It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did King David take orders from Satan…???

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
But God already took responsibility for it in the ORIGNAL version, the rewritten version, takes God’s name out of it

No he did not.
The writer of one asssumed that God was responsible, the writer of the other assumed that Satan was responsible.
They were both speculating.
You are making a big issue out of the fact that two different people have different ideas about what lay in the background of David's decision.


But God declared that HE was the one who incited it…the LORD God, not some random dude lol

No he did not.
The writer of 2 Samuel declared that God incited it.
A different writer makes a different declaration.


But if they’re blaming 2 different individuals, then what’s the real truth of it…?

Does it matter? The intended moral is that it was something which ought not to have happened, and which was responsible for the plague'


I mean imagine you’re the scribe, and you see the sacred name of God had incited something, in the original version…Now what on earth, is going to make you changed it…to something else!!!, anything else for that matter…???

The answer to that one is obvious enough, surely.
The original version looks as though it is associating the sacred name of God with an evil action.
So there is a clear motive there to shift the responsibilty away to someone else.
That breaks the connection between God's name and evil, which is a desirable thing to do.




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
................................
That was an awesome post…and there is much truth in it…well said…

The only thing I disagree with, is that God does have an enemy, which is the Anti Christ, i.e. that which goes against the light of Gods truth; runs in opposition too it etc…but I guess I must be foolish…

Peace…
- JC

Thanks JC,

My point was the creator God is not in threat of war.There is no “evil being”(Satan) with an army of evil beings(demons) fighting against the creator God.The war is all in the mind of man against the creator God.on that note…..

The word antichrist means... in place of the anointing....The apostle John wrote there were already many antichrists in his time and many were coming and would deceive many.Yahoshua also spoke of them but did not use the word antichrists when he said to the disciples:

"Do not be deceived.Many will come in my name saying they are “christ” and deceive many”.

There is only one group of many people that come in Jesus name and say they are christ (anointed) and deceive many (themselves and others)..Christians…John also called this coming in the “spirit”(life) of antichrist.

Mans religious carnal mind is satan to the creator God.The war is fought in the religious mind of man in “their heavens” and suffers violence.The creator God is not fighting the war.. man is.And as in all wars …it is futile.



edit on 23-2-2015 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


Still going with the demiurge theory eh…?


More or less... As I did post in a later reply... It is either a false god, or men with agenda's fabricating god


I’m a big fan of those Gnostic texts, as you know, but I don’t think they (the Gnostics) got everything correct…I think they recognised the problems within the OT and the atrocities committed there etc… and created a counter theology, to the standard Adam and Eve original sin theology…

I think there are problems with both theologies, and that neither one is completely true…although I do recognise the problems in the OT and where you’re coming from…


I don't think they were entirely correct either... but no more wrong then what became Christianity either...

Original sin just wrong though... along with adam and eve...


Well, the Lord God gave out the Ten commandments remember, (although later, men corrupted and added to them etc...) and those commandments are Good, Holy and Righteous…And Jesus even taught on them in the NT…


Actually no he/she/it did not... they existed before Sinai... which only shows that this so called god was in fact not God at all...


You need to use a different tool brother, the one big brush just doesn’t’ work IMO…


Perhaps you might offer a suggestion?

I don't find it to be "one big brush"... though its easy to brush off a good portion of the OT




posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If David is an unreliable source because he planned for one of his subordinates to die, what does that say about a god who orders the slaughter of innocent women and children?

Saul claims that god told the Israelites to "utterly destroy the Amalekites, women, children, and animals alike" in 1 Samuel 15. What makes Saul any more reliable than David? Saul was no saint either. What makes you think he wasn't claiming to speak for God when he really wasn't?

In that case, what makes you think ANYONE was truly speaking for God in the OT seeing the amount of atrocities committed in his name? Is it only because there is no parallel verses that name the orderer as Satan instead of God?
edit on 2/23/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI



Originally posted by Joecroft
But God already took responsibility for it in the ORIGNAL version, the rewritten version, takes God’s name out of it






Originally posted by DISRAELI
No he did not.


