Religion In what God(s) do you believe ?

[WindCatcher]

The curruption came from Satan. The book of Ezekiel talks about it in chapter 28. Satan basically took the right for humans to rule over the earth. Now he rules the earth with all kinds of bad things. A sinful human nature is one of the curses in the world, the biggest curse of all.

 

[Kinsao]

It's interesting to see that six of us on this forum are God. Hey, step forward and battle it out! :yeahh:

 

[Mycernius]

It's interesting to see that six of us on this forum are God. Hey, step forward and battle it out! :yeahh:

I almost did, but then realised that I would have to deny my own existance and dissappear in a puff of logic. Any lightning bolts hurt my hands after prolonged use. Should put a warning on boxes of prepacked lightning bolts.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The curruption came from Satan. The book of Ezekiel talks about it in chapter 28. Satan basically took the right for humans to rule over the earth. Now he rules the earth with all kinds of bad things. A sinful human nature is one of the curses in the world, the biggest curse of all.

I don't see it. Lucifer refused to unquestioningly do as he was told and decided to think for himself and encourage others to do likewise. I have always struggled to see what is so wrong in that.

 

[Mycernius]

The Devil is a Christian created myth. It doesn't exist is traditional Jewish teachings. The fall and lucifers rebellion in heaven are found in the NT, a Christian document. The OT is Jewish, any reference to Satan there is to an angel, not evil being.

 

[WindCatcher]

It is not a myth though saying that won't make you believe it, which is another issue. One of major reasons people do not believe God is the ignorance of Satan.

Knowing who Satan really is and what he really does leads to the desire and thrist to be saved. It's easy to say a myth to close the case for sure though. By the way, it would be helpful to provide the verse if you know any to support your idea.

 

[Revenant]

Job speaks of Satan, but what does Satan do? Does he not tempt people? What are temptations? They are impulses to do what one knows to be wrong. When people feel dislike for someone (intensified becomes hatred), do they simply think, 'this is the devil, I'll just tell him to go away'?

The best approach to me seems a simple change of perspective, through a few simple questions. Does this person actually deserve my negative feelings? What is good about this person? Do I actually want to feel negative feelings (anger, irritation, dislike, etc) everytime I think of that person?

These kind of questions asked with intensity will do well in 'rewiring' the perceptions that bring negative feelings. It is after all our negative feelings that cause us to bring some sort of unnecessary suffering to others.

 

[Mycernius]

It is not a myth though saying that won't make you believe it, which is another issue. One of major reasons people do not believe God is the ignorance of Satan.

Knowing who Satan really is and what he really does leads to the desire and thrist to be saved. It's easy to say a myth to close the case for sure though. By the way, it would be helpful to provide the verse if you know any to support your idea.

Verses: The entire OT. It is a Jewish document and doesn't make Satan to be an evil force. The only time it is mentioned is in Job as an Angel, not the Devil. Christians might interpret various passages as this show Satan at work, but the Devil, or his many names, are not referred to anywhere in the OT. The book of Revelations is the real source of many myths of hell and the Devil. He is also mentioned in the Gospels as the tempter of Christ. All in the NT, which is a Christian document. The idea of Satan was then carried into the next Abrahamic religion that came along, which is Islam. Many names that Christians give to Satan are in fact Jewish in origin and refer to demons from Jewish myth.
Note: I use the word myth for various Christian, Islamic and Jewish texts because IMO that is what they are. If Christianity had never lasted past its first century or so and the Roman Mythology had remained dominant then all the texts on Jesus and his miracles would been seen as myth and Roman mythology as a religion.
There is a thread on this subject http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19077

 

[WindCatcher]

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." Job 1:6,7

Where does it say Angel?

