The core tenets of Christianity are diametrically opposed to what we "know" about Satan, so... sorry, but it just doesn't wash with me.

MEANWHILE, IN HELL:

Satan: "Look at my pawns!! Giving money to the poor! Loving their neighbour as themselves! Forgiveness and generosity of spirit are rife upon the earth!! And the more they evangelise, the more my doctrine of mercy and love spreads and multiplies across all of Creation!!! BWUAHAHAHAHA!!!"

Demonic Henchman: "Fail, dude. Massive fail."

To me, "Satan" is an idea. Satan is a thought. Satan is a word that represents all that is hidden away from the masses by the few controllers. Satan is basically a chain on your free will. Satan is the idea that you can unwittingly be controlled to act a certain way, and those that don't fit in are labeled with a word that defines the societal view of that person's particular inability to fit into the mold.

Satan is the molds that we force our children into, knowing damn well that we didn't fit when OUR parents stuffed us in. Satan is knowing in your heart that an action or inaction isn't right, but doing it anyways for fear of society's wrath. Satan is the shell that keeps most people from knowing that they aren't the only ones that are struggling to act in a play that they don't approve of. Satan is the fear that keeps people from questioning, and thus KNOWING.

Now, insert THAT "Satan" into your manufactured and manipulated religions and you will have at least a vague idea of what some of us can see. We aren't playing "connect the dots", we are seeing 2 layers, and it's hard to explain to people that absolutely refuse to at least take a look for themselves.

Also, Satan is the belief that your God is better than anyone else's, or that your way of worshiping God is better, especially when that belief extends to the point of eliminating the lives that don't bend to your ways.


AND, on a different perspective, to clarify the assumption that satan would get people to worship God when Satan wanted himself held in higher status than even God... would it not make sense that "God" as an embodiment is actually Satan, and the story of him being fearful and almighty (at least until not 'PC' anymore) is Satan's story, and possibly 'God' is just an ideal of knowledge and self sufficiency. 'God' as a role-reversed idea, is knowledge of Free-Will. So Satan kicks A&E out of Eden. (I personally like the story a lot better when the idea of responsibility vs. free-will is injected... I believe that is the original intention of the story. They had free will, but chose to be irresponsible in that they took fruit from a tree that they were asked not to, and got hammered with the big negative point loss to faith. They actively altered another person's perception of faith and trust when they broke that request, thus releasing evil on the world, because that one act of breaking faith reverberates and deteriorates through the rest of the history of the biblical writings).

IMHO, from viewing Christianity from inside and afar, I've come to the personal conclusion that the religion as a whole has been perverted from the start. Think Scientology is loony and evil? Christianity is just as bad. It was perverted just to make it big. Christianity was like a rising music genre that got overplayed... country music. Listen to roots country. Old Willy, Charlie Daniels... older stuff like Johnny Horton. Doesn't sound anything like what defines Country today. They even go as far as to classify Elvis as country! It's basically being constantly perverted for the sake of popularity. If they could, I'm sure they would try to imply some sort of psychosomatic fear of consequence for not listening to country. In some small parts of the U.S. this is actually manifested through societal out-lash towards individuals who don't like Country, almost with the same degree as religion and racism.

/babbletron off

No, I do not, and here is why (although the adversary in everyone's minds most certainly started the process of corruption from the get-go):

The way I see it, Jesus as represented in the Bible and the omitted texts wanted to do away with religion and ritual. Of course, as soon as that viewpoint entered the world, there were many who tried and succeeded in corrupting it. You see, Christ had the wise view that if one wants to change the order of slavery under which we all still live to this very day, one must not repeat the same rituals and cycles mindlessly. The Pharisees attempted to force people to behave as they commanded, with no respect given to their individual being. They also judged themselves as better, because they steadfastly kept to ritual. This leads to image worship, fear, pride, vanity, narcissism, and lust, a dangerous downward spiral. It gets people totally instinctive and mindless, mere animated meat puppets seeking that next dopamine rush. This makes people the easiest thing to mentally control, and it perpetuates the slave culture. When people can resist manipulation, and when they try to see the whole picture, and when they give up their angles which more often than not turn out to be demons, when people do these things we will live in a utopia. Jesus played the role of "V" in "V for Vendetta" perfectly. Except Jesus represents planting seeds without vengeance, planting spiritual seeds of the whole picture. These seeds come to fruition and collectivize, and Christ is the last man standing, with Sophia as his consort. Alpha and Omega people. Beginning and end. When beginning and end are simultaneous, we transform into Christ. The age of Aquarius that people are so relentlessly trying to bring into being must reflect upon something, and I bet you can guess what singularity is reflected upon.