Yes he did!

Its written as plain as day, in the verse 1 Chronicles 21:1, when it specifically states that God incited David to act…but according to you, that is just the writer speculating…




Originally posted by DISRAELI
The writer of one asssumed that God was responsible, the writer of the other assumed that Satan was responsible.
They were both speculating.


So now you're saying that it was just all speculation…say what!!! Please explain to me, why you believe or somehow know, that it was just all speculation from the writer…??? I’m all ears….




Originally posted by DISRAELI
You are making a big issue out of the fact that two different people have different ideas about what lay in the background of David's decision.


I’m not making a big issue out of it all, I’m only highlighting how key elements of the original verse, has become changed and slightly distorted…




Originally posted by Joecroft
But God declared that HE was the one who incited it…the LORD God, not some random dude lol




Originally posted by DISRAELI
No he did not.
The writer of 2 Samuel declared that God incited it.
A different writer makes a different declaration.


But again, how do you know this, how do you know that it’s just the writer who declared it, and not God…???

I thought you were a Bible believing Christian, who believed that the Bible is the inspired word of God etc…

You can’t just take one verse, and state it was the writers speculation, and not God’s declaration; how do you know this, and where do you draw the line with that kind of approach???

Because I’m pretty sure that sometime in the future and probably already in the past, you’ll have quoted a verse, that you believe was Gods word, and not just some mans opinion or speculation about God!




Originally posted Joecroft
But if they’re blaming 2 different individuals, then what’s the real truth of it…?




Originally posted by DISRAELI
Does it matter? The intended moral is that it was something which ought not to have happened, and which was responsible for the plague'


Yes, it matters, but you seem to very apathetic about it…

The moral, depends on which version your going with. In the original version, God is angry about an evil that is taking place and incites David to rise against it etc…so from that perspective, it’s a moral and righteous thing…


But if you go by the rewritten version, it’s Satan i.e. the outside evil, which incites David, so it really all depends on your own individual take…



Originally posted Joecroft
I mean imagine you’re the scribe, and you see the sacred name of God had incited something, in the original version…Now what on earth, is going to make you changed it…to something else!!!, anything else for that matter…???




Originally posted by DISRAELI
The answer to that one is obvious enough, surely.
The original version looks as though it is associating the sacred name of God with an evil action.

So there is a clear motive there to shift the responsibilty away to someone else.
That breaks the connection between God's name and evil, which is a desirable thing to do.


I think this maybe where we are having a disconnect…you see to me the original, is the righteous version, especially when looked at from the perspective of God being angry at Israel, for not doing anything about the evil that was taking place, in that sense it becomes righteous anger…IMO


- JC

edit on 23-2-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon



Originally posted by Akragon
More or less... As I did post in a later reply... It is either a false god, or men with agenda's fabricating god


Sorry, I didn’t see your other replies to other posters; but you do seem to lean more towards the demiurge, more than the other option, (No Law agianst it lol) just based on your past posts etc…

I personally go with the later…



Originally posted by Joecroft
I’m a big fan of those Gnostic texts, as you know, but I don’t think they (the Gnostics) got everything correct…I think they recognised the problems within the OT and the atrocities committed there etc… and created a counter theology, to the standard Adam and Eve original sin theology…

I think there are problems with both theologies, and that neither one is completely true…although I do recognise the problems in the OT and where you’re coming from…





Originally posted by Akragon

I don't think they were entirely correct either... but no more wrong then what became Christianity either...

Original sin just wrong though... along with adam and eve...



Yes, true enough…totally agree, and yes original sin, is slightly inaccurate IMO…




Originally posted by Joecroft
Well, the Lord God gave out the Ten commandments remember, (although later, men corrupted and added to them etc...) and those commandments are Good, Holy and Righteous…And Jesus even taught on them in the NT…





Originally posted by Akragon
Actually no he/she/it did not... they existed before Sinai... which only shows that this so called god was in fact not God at all...