Actually Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon says

superhuman adversary

1. Satan (as noun)

 

[Mycernius]

Actually Satan is refered to an angel from Christian mytholgy, my mistake.
Satan from Jewish lore comes from Yezer Ha-Ra meaning evil inclination and functions within man as Ha-Satan , which you pointed out, means the adversary. Yezer Ha-Ra is part of human nature, not an embodiment of evil. Almost like the bad side of your mind.
I came across this if you're interested:
Medieavel scholars placed seven fallen angels with the seven deadly sins
1. Pride - Lucifer
2. Avarice - Mammon
3. Lust - Asmodeus
4. Envy - Leviathan
5. Gluttony - Beelzebub
6. Anger - Satan
7. Sloth - Belphegor

 

[Mars Man]

Talking about resurrections. . . this thread just seemed to pop up out of nowhere one day and caught my eye. I was surprized, when looking a bit closer, that it had had so many pages, when, for all I had guessed at the time, it had just been started by Mycernius recently. (early Oct.) Then, when opening it, found that it actually had been started last year, but that someone had just posted on it; and like all good little threads should do, it jumped up to the top of the list after having been posted on. Nice little thread.

Now I am surprize again to find it so active as it has been on this very day--Oct. 22, 2005 !! WOW !! And there have been some good posts here, a lot of good points and information--and now I think I'd like to jump in a bit, if I may.

Satan
Well, as far as I have seen, the very first occurence of this word comes at Numbers 22:32 where we find:
". . .rigauliyam hibeh anokhya yitsa'tyi lisatan. . ." BHK or, in the LXX, ". . .kai idou eyo ekselthon eis diabolen sou, . . . " The better translation of the word 'satan' in Hebrew, is resistor--that's exactly what that tale is saying that angel of YHWH (mali'akhi yehwah) did; resist Balaam's path. The Greek rendering gives diabolen which would have the sense of 'slanderer'. In this case the Greek translation could be said to be loose, perhaps. It is clear, however, without any doubt that this Hebrew term is being applied to one of YHWH's messengers. At 2 Samuel 19:22 (BHK; 19:23) Hebrew has "lisatan" (that "li" is a preposition-like particle similar to 'to'--become to satan) where the Greek has ". . .ginesthe moi symeron eis epiboulon. . ." . . .(you [pl]) are becoming (of) me today into plot (against one). . . Here again the Hebrew 'satan' is used towards the action of resisting someone. It is, as WindCatcher pointed out, a common noun. At 1 Kings 5:4 (BHK 5:18) it is used in reference to enemies. The LXX uses "epiboulis" here again.

Then suddenly, in the work carrying the title JOB, (a much older loan to the Jewish scrolls than that of Samuel or Kings or those in that area) we find " hasatan " ( the 'ha' is the definite article and, somewhat like English, points to the one--of whatever the class may be.) Of course in this presentation, hasatan is a son of YHWH. The LXX gives 'diabolos' at verse six, and forms of it as the story goes on.

In all the later Jewish writings that made the Palestinian Canon, there is no usage of this word nor idea that conforms to the usage in Job. That later works made use of the idea which became the norm for the Christian works of the first century, is, of course a given.

Again, as discussion is going on elsewhere on such matters, and details can be checked there, it suffices here just to mention that this later model of "Satan" can be no more reliable, nor literal than the "God" model presented in such old religious concepts.

But I know that this thread has been resurrected. . . there's no mistake there.
See you kind folks later on !! I always enjoy reading the research done !! :wave:

 

[WindCatcher]

Yezer Ha-Ra is part of human nature, not an embodiment of evil. Almost like the bad side of your mind.

I agree in a sense that Satan himself is the origin of sin, influencing the humanity today. That's why any human has this nature to fall and sin. However, he is not just the bad influence in our minds. He exists as a spirit.
(Strong's Number for Satan is 07854 if you have a lexicon, you may want to check it. The exact word is used 23 times in the Bible, in the OT.)

It's understandable for those who don't know to think Satan as a mere theology, myth, idea, human imagination, theory, or whatever other terms people choose to use.

But just like God is as real as anyone, not some sort of invisible high power, so is Satan. Being able to know spiritual reality is usually based on its experiences. Otherwise, I don't see how a person can believe such things. Have you met or heard of people who are possessed by a spirit? It is not about movies, nor psychological disorders. Such things happen still today. You can read about deliverances in the Bible. Jesus and apostles casted out demons out of people. Demons are also in the OT.

