that makes it true).
But of course, neither one is science.
<strong>The causal chain that grounds logic, science and reason suggests the very idea of 'god'. </strong><hr></blockquote>Matsu, you said this in another thread (there seem to be lots of religion threads right now), but it doesn't make any sense. You're talking about the first cause argument.
The problem with it is that you could always say "then who made God?" So where do you stop? It's entirely possible to 'stop' with the natural world, e.g., the Big Bang. There is no necessity for a deity. If you say "well everything has to have a cause, even the Big Bang, so God must have caused the Big Bang," then why is God so special that he doesn't need a cause? And then maybe the Big Bang can be special too and not need a cause.
You're still left with the fact that there is an asymmetry between believing in something and not believing in it, even in the case of a deity.
That doesn't prove that there is no God - of course not, because lots of things turn out to be true even if we don't have evidence for them. That's why religions emphasize faith - people must have faith to believe in God. Atheists don't have to have faith in non-existence - they're just in a constant state of "prove it to me."
<strong>the references to Satan in the Bible and associated apocrypha evolve over time. Most of the 'demonizing' takes place due to secterian concerns penetrating Judea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The apocrypha are not scripture. As for the Bible, I could not disagree more. The interpretations have certainly changed when people try to twist them to mean what they want them to mean, but the words themselves have not. The manuscripts of the Hebrew copyists are amazingly accurate, compared with the scribes of other ancient literature. The scrolls found in Qumran Cave I (Dead Sea, 1947) were a thousand years older than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980) Yet they proved to be letter for letter (not word for word) identical to our modern Hebrew Bible over 95% of the text. The other 5% of variation consisted of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling (not phrasing).(1,2)
Compared to other ancient works of which we have copies from different time periods (compare: Egyption Book of the Dead, Papyrus of Ani and the Turin papyrus copied only 200 years apart) the Hebrew scriptures are recognized by secular and religious scholars as absolutely unique in their nearly perfect accuracy over a period of 3000 years, even across the more than 200,000 manuscripts currently known. (3,4,5)
The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of changes that have thus far eluded Hebrew scholars.
(1)Archer, Gleason L., Jy A Survey of Old Testiment Introduction. Chicago, Moody Press, 1964, 1974. pgs 23-25
(2) Wilson, Robert Dick. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. Chicago, Moody Press, 1959. pgs 64, 71
(3) ibid, pgs 71-72
(4) Bruce, F. F. The Books and Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible. Old Tappan, N.J.: Flemm=ing H. Revell Co., 1984. pgs 178
(5) Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. "Bible Manuscripts in the U.S.," Textus 3, 1962
[quote]<strong>So, back to the original question. How do you read satan today? Is the concept still intimate, or is it highly abstract, or perhaps both (which may be the best understanding, even as Jesus may have interpreted it.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You betray your biases. Jesus did not interpret anything, He was told the truth directly by the Father. But as for myself, I believe that Satan is a fallen angel who hates God and all of His creation to such a degree that he has spent the past several thousand years devoted solely to the separation of God and Man, and the eventual destruction of the latter.
<strong>If you say "well everything has to have a cause, even the Big Bang, so God must have caused the Big Bang," then why is God so special that he doesn't need a cause? And then maybe the Big Bang can be special too and not need a cause.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference is that the Big Bang is by necessity bound by the laws of the universe, and as of yet there is no known law that will allow for the Big Bang as a self creating phenomena. But if God created the universe then He must be above it and greater than it. God is not subject to time or space, since He created them both. Since God exists outside of time, space and physics, there is no requirement that He obey the physical laws that He himself placed in motion. By extension, He can see the past, present and future and thus there is no difficulty with the prophecies that He has made in Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible. To God, all of space-time is simply a speck in His reality. It is also then, by definition, not possible for us to truly understand His position with our minds, bound by space-time as they are. That is what faith means... trusting in someone so far greater than yourself that there can be no understanding beyond what He might give you. That flies in the face of the myth that we like to tell ourselves - that we can somehow amass all knowledge if we advance far enough technologically. We are still bound by the universe, and will never scientifically know what lies beyond our tiny sliver of reality.
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whew! I warned you at the start that my ideas are a bit unorthodox...
