Dubious Plot and Cast

[whag]

With only a couple dodgy verses to reference from Ezekiel and Isaiah, way too much has been extrapolated to explain Satan's motivation.

[Mountain Man]

Potential my foot. If it happened in heaven (in the ineffable presence of God) and also the very first generation on earth, then it's inevitable and you know it. It was bound to happen is the point that the story screams to the reader. Especially when you consider we're primates, there is no way an Edenic, mess-free perfection would last.

Yes, indeed, life is messy. Of course the Bible describes the messiness of those human characters. Perfection is a fairy tale that could never be achieved with free will. You, however, believe it could have. It's fun to throw that back in your face.

I'm not sure what you think you're throwing in my face. Freewill does not guarantee an evil outcome.

Consider this: 2/3 of the angels never rebelled.

[Mountain Man]

If you were in the ineffable presence of God, you wouldn't try to usurp him. Of course that's implausible.

Here's your argument: "Scenario X is implausible because it's implausible for a scenario like X to occur."

I'll let you figure out why I'm not convinced.

[whag]

I'm not sure what you think you're throwing in my face. Freewill does not guarantee an evil outcome.

Consider this: 2/3 of the angels never rebelled.

I didn't say evil outcome. You referenced "messiness", and I responded by saying evolved primates (which is what we are) will be messy (have conflicts and such). You believe in a fairy tale Eden in which perfection was supposed to last. Of course that would never last. It never even existed. You're probably not getting it because you don't even know the history of humankind. You really believe there was a first human couple who fell.

As for the Satanic fall, that's a whole other problem you haven't addressed. Where do you get that 2/3 figure?

[whag]

Here's your argument: "Scenario X is implausible because it's implausible for a scenario like X to occur."

I'll let you figure out why I'm not convinced.

You're likely not convinced because you bought it hook, line, and sinker before thinking about it much or realizing how dodgy those Ezekiel and Isaiah verses are.

Only a madman would try to usurp power from someone infinitely more powerful. But that would implicate God for giving a mental defective such high office.

[Mountain Man]

You're likely not convinced because you bought it hook, line, and sinker before thinking about it much or realizing how dodgy those Ezekiel and Isaiah verses are.

Only a madman would try to usurp power from someone infinitely more powerful. But that would implicate God for giving a mental defective such high office.

I'm not convinced because your argument is a blatant logical fallacy, you moron.

If that's all you've got then I'll bow out of the thread. As the saying goes, never argue with an idiot, because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

[whag]

I'm not convinced because your argument is a blatant logical fallacy, you moron.

If that's all you've got then I'll bow out of the thread. As the saying goes, never argue with an idiot, because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

All you have is those contested verses, which you've said little about and just assume make complete sense as your religion's premise. You're bowing out for that reason, no other.

[Adrift]

I'm not convinced because your argument is a blatant logical fallacy, you moron.

If that's all you've got then I'll bow out of the thread. As the saying goes, never argue with an idiot, because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

I don't think he's a moron, but I think it speaks volumes that he's having what he'd label a "whack attack" against a view that he has so little understanding of. It seems he thinks that the Ezekiel and Isaiah passages are the only ones that mention Satan's fall from grace (and likely because those were the only two passages I mentioned). He didn't know where you got the 2/3's non-rebelling angels from, is apparently completely unfamiliar with the Revelation passages, and other passages that offer clues in Genesis, Luke, and 1st Timothy, nevermind the Jewish intertestamental, and contemporary 1st century literature that paints a picture of Jewish thought on the subject. But, you know, he's got it all figured, and it's all obviously ridiculous and wrong.

Such an ignorant and dishonest way of tackling unfamiliar issues. I wonder if he applies the same approach to other unfamiliar areas of his life.

[whag]

I don't think he's a moron, but I think it speaks volumes that he's having what he'd label a "whack attack" against a view that he has so little understanding of. It seems he thinks that the Ezekiel and Isaiah passages are the only ones that mention Satan's fall from grace (and likely because those were the only two passages I mentioned). He didn't know where you got the 2/3's non-rebelling angels from, is apparently completely unfamiliar with the Revelation passages, and other passages that offer clues in Genesis, Luke, and 1st Timothy, nevermind the Jewish intertestamental, and contemporary 1st century literature that paints a picture of Jewish thought on the subject. But, you know, he's got it all figured, and it's all obviously ridiculous and wrong.

Such an ignorant and dishonest way of tackling unfamiliar issues. I wonder if he applies the same approach to other unfamiliar areas of his life.