I came across this if you're interested:
Medieavel scholars placed seven fallen angels with the seven deadly sins
1. Pride - Lucifer
2. Avarice - Mammon
3. Lust - Asmodeus
4. Envy - Leviathan
5. Gluttony - Beelzebub
6. Anger - Satan
7. Sloth - Belphegor

I don't recognize Asmodeus and Belphegor but the rest are in the Bible. Thanks for this info. I like the list starts with pride, the biggest sin and the very thing destroyed Lucifer.

This reminded me of a scripture in Proverbs that goes;

"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

 

[Mycernius]

Been searching for Belphegor and came up with this

In demonology, Belphegor (or Beelphegor) is a demon who helps people to make discoveries. He seduces people by suggesting to them ingenious inventions that will make them rich. According to some 16th century demonologists his power is stronger in April. Bishop and witch-hunter Peter Binsfeld believed that Belphegor tempts by means of laziness.

Originally the Assyrian form of 'Baal-Peor', the Moabitish god to whom the Israelites became attached in Shittim (Numbers 25:3), which was associated with licentiousness and orgies, and it was worshipped in the form of a phallus.

As a demon, he is described in Kabbalistic writings as the "disputer", an enemy of the sixth Sephiroth "beauty." When summoned, he can grant riches, the power of discovery and ingenious invention. His role as a demon was to sow discord among men and seduce them to evil through the apportionment of wealth. He is difficult to conjure, perhaps because his sacrificial offering is excrement.

Belphegor (Lord of the Opening) was pictured in two quite different fashions — as a beautiful naked woman and as a monstrous, bearded demon with a open mouth, horns, and sharply pointed nails. According to De Plancy's 'Dictionnaire Infernal', he was Hell's ambassador to France. Belphegor also figures in Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and in Victor Hugo's 'The Toilers of the Sea'.

According to legend, Belphegor was sent from Hell by Lucifer to find out if there really was such a thing on earth as married happiness. Rumor of such had reached the demons but they knew that people were not designed to live in harmony. Belphegor's experiences in the world soon convinced him that the rumor was groundless. The story is found in various works of early modern literature, hence the use of the name to apply to a misanthrope or a licentious person

From Wikipedia

and for Asmodeus:

An evil spirit. He appears in the Apocryphal book of Tobit. Although he is described in later literature as the king of demons, in Jewish folklore he is mischievous and lively, a figure of fun and often a friend to people. He is said to disturb marital happiness, and it was Asmodeus who strangled the seven husbands of Sara during her wedding-night.

Asmodeus originated from the ancient Persian demon Aesma Daeva.

Taken from http://www.pantheon.org/
Hope this helps

BTW: God isn't real to me as much as the Devil, Satan or whatever you wish to call it is. You might gather from various quotes and posts that I do not believe in God or Gods

 

[WindCatcher]

Many don't believe like you. So you are in the majority. I didn't used to believe in them, either. Thanks for the research though. I didn't know Beelphegor was from Baal, which I know of.

 

[Shirahime]

I belive there's one almighty god that exist and create the universe,,,

but still we can't judge someone will be doomed because he/she doesn't believe in god,,
god is "The Utterly Just",,,god has it's own way to judge us,,

 

[Pararousia]

Could you please explain how could someone possibly complain about something they don't believe to exist in the first place?

Kumo, Good question, but as you have probably noticed, there's several threads in the forum where people who are atheists are debating about God's existence. Kind of like me debating about the existence of elves (no offence to the Irish meant). If I were atheist and someone wanted to debate with me about the subject, I would yawn and roll over or something.

Pararousia, how is it that you know that Adam and Eve were made perfect, much more, were even real, single individuals?

Because God created them in the beginning in His own image, therefore, perfect. History is downhill from there.

Where did that corruption come from? How could a perfect designer make anything corruptible?

My hands are too cold for a lengthy reply, and someone else has already answered this as well, but Man was created with a will to choose right from wrong. When he (or we) choose wrong, we bear the consequences of that decision.