Brilliantly played. Man was still addicted to ritual, as he had not conquered his own flesh. Man runs in circles, inspired by women and religion (and many foolishly state that we lived in a patriarchy. We lived in an outer patriarchy, and an inner matriarchy. Our minds were stuck in the matrix, if you will.). We also charge each other with judgments. We label someone a character, hero or pariah, and they carry out that role like someone animated by a wizard. Women and bosses and religious leaders sure do love guys with character. Weave or regurgitate a drama and only reward a character that solves your drama. Nevertheless, the circles complete in a full revolution. Then then they are cycle again, albeit with slightly altered dramas, but with the core of domination and manipulation, division, war, hate, FEAR, remaining fully intact. The cycles also tend to repeat faster with each successive iteration. So eventually, just as in calculus, since the rotations are getting tighter and tighter each time, spanning less time, they reach an eventuality in which the revolution happens over the span of 0 time, an infinitessimal point. It is at this time that the author of the drama is revealed, and since we all act as characters in the drama, the core of our being is revealed. It is the logic and emotion and will of Christ. It is the center of our logic. It is a singular organism that acts in accordance with "I."

[edit on 25-11-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

Although I know you said to try not to use the Bible as a reference, it is very apparent that "you will know a good tree by good fruit and a bad tree by bad fruit" is pretty much spot on when it comes to people. Are murderers good people? Was Hitler a good guy? Was Stalin a good guy? Or was Gandhi a bad guy? Am I one of Satan's minions because I like to help the poor and needy?

Interesting thought, I have argued that point with people myself in the past.

Another thing to think about along these same lines that I have touched on in other posts is the fact that Jesus warned of false prophets that would speak as if they were Christians Then comes Paul proclaiming to be an apostle although that title was a self proclaimed one, and it is he, and his lackey Luke who are responsible for a great deal of the NT's books.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [lawlessness].

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.12 And because iniquity [lawlessness] shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

These are just a couple of passages that could be directly pointing to Paul, and the rise of "Christianity" Notice that the book of Luke, nor the epistles attributed to Paul say much of anything about false prophets. The only thing in them is a passage in I Cor. (believed to be written by Paul)

1 Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Anyone who thinks they are spiritual has to acknowledge the things he writes to be true... Says the false prophet...

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Although I know you said to try not to use the Bible as a reference, it is very apparent that "you will know a good tree by good fruit and a bad tree by bad fruit" is pretty much spot on when it comes to people. Are murderers good people? Was Hitler a good guy? Was Stalin a good guy? Or was Gandhi a bad guy? Am I one of Satan's minions because I like to help the poor and needy?

I see your point. But some of these questions have grey area. The death penalty is legal in many states in this country, with approval from many Christians. Are they accomplices to murder? Does this make them good or evil?
I will not say that Hitler was a good guy, nor Stalin but there are many leaders who have been deceived to think that they were doing good while committing heinous acts in the name of god. And not just leaders there are many many people who are murdered in the name of god.
I cannot answer whether or not you are bad for helping the poor and needy, in some instances i feel it is wrong to "help" people who we deem to be poor and needy. There are missionaries who go to "primitive" tribes and countries to help and I would argue that in many cases they are doing much more harm than good. Destroying cultures and all. But from their perspective they are doing gods work and providing these people with the ultimate gift, in the form of Jesus and Christianity. I do not think that this is helping.

And when it comes to helping the poor and needy, why are so many Christians opposed to universal health care? Why does it seem that the majority of Christians are opposed to social programs which help thy neighbors? Notice I did not say ALL, i'm not including everyone, as there are exceptions.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by iamcamouflage]

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

I see your point. But some of these questions have grey area. The death penalty is legal in many states in this country, with approval from many Christians. Are they accomplices to murder? Does this make them good or evil?

I believe Satan has what I would call "infiltrators" if anything. There is no complete hostile take-over of Christianity in the sense that the roles have been completely reversed. It's just simple deception.

I will not say that Hitler was a good guy, nor Stalin but there are many leaders who have been deceived to think that they were doing good while committing heinous acts in the name of god. And not just leaders there are many many people who are murdered in the name of god.
I cannot answer whether or not you are bad for helping the poor and needy, in some instances i feel it is wrong to "help" people who we deem to be poor and needy. There are missionaries who go to "primitive" tribes and countries to help and I would argue that in many cases they are doing much more harm than good. Destroying cultures and all. But from their perspective they are doing gods work and providing these people with the ultimate gift, in the form of Jesus and Christianity. I do not think that this is helping.

If missionaries are bringing medicines that provide immunity towards primitive diseases that 3rd world countries have no substantial cure for, how is that not helping them? Missionaries often times not only teach Christianity but also help in many other areas that we as Americans often take for granted such as mathematical and scientific skills. If anything, I would argue that these missionaries are helping to preserve these cultures, not destroy them. So be it if a little christianity gets tossed in as well. You, I am sure, know how hard it is to convince someone who already has preconceived notions in the realm of spirituality.