We obviously come from very different backgrounds, so I'm not going to get into a bickerfest with you about this. Disagreement over doctrine is as old as Christianity itself (for example, James and Peter vs. Paul over circumscision).
The link between Christianity and Neo-Platonism is long and complicated. Here's a taste of it: <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10742b.htm"; target="_blank">Catholic Encyclopedia on Neo-Platonism</a>. From my understanding of it, the immortality of the soul was not originally part of Christianity. We find no mention of it in any of Paul's writings, for example, of which I am aware. It is an idea that gradually crept in from Neo-Platonism. Rather, the description in the BIble is one of "going to sleep" in death, and awakening on Judgement Day. I believe I do have a soul, but not that it is necessarily immortal. It is the part of me which is made in God's image. By consciously rejecting God, I can kill it - thereby destroying my humanity and turning me into simply a highly intelligent animal. Consequently, when it comes time to be resurrected there will be nothing to resurrect, and I will be gone for good. The point, though, is that the Bible teaches resurrection of all the believers, not the immediate promotion of the soul to heaven at death.
As for Satan, yes, he is mentioned numerous times, but his history is largely nonexistent. There are a few allusions to his fall from Heaven, but nothing explicit. Isaiah 14, for example, is often cited as part of this, but Satan is never actually mentioned - in fact, the "bright morning star" more likely refers to Israel itself than Satan. Jude also makes some oblique references, but nothing terribly specific. The whole story of the war in Heaven, of Lucifer being cast out, and so forth is purely fiction - built, perhaps, on the scraps found in the Bible, but 90% of the story is completely made up. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as everyone understands that the story is not, in fact, Biblical.
Well, I don't want to make this too long (it's probably too long already), and as I mentioned at the start we're probably never going to agree on much of this. My attitude on doctrine is that (outside the core beliefs) whatever helps you have a better relationship with God is fine by me. I certainly have no franchise on the Truth, so who am I to be critical of your beliefs? I've developed mine slowly over more than 20 years of study and contemplation. I'm certain they will continue to change as I learn and grow the rest of my life.
<strong>
The apocrypha are not scripture.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa, there. The Apocrypha certainly are scripture if you are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. They were scripture for all Christians until the Reformation when Martin Luther rejected them because they weren't written in Hebrew originally and hadn't been accepted by the Jews. Be a little more inclusive. American Protestantism is not the only form of Christianity in the world.
<strong>Damn it! Between atheists on the one hand and theists on the other, ya'll aren't leaving much room for reason.
PS. the references to Satan in the Bible and associated apocrypha evolve over time. Most of the 'demonizing' takes place due to secterian concerns penetrating Judea.
Satan, demon, devil are all terms that BEGIN with a meaning quite different from the 'Malevolent evil' of modern usage. Whether it be the Hebrew satan (opposer) or the Greek daimonium or daio (for divider or intermediary) these are all forces that work for god, that intercede between man and the spirit.
So, back to the original question. How do you read satan today? Is the concept still intimate, or is it highly abstract, or perhaps both (which may be the best understanding, even as Jesus may have interpreted it.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are absolutely right on Satan in the Scriptures. The Old Testament Satan (ha satan) is simply "the opposer" - actually an angel working for God whose job was to foil the plans of men who are trying to evade God's will. The story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22 involves just such a satan (small "s"). By the time Job was written, he had morphed into "the Accuser" - still on God's side, but now the "Prosecuting Attorney" bringing the sins of various people to God's attention. It is only in the last century or so B.C. that he becomes embodiment of all opposition to God. In fact, in Revelation 12 he is still referred to as "the Accuser" who is thrown out of heaven to show symbolically that God no longer even wants to hear about our sins.
As for Jesus, I think he simply spoke in the vernacular of the day. For example, He may have known precisely what the cause of epilepsy was, but there would be no point in describing the problem in terms of neural misfirings. His miracles were meant to be a sign to show his power, so talking over the people's heads would serve no purpose. They understood epilepsy as demon posession, so he cured it in a way that would be meaningful to the people viewing it. Similarly, it is difficult to determine what His actual opinion of Satan was - whenever He mentions Satan, it is always while speaking to others. These were largely ignorant peasants, so waxing metaphysical on the true causes of evil would again be pointless. He was there to show the love of God, not give Graduate level Theology lectures. The people understood Satan, so that's how He described the source of evil. He may have actually believed in Satan himself, but simply the fact that He used the name doesn't in and of itself prove it.