Yes, it is true, they existed first in Sumerian form I believe, but were then later taken to Egypt and later acquired by Moses…

But the point is, that Jesus only teaches on the Ten commandments, in the NT, so He must have believed, that they were righteous and came originally from God etc… hence my comment about the big brush…




Originally posted by Akragon
Perhaps you might offer a suggestion?


Hey, come on, I thought you had No teachers lol…

Don’t make me go and find that link lol


To be honest, I’m a bit reluctant to spit out, what I believe the truth is, Although I think a few posters around here are aware of it…problem is, most are NOT, which means that anything that I might say, will probably sound ridiculous to most people…

As soon as people start asking the right questions here, I might start opening up, a little bit more…



- JC



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
Yes he did!

Its written as plain as day, in the verse 1 Chronicles 21:1, when it specifically states that God incited David to act…but according to you, that is just the writer speculating…

No, it doesn't.
That's the verse which specfically names Satan.
2 Samuel is the account which puts it on God, but neither account quotes God as the source of the information.



So now you're saying that it was just all speculation…say what!!! Please explain to me, why you believe or somehow know, that it was just all speculation from the writer…??? I’m all ears….

But again, how do you know this, how do you know that it’s just the writer who declared it, and not God…???

I thought you were a Bible believing Christian, who believed that the Bible is the inspired word of God etc…

You can’t just take one verse, and state it was the writers speculation, and not God’s declaration; how do you know this, and where do you draw the line with that kind of approach???

If David was not conscious that his decision was being influenced, and since God did not say so through the mouth of a prophet, where else do those answers come from?
The fact that the two writers come up with different ideas shows that at least one of them was speculating, doesn't it?

I am a God-believing Christian, who believes that the Bible is telling the story of the relationship between the Creator God and the people that he chose to work with.
The story comes in the form of reports made by the human side, of things which happened and of things which God said to people, especially through the prophets and through the mouth of Jesus.
Therefore what we find, especially in the Old Testament, is a mixture of God's real intentions and a more human and fallible contribution, and the task is to try to disentangle them.
If you want to see how I set about this, you could take a look at my "God's law" series of threads.
I make the attempt on the authority of Jesus himself and following his example;
He pointed out the clash between God's intentions for marriage as declared in Genesis ("a man shall cleave to his wife") and the fact that the laws allowed a man to divorce his wife whenever he found it convenient. He said that divorce originated in "the hardness of your hearts"- that is, the human element in the situation.


edit on 24-2-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Rex282

.................................
What is it that charged us with legal debt? The OT law, it is what stood against us and condemned us. Who set the OT law in place? Yahweh. He set up a law that was opposed to us.

This must mean that Yahweh is Satan, the one who opposes and condemns us, which is why one author calls him LORD and the other Satan. The "LORD" of the OT was actually Satan (the adversary) in disguise.




There is no “legal debt” of the OT law that is against(mankind).It is man religious carnal mind that is against the creator God.The religious carnal mind has created a law of ordinances like criminal law. The law as recorded in the Tanakh and what is called in error the ten commandments are more like natural laws like gravity.You can’t break the law of gravity it breaks you when you oppose it.(try to fly off a 100 story building unaided).

The ordinance law perception is the root of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that “judges” events through it’s perception of observation.The natural laws of order have consequences that are “paid” in a different ways that are not necessarily punitive.

For example …the 1st commandment is to “love” the creator God. Essentially to love is to ”know” or commune.It does not just mean the emotion or feeling even though their may be emotion.The foundation experience of love is to know.There is a “consequence” of not knowing the creator God….imperception of truth(and it’s multitude of implications)…which is the general malady and condition of mankind.The creator God is not going to punish mankind punitively for not “knowing” them.They are explicitly aware that mankind does not because they are the creator, however there are consequences for not knowing.

