Dubious Plot and Cast

[37818]

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

So you discount the concept that he wanted to be God or to have that type of authority. The associations are there.

[MaxVel]

What "volumes of evidence" that support the "larger context of the whole Christian world-view"? I know of no substantive evidence that does this.

After all these years posting on TWeb, you're still utterly ignorant?

Perhaps you should realize that you're just not mentally equipped to contribute anything of substance here.

[MaxVel]

I've said much more than "I find it unbelievable," and you know it.

On re-reading the whole thread, you're right.


You've also mentioned 'wild speculations' and called it 'implausible', IIRC. But I think my summary was fair: You find the evidence insufficient to overcome your skepticism. It's not believable to you.

I responded to your absurd comparison of evolution statistics to the Satanic mutiny, which has no evidence and that you accept without question. Choose to believe it or not, I don't care. I doubt it because I've thought it through.

(1) You responded to what you thought I said, not what I actually said.

(2) You have no idea what I believe about the Satanic rebellion, or why I believe it. So stop making an ass of yourself trying to pick a fight.

(3) You're annoyed at Adrift, CP, Mountain Man, me (I guess) and others because we see you for what you are. Relax, stop trying to 'win' and defeat Christianity in every second post or thread you make. That you can't have a civil discussion with anyone but Shunyadragon speaks volumes, and it ain't flattering to you.

[Juvenal]

Don't know why I'm bothering, but...

I think this cast of characters works fine if we understand the backstory. Here's a backstory that could work. God gave dominion over the earth to mankind, but Adam gave up this dominion through disobedience. The one who deceived Adam inherited his dominion [...]

Your story proposes a lawful God granting rewards for a successful deception. Sounds dubious to me.

[whag]

On re-reading the whole thread, you're right.

Not trying to fight just start a discussion. I honestly have no clue why so much has been extrapolated from so little in the verses. Let's start fresh now that MM has left. He wasn't helping.

[The Pixie]

OK. You only cited the part about man.

Ah, right.

OK, maybe you are not following the interpretation. It would be before the creation of man. In the fall the Serpent we interpret to be Satan, tempts Eve with his sin to be as God (Genesis 3:5).

So in your view, God allowed Satan into the Garden of Eden, despite Satan leading a rebellion against him. Further, God allowed Satan to tempt Eve. And, because Satan had tempted Eve, God decided to curse all snakes?

Is that right? Is it coherent?

A fallen one from heaven is the basis of the association, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!" Again in the Latin, "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer."

I know we get the word "lucifer" via the Latin; how does that help your case this has anything to do with Satan?

Isaiah 14 is a taunt against a king of Babylon. I have no idea how you can argue otherwise, the text is very clear:

Isaiah 14:3 When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

Yes. And that association is the basis of the interpretation regarding the fall of the anointed cherub to become Satan.

Are you saying the prince of Tyre is being likened to Satan?

Again, those two prophecies are against those two rulers. And because of perceived association and the language, they are interpreted to be also explanations about the fall of the one we call Satan.

We know these verses are about the two rulers, what evidence is there that they are also about Satan?

It seems to me you have a circular argument. These verses say Satan is a fallen angel, therefore Satan must be a fallen angel, therefore these verses that mention a fallen angel must be about Satan.

There is what the text says and there are interpretations. Two different things.

You sum it up in that last paragraph There is what the text actually say, and then there is the interpretation Christians have put upon it. s you so well say, two very different things.

[whag]

After all these years posting on TWeb, you're still utterly ignorant?

Perhaps you should realize that you're just not mentally equipped to contribute anything of substance here.

Your ad hom is beginning to grate on my nerves. Please stay out of this thread.

[whag]

So you discount the concept that he wanted to be God or to have that type of authority. The associations are there.

Yes, that's the part I doubt. I think that Satan, being in the ineffable presence of God, would know that usurping God was impossible.

[Juvenal]

Yes, that's the part I doubt. I think that Satan, being in the ineffable presence of God, would know that usurping God was impossible.

Or maybe it's not. That whole "God let him have dominion over the Earth thing" sounds like God making excuses for losing to me.

[whag]

Or maybe it's not. That whole "God let him have dominion over the Earth thing" sounds like God making excuses for losing to me.

In tying God's hands and winning so many souls (who God loves), Satan seems to have the powers of a deity. The story of Satan has the stench of Zoroastrian dualism about it, even though it's been majorly modified theologically.

[Tassman]

After all these years posting on TWeb, you're still utterly ignorant?

Perhaps you should realize that you're just not mentally equipped to contribute anything of substance here.

So you're unable to present "volumes of evidence" that support the "larger context of the whole Christian world-view" as you claimed? Thought not! There's very little evidence and none of it's good evidence.

[MaxVel]

So you're unable to present "volumes of evidence" that support the "larger context of the whole Christian world-view" as you claimed? Thought not! There's very little evidence and none of it's good evidence.

Are you a troll? Or just obtuse and unable to read in context?