I'm not going to get into a long lecture on my ideas on Good and Evil and so on, but I can summarize my ideas on Satan pretty simply: he is a euphemism for/personification of our internal evil urges. Much the way we talk about Mother Nature, or Santa Claus as the spirit of giving at Christmas. We don't know where these urges come from - in fact they feel like something coming from outside of us. So, we presume some entity must be putting those urges into us; hence, Satan. My own opinion is that these urges to do evil are purely internal and need no external causative agent, but that's beyond what I want to talk about here.
<strong>Whoa, there. The Apocrypha certainly are scripture if you are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. They were scripture for all Christians until the Reformation when Martin Luther rejected them because they weren't written in Hebrew originally and hadn't been accepted by the Jews. Be a little more inclusive. American Protestantism is not the only form of Christianity in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume you are speaking of the Old Testament apocrypha. Catholics do indeed venerate the apocrypha, and I don't know enough about them to comment authoritatively. I also do not know on what they base their support of the books. I withdraw my statement, but must at least make the point that they are not accepted by a large portion of Christians and Jews.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But this is a circular argument
The Blue Meanie is not of course suggesting that there is no such thing as evil and wrong - I just think the Universe (or God if you prefer that term) deals with it in a different way - through Karma (law of consequences) and reincarnation
(*Is that the sound of sitars I hear in the background?
PS - I'm just about to post another reply for you in the 'Big Bloke In Black' thread
<strong>Why not set up a universe without this cumbersome concept of sin and sacrifice being necessary in the first place?
The Blue Meanie is not of course suggesting that there is no such thing as evil and wrong - I just think the Universe (or God if you prefer that term) deals with it in a different way - through Karma (law of consequences) and reincarnation</strong><hr></blockquote>
God wants us to love 'him' as much as 'he' loves us. Without the CHOICE to NOT love him, it would not be real love. It is this choice and free will that MUST BE PROVIDED by god in order to really love him....
Karma may make more rational sense, but then how do you explain the bible?
<strong>
You betray your biases. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now this is interesting. What are my biases?
<strong>
Now this is interesting. What are my biases?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The statement that Jesus interpreted anything indicates that you believe that He had less than perfect knowledge about a subject.
You ever seen a kid dressed in a suit? People say "hey he looks little adult". I've found it much more to my advantage to look at grown people and think "there goes a child in an adults body". Think of all pettyness you experience from other people and think about who your really deally with.... a child whom was granted full rights and respect merely for surviving past a certain age.
Now understand that this child still holds all the fear you had as a child. Understand this.... you will die.... even if people lived to 200yrs they would still eventually die.... your death may be peaceful or painful.... short or take several years... when you die, thats it..... sorry... no angels, no god... maybe you fade into your last thought... but your probably beyond thinking by then anyway... the afterdeath is not to be feared as you will no longer exist... to an extent the world ends with you.... ie you do not have to care what happens to your children, dog, country...etc.... sure, you will be appreciated before and after your death by those around you if you do.... but planning for after your death is in no way required.
So that sounds like a pretty bad deal. Maybe you could try to refinance your life if only there was someone to bargain for. But there isn't. I'm not trying to be mean... trust me... im in the same sinking boat as you.
And sure I watched davey and goliath when i was a kid. But I never went to church but three times, well past the age of being easily lied to(like 8yrs old). How could you believe? Because everyone else does it? You would think a mac user would not fall for that. I never rejected religion, I just never had it forced on me. Did you have it forced on you, or did you seek it out.... and why? If you needed help... thats what other people are for. I'm more than willing to help people. I dont know.
I guess its better to be a wolf in a world of sheep than a wolf in a world of wolves. Maybe thats why those in power(wolves) encourage sheep to exist? Hey thats not a bad deal... Maybe I should get on that band wagon.
Anyway... you should really look into how the big bang was actually created to appease, as it worked well(though not perfectly) for both scientists and theologians. Course its been years since i read that book... its finding could have very well been enchanced or overturned since then. Yep,,, good luck with that whole thing....
