Thread: The Nature of Satan

Originally Posted by Idolfan

What the fuck do you mean 'taken outside of context'?

Originally Posted by stonedape

What is your definition of evil?

You may as well ask: What do you consider water? In which case, the answer would obviously be, whatever is water.

The same goes for evil. Whatever is evil, I consider evil.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Also, you claim that Satan wants world peace. Does God want world peace as well?

How strong Statan's desire for world peace is, I can't say. It may only be a small goal for him. Either way, I believe he would still like to accomplish it. And, yes, God's goal is for world peace, as is shown to happen after the seven year tribulation.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

What the **** do you mean 'taken outside of context'?

I mean precisely what I said: Taken outside of the text that it what was connected to. When this is done, the perspective of how it was being used is lost.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

He already tried this with the flood remember but still kept eight people alive for some reason.

Not for SOME reason. Not for a random senseless reason.

Originally Posted by Genesis 6:5-7; King James Version

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

And the reason Noah found grace is revealed in the next chapter.

Originally Posted by Genesis 7:1;King James Version

1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Noah was spared because amidst all the evils of the world, he was righteous. And if he hadn't, you wouldn't be where you are as you read.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

there's rather a lot of it in the bible

Evildoctor, the Bible cannot help what is history. The world is bad. Sorry. Incest happened/happens/will continue to happen. And what do you mean "there's a lot of it"? I only recall one instance at the moment. And considering that the Old Testament alone spanned around 3,500 years, even 5-10 instances wouldn't be a whole lot.

Now go on.

Go Google "incest in the bible" so that you can come back here and paste all the verses that make reference to it.

Originally Posted by Noogah

You may as well ask: What do you consider water? In which case, the answer would obviously be, whatever is water.

The same goes for evil. Whatever is evil, I consider evil.

This makes very little sense. There is only one thing that has been called water, and that is water. There are many things that have been called evil. Some people have said murder is evil. Some people have said stealing is evil. Some people have said smoking marijuana is evil. Some people have said that money is the root of all evil. Different people consider different things to be evil. What is your perspective?

Again what is your definition of evil?

If your having a hard time putting it into words consider this: What makes one thing evil and another good? Is it an inherent quality of an object or event, or is it more complex than that? What are the characteristics of evil?

Originally Posted by Noogah

How strong Statan's desire for world peace is, I can't say. It may only be a small goal for him. Either way, I believe he would still like to accomplish it. And, yes, God's goal is for world peace, as is shown to happen after the seven year tribulation.

So why has it taken God so long to getting around to this world peace business? Isn't he Omnipotent? If he wants it why doesn't he just make it happen? Is it a large goal for God?

Noogah I'm sorry to say this but either you are deliberately skipping around facts to piss us off or you are intellectually impared.

Okay, first, about taking the verses out of context. You tell me, please, what has been taken out of context? What is there to take out of context? It's in the context of God commanding people to fucking kill other people. It's true, I read it in the bloody bible. If you look up the verses I quoted, you can see for yourself that they are in the context of God commanding people to fucking kill other people.

I don't care if you won't admit to this, but you obviously just skimmed over all of the texts and brushed it aside in your head with this automatic response. Some part of yourself, probably the human side, can't bear that God would possibly command genocide against his own creation, so you cover it up and just keep the good parts.

And also, of course incest might not be directly mentioned in the bible (but I bet it is), but the point everyone's trying to make is that incest must have happened in order for people to be descended from Adam and Eve. This is something that you must accept, so why do you respond negatively? If God intended Adam and Eve to populate the Earth, which you believe, and that he condoned it, which you believe, then God was by definition condoning incest.

By deduction we can also say that God still condones incest because God does not change as it says in Malachai (3:6).

It would be much better for you to take a non literal approach to the bible, it's embarassing and it is so obvious that the bible contradicts itself all over the place. This is in no way a threat to your Christianity, if you think it is then explain to us why you still believed the bible was the word of God even though it never speaks of Jesus ever commanding anyone to write down anything. The word of God should be Jesus' words, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that they have not been changed. On the other hand, we in the fields of reality understand that his words clearly have been changed, by looking at archaeological evidence, while the rest of the Christian world have not evolved past their preference of new books simply because they are not tatty.

You could go so far as to simply accepting a Jesus as an archetypal figure, and actually using your brain to sort out moral situations, but I do not mean for you to go that far. To me Christianity makes enough sense as long as it's not bloody literal. Check your facts, please!

"Noah was spared because amidst all the evils of the world, he was righteous. And if he hadn't, you wouldn't be where you are as you read."

Why is that a good thing? If Noah hadn't been spared then I wouldn't be on my way to hell would I?

Originally Posted by Idolfan

You tell me, please, what has been taken out of context? What is there to take out of context?