And when it comes to helping the poor and needy, why are so many Christians opposed to universal health care? Why does it seem that the majority of Christians are opposed to social programs which help thy neighbors? Notice I did not say ALL, i'm not including everyone, as there are exceptions.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by iamcamouflage]

Well, I am not in your shoes friend. I do not know many Christians who are opposed to social programs. However, I CAN speculate just a little bit. I think that perhaps one reason could be the view that social programs MAY be viewed as a form of reduced slavery in the eyes of many Christian fundamentalists. After all, socialism at its most very basic level is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person.

There is no need to insult him, unless he is asking this question as some kind terrible joke (which I doubt he is).

I understand your question, the answer is much more complicated then some people may think.

One must always remember that the bible is not really book, but a library of books spanning thousands of years. There is no one true source to the bible, but many sources. This can be verified by the fact that the bible contradicts itself numerous times. The only parts of it I could ever see being influenced by satan, or fear as I like to call it, are the parts that claim God is a vengeful God who will punish you eternally for your sins. Fortunately, not all the bible claims this, mostly just the jewish inspired Old testament.

The new testament however, is definitely not inspired by satan. Any scripture that has the universal truth that is found in EVERY SINGLE RELIGION; love others as you do yourself, is not inspired by satan. Satan, or Fear, would never, ever, EVER say that. IF everybody followed this rule, 99% of conflicts would cease. The new testament barely invokes fear at all; the only parts that invoke any idea of hell or damnation are very flexible in their interpretation. For instance, Jesus claims that any man, without God, is damned. But is anybody really without God? Most religions teach that God is with all us, all the time, whether or not we know it or not.

I think OP could have simplified his argument a bit by pointing out that many Christians consider other holy books to be the work of Satan. So, for example, some Christians consider the Koran to be the work of the devil. Or Bhagavad Gita, or whatever.

That being the case, how can a Christian know that his book is really the true Word, and not one of those other books? I mean, many claim that other books are of Satan, so how can you say any particular book is the right one?

The Bible tells us it is the true book. So does the Koran. So you can't rely on what the books say, because they claim the same thing - that they're the true one. How can you be sure?

Most definetly Satan is the deciever on the grand scale of things.
Aren't you ever afraid he has decieved you, into writing a thread here
on this site before God and Man. A thread that questions the authority of Gods word.Do I really have to tell you that there is actually far more chance that you are the victim of deception here?

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

I am aware of the circular logic that I have provided. Without the Bible there would be no mention of the Satan or the potential for Satan to deceive. This is what I find confusing about the faith that is put forth in religion.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, unlike some people

Well, without the Bible, they might not call it Satan, but just about every religion has some sort of devil or demons or other obstructions. Quite often, one religion's god became another religion's devil. For example, Baal is a Semitic word that means "lord" or "master". Some religions had Baal as a deity; but the Bible calls it a devil (or a false god).

In India there are devas (divine spirits) and asuras (mlign spirits). In Persia, the Asuras are the good guys; and the word "deva" may in fact be where we got the word "devil".

Some of the imagery of the devil is based on Pagan concepts. For instance, the devil is supposed to have cloven hooves and have horns. So was Pan, the god of what? Booze or something, I don't remember.

One religion's god is another religion's devil, and there is no objective way to know which (if any) is right.

It seems that whenever it is asked of Christians to prove something, they delve into circular logic, using the Bible to prove the Bible. This is not logical and gets us no further and answers nothing.

If it were science, you might have a point. Proving faith as fact, proving the existence of God, proving, proving, proving....

If we were talking of a scientific experiment, you would have us prove the experiment without the facts....seems illogical to me.

The Bible refers to your situation as "ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.."

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Jim Scott]

Originally posted by chiron613
I think OP could have simplified his argument a bit by pointing out that many Christians consider other holy books to be the work of Satan. So, for example, some Christians consider the Koran to be the work of the devil. Or Bhagavad Gita, or whatever.

That being the case, how can a Christian know that his book is really the true Word, and not one of those other books? I mean, many claim that other books are of Satan, so how can you say any particular book is the right one?

The Bible tells us it is the true book. So does the Koran. So you can't rely on what the books say, because they claim the same thing - that they're the true one. How can you be sure?

It still comes down to "know a good tree by its fruit and a bad tree by its fruit".

If the Koran teaches death and destruction then obviously it is not holy word. If it makes you feel tingly inside and inspires you to turn from sin then it is inspired by holiness.

It doesn't boil down to what the books say. It all comes down to what they produce(man's actions).

Conscience and intuition. Sadly, some people are born without them and some lose them along the path. They wander into the wilderness to relieve themselves and drop them in the dark. Sometimes they come back when it's light and find them. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they just stumble on without trying.

Funny thing is that the origin of Satan isn't really clear in the Bible. If the Bible is true, the one explanation can be that Satan and God are one in the same.

But I understand the thought process you are encouraging. Satan lied to enlighten Adam and Eve with knowledge. Isn't the Bible just a big book of knowledge?

S + F. This is a concern that Christians need to take seriously.