Sin (wrong) corrupted Man's nature, much like a virus or a bad gene. It passed from that couple to their children and their children, etc. Hey, I wish it hadn't happened that way too, but the evidence of corruption is everywhere around us and in us. Had Adam and Eve not fallen, one of the rest of us would have eventually, I'm sure. Gives us someone to blame for our bad teeth or hair

 

[kumo]

Kumo, Good question, but as you have probably noticed, there's several threads in the forum where people who are atheists are debating about God's existence. Kind of like me debating about the existence of elves (no offence to the Irish meant). If I were atheist and someone wanted to debate with me about the subject, I would yawn and roll over or something.

Atheism is important because theism is important. People who believe in elves are not the majority of the population, they don't dominate our government and society with their absurd and illogical ideas nor do their believes represent a threat to society's development and own survival. Unfortunately, we can't say the same for theists.

Of course, the less important theism becomes the less reason we have to debate about god (e.g. Europe), but we still live in highly theistics societies , so active atheism is important as a couterbalance for theism.

Originally Posted by Mars Man
Pararousia, how is it that you know that Adam and Eve were made perfect, much more, were even real, single individuals?

Because God created them in the beginning in His own image, therefore, perfect. History is downhill from there.

A bit of circular reasoning we have here, heh kashii:

My hands are too cold for a lengthy reply, and someone else has already answered this as well, but Man was created with a will to choose right from wrong. When he (or we) choose wrong, we bear the consequences of that decision.

That is absurd. If god is omniscient he would know the exact consequence of his actions (creating man), if he created us knowing we would end up suffering he can't be omnibenevolent. Either we don't possess free will and god is a sadist or we have free will and there's no god. Even if the first case were to be true, I think it would be quite pathetic to submit oneself to such a vile being.

 

[Pararousia]

Kumo, I was only answering your question to begin with, but your later comments represent a question I've heard before here: "If god is omniscient he would know the exact consequence of his actions (creating man), if he created us knowing we would end up suffering he can't be omnibenevolent. Either we don't possess free will and god is a sadistic or we have free will and there's no god." And my hands have warmed up a bit.

Don't confuse God's foreknowledge with His foreordination. The fact that God foreknows a thing makes that thing certain but not necessary. His foreordination is based upon His foreknowledge. The actions of men are considered certain but not necessary by reason of the divine foreknowledge.

God has certain moral attributes, such as holiness. Holiness is perhaps the foremost attribute that has been declared by those who have caught glimpses of Him through visions, etc. I personally believe that one cause of atheism is man's refusal to view himself as a fallen creature--denial in the nth degree, you might say, the great sin of pride, which caused Satan himself to fall.

When I read your word "omnibenevolent", I paused, because while God is a good(moral attribute) God , He is also a just(moral attribute) God. He cannot allow anything which violates His character. As Creator of all, He has the sole right to choose whom He will be good towards: those who keep His righteous commandments. Those who refuse to keep His commands receive His just judgement. "Thou, O Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy to all them that call upon thee." (Ps. 86:5) "He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." See even the unrepentant and hard-hearted are recipients of God's mercy.

He created us all knowing that a few would obey and most would not. He chose to create us anyway. He chose to make a way so that those who choose to follow Him could also be made righteous. This goes back to His attribute of holiness. You see, at just the right time in God's redemptive PLAN, Christ died for the ungodly (all of us). Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man, someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrated His own love for us all in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us, to make a way to bring us back to Him, to make us righteous before Him, to atone for our sins.

He didn't create us to suffer, as you seemed to suggest, but to worship Him. I don't know if you have children, but a parent tells a child, for example, not to touch the pot on the stove. The child does and gets burned. Did the parent cause the child suffering? No. Did the child disobey and reap the consequences of its actions? Yes. So have we (humankind). All the suffering I see in the world has come about because of the curse of sin--the consequences of sin. Whether it's a war or a child born with a defect. It's all the result of sin's curse in this world we live.

Thanks be unto God for a Savior!

 

[kumo]

He created us all knowing that a few would obey and most would not. He chose to create us anyway. He chose to make a way so that those who choose to follow Him could also be made righteous. This goes back to His attribute of holiness.

Not everyone on this planet knows about god or "the way to salvation". Do you think someone born in a isolated island deserves eternal torture in hell even when he couldn't possibly know what "god" means in the first place?