Dude. There's nothing to discuss. It's not some kind of frantic excuse. I didn't even need to think about it. It's clear and simple to understand, and if you refuse to acknowledge it, I am not insulting you by saying you are seriously biased. However, you will obviously not leave me alone unless I explain myself, so I will:

You cannot cut three words out of a 1,000+ word chapter, and expect it to make the same sense it was supposed to make when it was in the Bible, or any other book for that matter. It erases the cause, it erases the events leading up to it, and it erases what happens afterwords. I'm not going to flood you with examples, because I don't believe you need them. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about, and I think you know exactly the flaws of quoting out of context. If you SERIOUSLY don't understand the concept of quoting things out of context, then read this Wikipedia article.

I don't care if you won't admit to this, but you obviously just skimmed over all of the texts and brushed it aside in your head with this automatic response.

Of course I admit to it. I saw a bunch of patches cut out of the Bible, and immediately knew what was up.

This is something that you must accept, so why do you respond negatively?

Oh, well of course. I didn't think you meant THAT. Answer's simple:

It happened before incest was forbidden. LONG before. And it wasn't a very strange concept either, seeing as there was no one else around getting married. It was only natural.

Also, no. God doesn't change, but his rules did. Even so, he never "changed" his rule on incest, as he never specifically forbade it, nor did he permit it before he made it against the rules. That is to my knowledge.

It would be much better for you to take a non literal approach to the bible, it's embarassing and it is so obvious that the bible contradicts itself all over the place.

Do you have an alternative to taking it literally? Everything it says has proven true to me...

Funny. I never saw a contradiction. You might want to show me one.

if you think it is then explain to us why you still believed the bible was the word of God even though it never speaks of Jesus ever commanding anyone to write down anything.

Because Jesus acknowledged the written word of God, and even quoted it on occasion.

The word of God should be Jesus' words

Yes. Father/Son/Holy Ghost.

On the other hand, we in the fields of reality understand that his words clearly have been changed, by looking at archaeological evidence, while the rest of the Christian world have not evolved past their preference of new books simply because they are not tatty.

1.No they haven't. If you still insist that they do, demonstrate.

2.What? Tatty? Is that really what you think? Really?

Why is that a good thing? If Noah hadn't been spared then I wouldn't be on my way to hell would I?

You wouldn't even exist. Body, or soul.

Originally Posted by stonedape

There is only one thing that has been called water....What is your perspective?

True, maybe water isn't the best analogy. Let's use human's.

Indians.

Asians

Caucasians.

Mexicans.

Africans.

Germans.

In the end, they're all human.

If he wants it why doesn't he just make it happen?

If he did that, what about the poor bloaks who wouldn't get a shot at salvation? He's giving us time.

Originally Posted by Noogah

True, maybe water isn't the best analogy. Let's use human's.

Indians.

Asians

Caucasians.

Mexicans.

Africans.

Germans.

In the end, they're all human.

But only humans are called humans. There aren't certain people who call rocks humans. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. I've been told that premarital sex is evil. I have also been told that killing people is evil. Now these two things have completely opposite effects, and very different sensations are produced by both. How can they both be evil? One feels good, the other feels bad. One creates life, one destroys it. I smell something funny.

Why are somethings called evil? Does evil "exist" in the same ways that water or humanity does? Does it describe certain characteristics? How can I tell if something is evil or not?

I've spent my entire life trying to get a hold of some pure evil, and I can't find it anywhere. It seems almost like it doesn't exist, like it was just a word that someone put in my head to scare me away from the good stuff.

Do you really not understand the question? What is evil? You've avoided answering it 3 times now. Now THAT's evil.

Originally Posted by Noogah

If he did that, what about the poor bloaks who wouldn't get a shot at salvation? He's giving us time.

Why wait? Salvation is all around you.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

But you see, it is your point of view that makes it an impossible question for me. I don't believe mankind can choose what, or what is not evil, and I don't believe I have the authority to say so. As you said: You can call a rock a human, yet it will remain a rock. I believe the same applies to evil. You can call something evil, or good, but it will remain what it is.

If I can decide what is evil, then what if to me, murder is not an evil? How about I go murder your best friend/sibling/spouse/parents? Would you prosecute me? Well,I'm gonna assume your answer is yes. But, by your logic, the answer should certainly be NO. Because, it was right to me, was it not? So what right have you to tell me that what I did was wrong? If the government followed your same example, they would probably say, sorry man. It was right by him, so no consequences. You would want justice, right? You might murder me, as it would be right by you. That would lead to mass chaos, and somewhere along the line, the apocalypse would occur.