In other words this “commandment” is a natural Law of the “way” the truth of reality is.It cannot be broken it can only break things(by consequence) that are opposed (satan) to it.It is futile to foist blame on the creator God for creating mankind in such a way they cannot “know” them.It is the nature of the creators creation.It is impossible for mankind to understand how it ALL works together.The chances are very, very high (100%) that mankind cannot perceive the big picture of reality!

This great commandment as Yahoshua spoke of it is even more complicated because he said to “love” your neighbor as you love yourself.Yahoshua was not prescribing a method as the religious carnal mind believes... he was stating a fact that mankind cannot achieve.If man cannot “know” the creator God the consequence is they cannot know their neighbor or even themselves!

This is the root of all the enmity of man in human history.Mankind does not “know” themselves because they do not know the creator God.The best mankind can do is “act”…. however it is all a charade. Every time a person believes they know something it only turns out they didn’t.This was the core of Socrates wise quote(paraphrased)

The imperception of the “Law” at best can serve as a corrective and compel those to act against their nature.The irony is how the Law has come to be something it is not and still serve a purpose.

The great perversion of the Law as perceived by mankind is to twist it into religious doctrine…i.e if you don’t follow the letter of the Law(the Israelites tacked on 613 more) you are “punished”.First off this was the "Israelites" then Jews who followed this letter of the Law.That is why Yahoshua paid no attention to the Jewish construct of the Law…..he knew for a fact the Law of the Jews was a sham because he “knew” what the Law really was and also knew trying to explain it what futile because the religious carnal mind is darkened by satan(the adversary).

He stated he knew exactly what the Law was by saying he “knew”(was in communion) the father the creator God.He said I only do what I hear and see the father do(an awkward way of phrasing it).In other words everything he said and did was from the father.In essence he was saying(and doing) I am in harmony with the Laws of true reality.

Mankinds perception of Law is through the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not the knowledge of the creator God.It is “fruit” that serves it’s own purpose by it’s perception which is imperception of truth.

Yahoshua said I did not come to destroy the Law and not one iota or tittle would pass from the Law until all is fulfilled(summed/enacted).That statement is the source of much religious convolution.Many believe Yahoshua was saying you must “keep” the Jewish Law…or that Jesus fulfilled it so Christians don’t have to keep the Jewish Law..and a multitude of other satans.

Unless someone knows what the 1st commandment is how can they "know" anything(rhetorical)…they can’t.Many people believe in essence Jesus was a groovy guru teacher teaching how to live a good life.That is not correct.He was not teaching the people because they didn’t understand anything he said because he always spoke in parables to them… The Jewish religious leaders(who were completely blinded and deaf from their religion) did not understand him at all….and not even the disciples understood what he said(he had to explain it to them and they still didn’t understand).

He told the disciples it was given only to them (by the father) ’to “know” the mysteries of the kingdom of their heavens (their mind).It wasn’t by studying the Law in the Tanakh.As a matter of fact that “belief” had to be destroyed first because it was false.The Law cannot be destroyed.It is truth of reality however religion must be destroyed to know the truth because it is imperception of reality and in complete contradiction(satan) to truth.

These are the very basic things Yahoshua was stating not teaching.He never gave a method how to achieve it because ..there is no method.It is in effect a”summing” ….a given to “know” the creator God.The apostle John called it the unveiling (revelation).An adversary (satan) stands between this “knowing”.The religious carnal minds belief in a false reality perceived by faith trough their Belief System religion which has grown from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Th writers of the Tanakh testified of it in the book of Genesis without knowing what it meant.Man twisted it into their Law and despite of all the perversion it has still been able to compel some to “act” against their nature of corruption.The fact is there is a Law of reality.It is not against mankind but mankind is against it.However the good news is All of creation will “know” this Law when it is fulfilled in them.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Who paid for David's so called sin of taking the census? God gave David three choices 1) seven years of famine. 2) Flee from his enemies for three months. 3) Three days of pestilence.