Of course I'm aware of Revelations and the disciples' references to Satan and demons, but all of those must have been solely informed by the vague verses in the OT and, hence, are extrapolations of very much from very little. You had your opportunity to bring them up to emphasize the plausibility of it. Instead, you entered the discussion by leaping over that topic entirely. Stay out of this thread or actually engage properly without the fussing about how it taxes you. Tell us why you believe this and start at the right point, not Eden.

[The Pixie]

I don't think he's a moron, but I think it speaks volumes that he's having what he'd label a "whack attack" against a view that he has so little understanding of. It seems he thinks that the Ezekiel and Isaiah passages are the only ones that mention Satan's fall from grace (and likely because those were the only two passages I mentioned). He didn't know where you got the 2/3's non-rebelling angels from, is apparently completely unfamiliar with the Revelation passages, and other passages that offer clues in Genesis, Luke, and 1st Timothy, nevermind the Jewish intertestamental, and contemporary 1st century literature that paints a picture of Jewish thought on the subject. But, you know, he's got it all figured, and it's all obviously ridiculous and wrong.

I think it speaks volumes that we get to page 12 before the Christians even mention these references, and even then only in the vaguest of terms.

Let us remember that you were the one who said:

"I think this cast of characters works fine if we understand the backstory. Here's a backstory that could work. ..."

A back story that could work? Why not tell us what actually happened? Well, because the Bible is so vague about it.

... other passages that offer clues in Genesis ...

There is nothing in Genesis about Satan (if you think the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan, you must believe Satan was cursed above all livestock to eat dust and go on his belly).

... nevermind the Jewish intertestamental, and contemporary 1st century literature that paints a picture of Jewish thought on the subject ...

Why should we believe their opinions? Are their works inspired by God?

[Mountain Man]

I don't think he's a moron...

I do. Only a moron would continue to insist that a logical fallacy is a valid argument.

[Adrift]

I do. Only a moron would continue to insist that a logical fallacy is a valid argument.

Meh, I'm convinced he only throws out the logical fallacies because he's desperate to have someone to argue with, and it doesn't take any effort at all to throw up your hands and yell "that's ridiculous!" without having read any of the passages, or knowing any of the historical context that leads people to certain interpretations.

Neither he nor Pixie actually really care about the subject. They're not attempting to have a conversation. If their tone was receptive, and cool headed people would go out of their way to work with them, and teach them what they know. But they can't go more than a post or two before their arrogance and resentment towards Christianity starts coming through. They're here for a fight. That's all. They're not dumb, they're just bitter and perhaps a bit bored.

[The Pixie]

Neither he nor Pixie actually really care about the subject. They're not attempting to have a conversation. If their tone was receptive...

Yeah, if only they were respectful of our views, but instead they dare to question them! Why would they expect us to talk to them if they do not take what we believe on faith. It is not like this is a forum for debate on religion or anything. Oh, wait...

[whag]

Yeah, if only they were respectful of our views, but instead they dare to question them! Why would they expect us to talk to them if they do not take what we believe on faith. It is not like this is a forum for debate on religion or anything. Oh, wait...

Didn't you get the memo? All skeptical posts must be within the parameters that Adrift has set.

I'm getting tired of Adrift's exasperated persona. Every post is preceded by something like "I don't know why I bother," which he knows is an argument escalator.

[whag]

Meh, I'm convinced he only throws out the logical fallacies because he's desperate to have someone to argue with, and it doesn't take any effort at all to throw up your hands and yell "that's ridiculous!" without having read any of the passages, or knowing any of the historical context that leads people to certain interpretations.

Neither he nor Pixie actually really care about the subject. They're not attempting to have a conversation. If their tone was receptive, and cool headed people would go out of their way to work with them, and teach them what they know. But they can't go more than a post or two before their arrogance and resentment towards Christianity starts coming through. They're here for a fight. That's all. They're not dumb, they're just bitter and perhaps a bit bored.

I'm not bitter, just curious. It's also nothing to be ashamed of to want to discuss what the concept of a heavenly war is rooted in (even if it does rankle you and MM a bit) since my wife's family isn't interested in discussing it with me. They're not as experienced in apologetics as some here.

Like I said, there are two verses that specifically informed the belief that Satan was an angel who fell. (You forgot to mention Job, BTW, so I guess that means you didn't know about it? Or maybe it means that it's doesn't reference the Satanic fall, which is actually why I didn't mention it.)

Again, I didn't mention the NT verses about Satan because they were solely informed by the Ezekiel and Isaiah verses. If they were informed by relevant extrabiblical rabbinical literature, you missed your opportunity to cite it--which is weird because, presumably, your whole motivation for posting was to explain why you thought it quite plausible. If not, then just...leave. Your dyspepsia won't be missed. It's more indicative of insecurity than anything else.