Anyways, I'm not avoiding the question, you're avoiding my answer: My answer is, I can't call the shots. What is evil is evil, and unless you are very depraved, you should pretty much get a gut feeling for what is evil and what is not. Being mortal, I don't believe we can identify evil 100%, although I believe it's there. That is one of (but not the only, mind you) reasons God gives Christian's the Holy Spirit at salvation: So that the Christian can clearly distinguish between what is right and wrong.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Why wait? Salvation is all around you.

Good question! Ask the people who don't listen.

Originally Posted by Noogah

But you see, it is your point of view that makes it an impossible question for me. I don't believe mankind can choose what, or what is not evil, and I don't believe I have the authority to say so. As you said: You can call a rock a human, yet it will remain a rock. I believe the same applies to evil. You can call something evil, or good, but it will remain what it is.

If I can decide what is evil, then what if to me, murder is not an evil? How about I go murder your best friend/sibling/spouse/parents? Would you prosecute me? Well,I'm gonna assume your answer is yes. But, by your logic, the answer should certainly be NO. Because, it was right to me, was it not? So what right have you to tell me that what I did was wrong? If the government followed your same example, they would probably say, sorry man. It was right by him, so no consequences. You would want justice, right? You might murder me, as it would be right by you. That would lead to mass chaos, and somewhere along the line, the apocalypse would occur.

Anyways, I'm not avoiding the question, you're avoiding my answer: My answer is, I can't call the shots. What is evil is evil, and unless you are very depraved, you should pretty much get a gut feeling for what is evil and what is not. Being mortal, I don't believe we can identify evil 100%, although I believe it's there. That is one of (but not the only, mind you) reasons God gives Christian's the Holy Spirit at salvation: So that the Christian can clearly distinguish between what is right and wrong.

This raises so many problems...

First of all, how do you know that what you believe to be "evil" really is evil? What if your God smiles upon raping and killing? There is no way to know for sure within this lifetime if this is the case or not.

Second, if evil truly is beyond mankind (which also implies it is a tangible force in this universe), then it suppresses the growth of the human race, as it does not allow for changes and adaptions (though you'd probably see this problem more clearly if you believed in evolution).

Third, WTF? Seriously? Society tells you what is good and what is evil, and every society in the world is different and unique. Good and evil are SUBJECTIVE, not objective. Unless, of course, you're saying that only the Christian culture as defined by yourself with your values will go to heaven, and all else will burn in hell, which is something I take great issue with.

Originally Posted by Noogah

But you see, it is your point of view that makes it an impossible question for me. I don't believe mankind can choose what, or what is not evil, and I don't believe I have the authority to say so. As you said: You can call a rock a human, yet it will remain a rock. I believe the same applies to evil. You can call something evil, or good, but it will remain what it is.

How does my point of view prevent you from answering the question? You can answer the question, I may not understand your explanation, but we can't find out unless you answer the question. What is so evil? If you do not have the authority to say what is evil then who does? If you do not have the authority to say why does your gut? Can't you take the signals given to you by your gut and articulate them?

We do choose what is evil and what is not. Our culture tells us what is good and what is evil. Religion is a part of culture, and for you religion tells you what is evil. You chose religion didn't you?

Originally Posted by Noogah

If I can decide what is evil, then what if to me, murder is not an evil? How about I go murder your best friend/sibling/spouse/parents? Would you prosecute me? Well,I'm gonna assume your answer is yes. But, by your logic, the answer should certainly be NO. Because, it was right to me, was it not? So what right have you to tell me that what I did was wrong? If the government followed your same example, they would probably say, sorry man. It was right by him, so no consequences. You would want justice, right? You might murder me, as it would be right by you. That would lead to mass chaos, and somewhere along the line, the apocalypse would occur.

Why is murder evil? Something doesn't have to be evil in order for me to prosecute you over it. I would be very sad if my friends or family were killed, but I still wouldn't consider you evil. I would consider you insane. I would think that the best thing that could happen now that they are gone is that you could maybe get some help. I don't see where evilness or punishment needs to come in.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Anyways, I'm not avoiding the question, you're avoiding my answer: My answer is, I can't call the shots. What is evil is evil, and unless you are very depraved, you should pretty much get a gut feeling for what is evil and what is not. Being mortal, I don't believe we can identify evil 100%, although I believe it's there. That is one of (but not the only, mind you) reasons God gives Christian's the Holy Spirit at salvation: So that the Christian can clearly distinguish between what is right and wrong.

Do you know what's right or don't you? First you say you can't call the shots, then you say christian can clearly distinguish between right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Do you have an alternative to taking it literally? Everything it says has proven true to me...

Funny. I never saw a contradiction. You might want to show me one.

You self deluded fuckknut!

The more I try to convince you the more energy I waste in my motor neurones. Just google the damn thing because you obviously never fucking have.