You've already watered down your first claim, and made sure you have a safe avenue of retreat when this claim is shown to be silly too. Can't you ever engage in an actual discussion, or does everything have to be some kind of points-scoring exercise to prove Christians wrong about everything? You really must be insecure about your own beliefs if you have to denigrate others' at every turn.

[MaxVel]

Not trying to fight just start a discussion. I honestly have no clue why so much has been extrapolated from so little in the verses. Let's start fresh now that MM has left. He wasn't helping.

Briefly:

A belief in spiritual beings (apart from people) seems entirely consistent with the rest of the Christian worldview, and with the beliefs of the bulk of humanity over time, and today.

The Bible does clearly indicate that there are malevolent spiritual beings 'out there', and there is plenty of other testimony to that effect. So it's not based on sketchy evidence, although you may rationally disbelieve, IMHO.

The Bible (I agree) doesn't say a lot on just who those beings are, or how it came about that they exist, but I think it reasonable to accept that they (like everything else) are created beings. So how did they come to be evil? Some kind of rebellion against God, and subsequent fall seems to me the most likely explanation.

[whag]

First, there's real forward momentum here, now. Sincerely, thank you for engaging and not resorting to ad hominem, Max.

Briefly:
A belief in spiritual beings (apart from people) seems entirely consistent with the rest of the Christian worldview, and with the beliefs of the bulk of humanity over time, and today.

Totally in agreement here. It'd be hard to excise that belief from Christianity and have a Christianity that remotely resembles orthodox. Satan, angels, demons are an essential part of the cast.

The Bible does clearly indicate that there are malevolent spiritual beings 'out there', and there is plenty of other testimony to that effect. So it's not based on sketchy evidence, although you may rationally disbelieve, IMHO.

I'm not following you here as much on the voluminous "testimony" being evidence, but maybe that's what you meant by my having permission to disbelieve it. Let me rationalize three examples:

The Gadarene demoniac: I'd call this example "sketchy" in the sense that he was a naked man, and men have been known to make a public show of themselves as an expression of obvious mental illness.

Augustine's incubi: I'd perceive a rash of men committing night rapes as "serial rapists," not malevolent beings from another dimension (presumably what's meant by "out there").

Mike Licona's 2nd hand demon testimony (starting at 42:20): If there’s a reason this story is not sketchy, can you tell me?

If the bulk of human testimony in the aggregate is what convinces you, I can understand that. So long as you acknowledge there’s rational reason to doubt (as you did), we’re making stupendous progress in this discussion.

The Bible (I agree) doesn't say a lot on just who those beings are, or how it came about that they exist, but I think it reasonable to accept that they (like everything else) are created beings. So how did they come to be evil? Some kind of rebellion against God, and subsequent fall seems to me the most likely explanation.

*slow clap* That’s a cogent summation of apologia for the belief and precisely what previous posters failed to accomplish. Thank you for not leaving the thread like I requested! =)

[MaxVel]

First, there's real forward momentum here, now. Sincerely, thank you for engaging and not resorting to ad hominem, Max.

Totally in agreement here. It'd be hard to excise that belief from Christianity and have a Christianity that remotely resembles orthodox. Satan, angels, demons are an essential part of the cast.

(I don't think I actually did resort to Ad Hominem - he was trolling - but )

I'm not following you here as much on the voluminous "testimony" being evidence, but maybe that's what you meant by my having permission to disbelieve it. Let me rationalize three examples:

The Gadarene demoniac: I'd call this example "sketchy" in the sense that he was a naked man, and men have been known to make a public show of themselves as an expression of obvious mental illness.

Augustine's incubi: I'd perceive a rash of men committing night rapes as "serial rapists," not malevolent beings from another dimension (presumably what's meant by "out there").

Mike Licona's 2nd hand demon testimony (starting at 42:20): If there’s a reason this story is not sketchy, can you tell me?

If the bulk of human testimony in the aggregate is what convinces you, I can understand that. So long as you acknowledge there’s rational reason to doubt (as you did), we’re making stupendous progress in this discussion.

Well, I live in a country of 60 million +, and the vast bulk of them actively believe in ghosts, evil spirits and so on. And many people here have had what they believe to be experiences with these kinds of things. AFAIK there are numerous other countries where the bulk of the population believes in these kinds of things as well. A fair chunk of SE Asia; India; the Middle East; Africa; and I guess large parts of South and Central America. So, although the 'theology' may differ, there seems to be a broad consensus that there are evil spirits 'out there'. And people's testimonies to that effect are evidence that such spirits do exist.

All that said, it can be rational not to believe that evil spirits exist. That would depend on things like what evidence one has, how one has analysed that evidence, what other explanation one has for the evidence, and so on. So it can be rational not to believe.

{Note: this is not the same as 'All disbelief is rational'. Neither belief nor disbelief per se in Christianity and associated beliefs is rationally justified - it depends on how one has approached the evidence }

*slow clap* That’s a cogent summation of apologia for the belief and precisely what previous posters failed to accomplish. Thank you for not leaving the thread like I requested! =)