70,000 died throughout Israel until the death angel that brought the plague was stopped just before entering Jerusalem. David pleaded for mercy and was told to build an altar to God on a particular threshing floor (2Samuel 24:16 - 18). The pestilence was thus halted.

Lovely god, all those innocent people killed for something David did. It is just the old moral of the story don't go against god or someone will get killed.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




Originally posted by DISRAELI
No, it doesn't.
That's the verse which specfically names Satan.
2 Samuel is the account which puts it on God, but neither account quotes God as the source of the information.


Sorry, that was my mistake, I got the verses mixed up, I meant it’s written as plain as day, in 2 Samuel 24:1, which is the original verse. Anyway, that verse specifically states that it was God who incited David; but the Chronicles verse, essentially takes Gods name out of the story.

So again, Yes it does…

We’ll just have to agree to disagree, unless you can give me a better reason as to why you think it’s just the writer speculating, in either one or both verses…



Originally posted by DISRAELI
If David was not conscious that his decision was being influenced, and since God did not say so through the mouth of a prophet, where else do those answers come from?
The fact that the two writers come up with different ideas shows that at least one of them was speculating, doesn't it?


But the original verse has it as God inciting David, surely we have to go with the original verse, and not what came later…

If we go with the spoken word of mouth/handed down method, then the first original version (2 Samuel 24:1), would surely have to be considered the more accurate of the two…

And also, why would the rewritten version (1 Chronicles 21:1), need to speculate, when the original version (2 Samuel 24:1), had already established, that God incited David to act…?



Originally posted by DISRAELI
Therefore what we find, especially in the Old Testament, is a mixture of God's real intentions and a more human and fallible contribution, and the task is to try to disentangle them.



Ok, fair enough I suppose, but what makes you think that in that particular verse (2 Samuel 24:1) that it was just man’s (the writers) speculation,…???




Originally posted by DISRAELI
If you want to see how I set about this, you could take a look at my "God's law" series of threads.


OMG!, you have tons of threads on God’s Laws lol, I suppose I could take a look; did you have a specific one in mind…


- JC



edit on 25-2-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
OMG!, you have tons of threads on God’s Laws lol, I suppose I could take a look; did you have a specific one in mind…

There is an Index Thread which sums up the whole series;

God's Law; Your patient teacher



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

See this is why I find the demiurge concept to be much easier to believe then the OT god being the Father..
It.. contradicts itself at every turn...
Gives a command then breaks it...
Kills anything and anyone without compunction...
Jealous, Wrathful, envious, deceitful... and a stack of other things which are straight up evil/wicked
Then Christians turn around and say "well we don't know the mind of God" ...
Except we do through his son...
Oh...
When it comes down to it... the OT god is clearly...OBVIOUSLY not The Father...
So were left with either a false god posing as the Father and people just didn't realise it...
Or a fabrication of men with agenda's...

Lets look at the dictionary definition of 'dem-i-urge' "New World" second college edition. (dem'e'urg') n. Gr. demiourgos, one who works for the people skilled workman, creator ;demos, (the people) plus ergos, worker, (see ERG) 1. [often D-] a) in Plato's philosophy, the deity as creator of the material world in Gnostic philosophy; a deity subordinate to the supreme deity, sometimes considered the creator of evil. 2. GR. History: a magistrate in certain states, 3. a ruling force or creative power. I see your theorem as being definitely plausible Akragon. Waving "HI JOE" at you! (you know I am not a scripture junkie).
edit on 25-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


The problem is, if the above explanation is the correct interpretation of that verse, then why is David even mentioning Satan at all…in other words, why give power to something, that is not happy with something rightoues that is taking place…that just doesn’t make any sense to me at all…I mean, why biuld up the negative, instead of the positive…Why frame it from Satan’s perspective, instead of the Lords…. I

At this time Israel has become less dependent upon Yahuha and has become more centered upon its own ego. David has forgotten that he is but a servant of Yahuha and not a hot shot king. He delights in his victories and strength instead of being humble and giving all credit to Yahuha.