<strong>The whole story of the war in Heaven, of Lucifer being cast out, and so forth is purely fiction - built, perhaps, on the scraps found in the Bible, but 90% of the story is completely made up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"And there was war in heaven: Micheal and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Rev 12,7-9.
[quote]<strong>
From my understanding of it, the immortality of the soul was not originally part of Christianity. We find no mention of it in any of Paul's writings, for example, of which I am aware. It is an idea that gradually crept in from Neo-Platonism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find that stance odd, considering Jesus' constant teachings on eternal life, the assurance that believers would never die, and that he would prepare an eternal place for us in His Father's house. Paul also was adamant about the spiritual resurrection from the dead, and eternal life. All of 1 Corinthians 15 was devoted to those who did not believe in the ressurection of the dead into eternal life.
The Jews (most of them) believed in the same thing, so there is no more reason to attribute the Christian belief in the immortal soul to Neo-Platonism than to Judaism.
[quote]<strong> Rather, the description in the BIble is one of "going to sleep" in death, and awakening on Judgement Day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not see how this is incompatible with teachings on the immortal soul?
[quote]<strong>As for Jesus, I think he simply spoke in the vernacular of the day. For example, He may have known precisely what the cause of epilepsy was, but there would be no point in describing the problem in terms of neural misfirings. His miracles were meant to be a sign to show his power, so talking over the people's heads would serve no purpose. They understood epilepsy as demon posession, so he cured it in a way that would be meaningful to the people viewing it. Similarly, it is difficult to determine what His actual opinion of Satan was - whenever He mentions Satan, it is always while speaking to others. These were largely ignorant peasants, so waxing metaphysical on the true causes of evil would again be pointless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We will have to disagree then. You seem to believe that Jesus cured epilepsy... what evidence is there that they were not demon possessed? Your assumptions? We could assume they had epilepsy, but then the scriptures record a conversation between Jesus and the demons He had excised. Perhaps He spoke to the errant neurons? And they were ignorant (by your definition) peasants, but Jesus had no trouble waxing metaphysical about everything else, to the point that nobody seemed to understand Him, and He grew quite frustrated with their inability to see the truth. There seems to be no reason to lie about this... He didn't lie about or simplify anything else. As for His mentioning Satan only when speaking to others, that is not true. He went into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan, and had several conversations with him. Unless you believe that it was hunger induced dementia.
Whether you believe in Satan or not, I think it is clear that the intention of the Biblical texts is to indicate that he is a real being, and not a metaphysical construct.
<strong>And sure I watched davey and goliath when i was a kid. But I never went to church but three times, well past the age of being easily lied to(like 8yrs old). How could you believe? Because everyone else does it? You would think a mac user would not fall for that. I never rejected religion, I just never had it forced on me. Did you have it forced on you, or did you seek it out.... and why? If you needed help... thats what other people are for. I'm more than willing to help people. I dont know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You assume that the church is the lie and the world is the truth. You have spent most of your life (all but three hours or so) in the world, so of course you have been taught and conditioned to think in those terms. Instead you could say that a person raised in the church is less apt to be successfully lied to by the world than one who is saturated with the world's propaganda from birth. They are both sides of the same coin, and only one is true. In any case believe what you will, and consider yourself warned.
<strong>
The statement that Jesus interpreted anything indicates that you believe that He had less than perfect knowledge about a subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two approaches to this. Actually more, but we can confine ourselves to two: Grammatic, and dogmatic.
While it is most common to use 'interpret' in the sense of 'understand.' -- that is to code information for yourself -- it is also possible, though less common, to use interpret in the sense of 'explain', or to code/use information for others. A teacher, especially one of the devine, would neccessarily intrepret (for us) so that we may understand.
Which leads to the dogmatic. God and Angels and Man. God is joined to man, not angels. Jesus has a corruptible component, the very human form. This imposes limits on communication, if nothing else. We 'get it' only so far, it needs interpretation if only for communication. The temptation, the wreck made of Jesus's body, and the marks left after ressurection, all point to a kind of human imperfection. It can be raised up, certainly, but it is human especially because it needs raising.