If god knew some people would not obey resulting in their suffering, there would be no reason to create anything at all in the first place, even because a supposedly perfect being should have no needs (as spreading love to something that didn't even exist yet).

You see, at just the right time in God's redemptive PLAN, Christ died for the ungodly (all of us). Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man, someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrated His own love for us all in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us, to make a way to bring us back to Him, to make us righteous before Him, to atone for our sins.

I've always wondered, wouldn't that means that everyone who was born before Jesus is now being tortured in hell for eternity simply because they were born in the wrong epoch? That doesn't seem benevolent or fair at all. (assuming there's a god just for the sake of argument)

One could also argue about the existence of hell; the purpose of punishment is to educate someone so that he/she can improve, but eternal punishment is no more than a cruel and sadistic torture and serves no purpose. No benevolent being would even consider such a thing.

He didn't create us to suffer, as you seemed to suggest, but to worship Him. I don't know if you have children, but a parent tells a child, for example, not to touch the pot on the stove. The child does and gets burned. Did the parent cause the child suffering? No. Did the child disobey and reap the consequences of its actions? Yes. So have we (humankind). All the suffering I see in the world has come about because of the curse of sin--the consequences of sin. Whether it's a war or a child born with a defect. It's all the result of sin's curse in this world we live.

Do you seriously think all suffering that has ever happened was deserved? Every children born with a defect, everyone that died in a war or natural disaster deserved it? You can't even argue about any "afterlife reward" since apparently it's impossible for anyone to be "sinless" as we are born with it before we can do anything (very fair, indeed...).

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Don't confuse God's foreknowledge with His foreordination. The fact that God foreknows a thing makes that thing certain but not necessary. His foreordination is based upon His foreknowledge. The actions of men are considered certain but not necessary by reason of the divine foreknowledge.

I don't see the difference between 'certain' and 'necessary'. In my understanding if something is 'certain' the probability of its happening is 100% - i.e. it is 'necessarily occurring'.

I personally believe that one cause of atheism is man's refusal to view himself as a fallen creature--denial in the nth degree, you might say, the great sin of pride, which caused Satan himself to fall.

I'd say that's spot on. I think many atheists (while obviously viewing the Adam and Eve episode as a myth) think there's nothing wrong with what Eve did - it's natural for us to rebel against absolute authority. That's how progress is made.

I don't know if you have children, but a parent tells a child, for example, not to touch the pot on the stove. The child does and gets burned. Did the parent cause the child suffering? No. Did the child disobey and reap the consequences of its actions? Yes.

In my view a good parent would explain to the child why it mustn't touch the stove. The child is then less likely to disobey, but if he still does, he will learn by his mistake, and experience is the best way to learn, IMO. As far as I know, God never explained to Adam and Eve why they must obey. If he'd given them a good reason they might have understood.

All the suffering I see in the world has come about because of the curse of sin--the consequences of sin. Whether it's a war or a child born with a defect. It's all the result of sin's curse in this world we live.

I find that statement offensive. I don't like the word 'defect' for a start. Congenitally disabled children are not defective, like some broken appliance. And I can't stand the idea that a disabled person is being punished. I find the suggestion morally repugnant. I think it's much healthier and more constructive to consider that disabled people exist because natural selection and medical science make it possible. If you want to find a moral reason, why not look at the example disabled people can give us of triumph over adversity?

I've always wondered, wouldn't that means that everyone who was born before Jesus is now being tortured in hell for eternity simply because they were born in the wrong epoch? That doesn't seem benevolent or fair at all. (assuming there's a god just for the sake of argument)

Have you read the Divine Comedy? In that, the righteous before Christ are offered posthumous baptism, 'cos if they'd been born later they would have recognised the truth! I think some Christians take it literally too.

One could also argue about the existence of hell; the purpose of punishment is to educate someone so that he/she can improve, but eternal punishment is no more than a cruel and sadistic torture and serves no purpose. No benevolent being would even consider such a thing.

I completely agree. That's one of the many (many, many) things that made me reject Christianity.