Most all Christians understand the OT as Satan being a bad entity against Yahuah. A foe who hates Yahuah. But the Jews do not understand this in that manner. To the Jew, a Satan is one who is a friend of Yahuah and is employed to tempt with the hope that the one being tempted can overcome the temptation. A Jew does not believe an angel can sin so in that light you may have several understandings of this.

My understanding is that Yahuah is angered by Davids attitude and has David take a census of Israel. This would show that Israel is much smaller in number of warriors than the other nations and should not have been able to conquer much larger and stronger nations without the divine power of Yahuah. So in effect by David taking a census of his nation proved to David that his faith in God had diminished. Davis later repented of this egotistical attitude.

The Christian understands - Satan tempted David in hope that the census would discredit Yehuah and bolster David's ego.
The Jew understands - Satan was sent as a messenger from God to David for David to take a census to show David his error in self pride. Both would have the same results but different avenues.
There are many Satan's in Jewish folklore.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede



Originally posted by Seede
At this time Israel has become less dependent upon Yahuha and has become more centered upon its own ego. David has forgotten that he is but a servant of Yahuha and not a hot shot king. He delights in his victories and strength instead of being humble and giving all credit to Yahuha.


But David gave credit too Yahweh, in the original verse 2 Samuel 24:1…???

Are you suggesting that the scribes put that into the text deliberately, to make David appear more righteous…?

And if so then why was it changed, in the rewritten version…?




Originally posted by Seede
Most all Christians understand the OT as Satan being a bad entity against Yahuah. A foe who hates Yahuah. But the Jews do not understand this in that manner. To the Jew, a Satan is one who is a friend of Yahuah and is employed to tempt with the hope that the one being tempted can overcome the temptation. A Jew does not believe an angel can sin so in that light you may have several understandings of this.


Well written, and this is true IMO, the book of Job being a classic example of Satan being used by God. But having said that, there are no other verses in the Bible, that I’m aware of, where have both Yahweh and Satan are competing over the same action…it’s almost as if know one knows who is inciting David to act and why, in this particular case…

If Yahweh did send Satan, then the natural question which arises, is why is David following Satan, of course God may have been testing David, but problem is in my view, that God is righteous in the original verse, for trying to get David to do something about the evil taking place…although how David deals with the situation is not righteous IMO…






Originally posted by Seede
My understanding is that Yahuah is angered by Davids attitude and has David take a census of Israel. This would show that Israel is much smaller in number of warriors than the other nations and should not have been able to conquer much larger and stronger nations without the divine power of Yahuah. So in effect by David taking a census of his nation proved to David that his faith in God had diminished. Davis later repented of this egotistical attitude.


So in that case, you must consider the original verse 2 Samuel 24:1 which stated God incited David to act, as being a false account…is that correct…?



Originally posted by Seede
The Christian understands - Satan tempted David in hope that the census would discredit Yehuah and bolster David's ego.

The Jew understands - Satan was sent as a messenger from God to David for David to take a census to show David his error in self pride. Both would have the same results but different avenues.


But why would God send Satan as a messenger, to help discredit himself i.e. Yahweh/ Yehuah…?



On a side note, why do you keep referring to Yahweh as “Yehuah”…???


- JC



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
Lets look at the dictionary definition of 'dem-i-urge' "New World" second college edition. (dem'e'urg') n. Gr. demiourgos, one who works for the people skilled workman, creator ;demos, (the people) plus ergos, worker, (see ERG) 1. [often D-] a) in Plato's philosophy, the deity as creator of the material world in Gnostic philosophy; a deity subordinate to the supreme deity, sometimes considered the creator of evil. 2. GR. History: a magistrate in certain states, 3. a ruling force or creative power. I see your theorem as being definitely plausible Akragon. Waving "HI JOE" at you! (you know I am not a scripture junkie).



Are you another one of these “demiurgian theorists”, you guys really get around…lol

Has it ever crossed your weary mind, that if the demiurge is correct, then the higher God did a pretty bad job of keeping the lesser god under control…jeeezz…maybe he was on vacation or something, during the really bleak periods lol

(HI Waves back!)

- JC



edit on 26-2-2015 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft


Has it ever crossed your weary mind, that if the demiurge is correct, then the higher God did a pretty bad God of keeping the lesser god under control…jeeezz…maybe he was on vacation or something, during the really bleak periods lol


Take a look at the mess this world is in, and always has been since we started recording our history...

IF the god of this world is the Father, he/she/it royally screwed us up, and in turn we screwed up the world

Selfishness and greed are the way of life in this world... love is a minor element for the most part...

IF this demiurge exists... He was set to his task to deal with this world as he sees fit... the higher God (the Father) deals with the spirit and since we all return to him... it doesn't really matter what the false god of this world does with his job

and as you can see... he/she/it does a pretty good job at making the world a living hell

Even Jesus said this isn't my kingdom... my servants would fight for me if it were...




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Demiurge, Satan, Baal, Yahweh, etc. aren't real "entities" but figments of men's imaginations. They are personifications of the evil that men commit and the lies they push. The demiurge/Satan aren't actual things, just concepts created in the mind. Just as "Father" is a concept of the mind, they are all labels put onto concepts by men, even "God" is a man-made concept, though all of these labels do represent things that are very real, as in man's ego or his humbleness etc.

There isn't any "outside" force acting on the world, it is all us in one way or another in my opinion. Seeing these concepts as actual entities separate from our minds is superstition in my opinion.

Just my two cents.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

"Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning "adversary";[1] Arabic: شيطان shaitan, meaning "astray" or "distant""
- wiki

So the 2nd bolded quote of yours can mean "adversary" rose up against Israel.

I think because the bible is a mishmash of myths and stories, the concept of early uses of evil angels and satan as a singular entity, maybe was a part of early myths, and then the words evolved to mean generally, and so in other parts the word was intended that way.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Originally posted by Akragon
Take a look at the mess this world is in, and always has been since we started recording our history...

IF the god of this world is the Father, he/she/it royally screwed us up, and in turn we screwed up the world

Selfishness and greed are the way of life in this world... love is a minor element for the most part...



Well said Akragon, you have a big heart my friend…


Yes, selfishness and greed have become the Gods of this world…many have been misled, into following the God of flesh, instead of following the Spirit of truth within themselves…



Originally posted by Akragon
IF this demiurge exists... He was set to his task to deal with this world as he sees fit... the higher God (the Father) deals with the spirit and since we all return to him... it doesn't really matter what the false god of this world does with his job


Jesus tried to get us too recognised the spirit within ourselves and our divine connection to the Father, only when this happens will the Kingdom of Heaven reign on the Earth. “Thy Kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven”

The God of this world right now, is the False God, and those who follow him/it, live in a spirit of Death i.e. Hell, which is a spiritual mind-set IMO whereby they live only for the flesh. Jesus came to free us from all that IMO…

Peace Brother…

- JC



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



Originally posted by ImaFungi
"Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning "adversary";[1] Arabic: شيطان shaitan, meaning "astray" or "distant""
- wiki

So the 2nd bolded quote of yours can mean "adversary" rose up against Israel.

I think because the bible is a mishmash of myths and stories, the concept of early uses of evil angels and satan as a singular entity, maybe was a part of early myths, and then the words evolved to mean generally, and so in other parts the word was intended that way.


Thanks, that’s an important aspect to point out; Satan is indeed an adversary and not necessarily the individual entity known as Satan, in every instance throughout the OT


The problem I pointed out in an earlier post, still exists though, because if 1 Chronicles 21:1 is a rewrite (and most believe it is) from the original, found in 2 Samuel 24:1, then the Lord, should not be seen as an adversary at all, especially if God is actually acting in a righteous manner in the original Samuel 24:1 verse…?


- JC



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join