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.

 

God and satan Question?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Vicky32
 


I'll answer your question for him/her. The figures come from the book itself when you add it all up. Don't immediately dismiss the research done by atheists just because you believe the bullsh!t in the book. I've looked at the given numbers in the book and the estimate that was given is accurate, not including all of the other unspecified deaths in the other atrocities.

OK, show your working out! (As primary teachers say.) You want me to accept the bull# goven by atheists instead?
Not going to happen.
It's funny, atheists making such a huge meal out of slagging off the Old Testament, getting their ammunition from a book they swear they don't believe in...

Why so angry at a God you say you think doesn't exist?
Vicky
However, at least you're honest, stating that you're anti-Christian! Most atheists pretend they're not, that they're just concerned citizens - making them "concern trolls"!
edit on 22/5/11 by Vicky32 because: (no reason given)


Vicky,

most of the time I have great respect for you and your way of being christian, but this post appears to be polarized beyond your usual balanced communication.

Quote: ["It's funny, atheists making such a huge meal out of slagging off the Old Testament, getting their ammunition from a book they swear they don't believe in... "]

Whether a book is describing 'reality' objectively, partly objectively or is just plain fabrication, it can have impact on its readers. 'Mein Kampf' is mostly bosh, 'Das Kapital' contains (as the basis of much communism/socialism) some rather sound socio-economical arguments, but shows no understanding of human psychology. Both these books are to be taken seriously.

Even going to straight fiction, there's a lot of attitudes/argumentation based on it. C.S.Lewis has recently had a small revival, as being a 'deep' christian philosopher (actually he's rather dumb, though a good writer).

A book's objectivity is no ground for its evaluation. There are non-rational social consequences on their own also.

Quote: ["Why so angry at a God you say you think doesn't exist?"]

There's a whole range of critical attitudes to this alleged 'god'. Not only the one based on gnostic atheism.

Quote: ["However, at least you're honest, stating that you're anti-Christian!"]

Again, ....this is a generalization. As you know, I am a christian critic, but I don't target the 'private' faith-christian. I try to only target the missionary types, and that is something I also do with missionaries from other ideologies. Christians are not singled out, though some use a 'persecution' argument for debate-tactical reasons.




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

most of the time I have great respect for you and your way of being christian, but this post appears to be polarized beyond your usual balanced communication.

Quote: ["It's funny, atheists making such a huge meal out of slagging off the Old Testament, getting their ammunition from a book they swear they don't believe in... "]

Whether a book is describing 'reality' objectively, partly objectively or is just plain fabrication, it can have impact on its readers. 'Mein Kampf' is mostly bosh, 'Das Kapital' contains (as the basis of much communism/socialism) some rather sound socio-economical arguments, but shows no understanding of human psychology. Both these books are to be taken seriously.

Even going to straight fiction, there's a lot of attitudes/argumentation based on it. C.S.Lewis has recently had a small revival, as being a 'deep' christian philosopher (actually he's rather dumb, though a good writer).

A book's objectivity is no ground for its evaluation. There are non-rational social consequences on their own also.

Quote: ["Why so angry at a God you say you think doesn't exist?"]

There's a whole range of critical attitudes to this alleged 'god'. Not only the one based on gnostic atheism.

Quote: ["However, at least you're honest, stating that you're anti-Christian!"]

Again, ....this is a generalization. As you know, I am a christian critic, but I don't target the 'private' faith-christian. I try to only target the missionary types, and that is something I also do with missionaries from other ideologies. Christians are not singled out, though some use a 'persecution' argument for debate-tactical reasons.

You're not taking into account that this post of mine was the umpteenth in that particular argument, and I was becoming seriously off-piste!
(Sorry, if English is not your native language, I think it is not, right?) you won't get that attempted joke. I was getting pissed off... as we say. However, I take your point about books, even though you appear to have missed the larger point - that he and others prefer to attack the Old Testament, deliberately failing to realise that it comes from a culture and an historical period alien to ours. Personally, I go almost as far as Marcion, and consider it as being of very little value to Christians.
You may not be against the 'average Christian' (just the missionaries, how generous and ingenuous of you!) but many internet atheists hate us all, every man, woman and child!
You're missing too, that all Christians are obliged to 'spread the word'. It's a rule we have!
Vicky

The persecution argument that you dismiss, is actually valid. A recent for instance, is a Christian school principal fired for 'down-loading porn' to his school computer. He was proven innocent, but still could not get his job back. His computer was targeted for a 'check' solely because he's a Christian.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


Hi Vicky,

thanks for your answer. Personally I appreciate the communication-skills you demonstrate when addressing me. I believe, that you and I generally have passed the need of mud-throwing between us. And btw, as is common with a second or third language, my passive understanding exceeds my active handling of it (plus a minor dyslexia problem on my part of switching the order of letters when I write a word).

I understand your perspective on OT; though for me the crucial point in an OT/NT 'evaluation' lies in which basic interpretation of NT is chosen.

The christianities apparantly have their own problems with agreeing on the 'law above faith' (or vice versa) controversy, which for some christians go even further into 'law' as an expression of 'action' in mundane life, e.g. through stressing the point of compassion.

I like and respect the compassionate christianities, and I despise the missionary pushing of the submissive 'faith' version, which imo is OK as an individual choice, but not as a doctrinal absolute to enforce.

And it's mainly here my sometimes confrontational attitudes start. Academically by pointing out, that redemption-doctrine DEPENDS on OT. If there was no genesis 2 'sin', there would be no need for anything to be redeemed from.

On grounds of preferring sound reasoning chains, I'm not happy about cherry-picking (in any systematic methodology whatsoever), so creating a version of christianity based on cross-references between SELECTED options (and it's hard to deny, that the bible has a big range of possible directions, positions and interpretations), you can 'conclude' in many, many ways.

One such 'conclusion' being the constellation of the schizoid OT 'god', Satan ('Satan' very often presented as a totally confused conglomerate of various entities from OT) and the redeeming-Jesus.

I find the basic method for arriving at such a specific 'conclusion' intellectually dishonest, quite clearly based on subjective emotional or fanatical mindset motives in most cases. And by denouncing the method used in arriving to such a 'conclusion', I naturally also reject its outcoming 'answer'.

Quote: ["You may not be against the 'average Christian' (just the missionaries, how generous and ingenuous of you!)"]

He, he. On my part it's ofcourse only a semantic trick. I DO burn the occasional christian now and then, if I get can away with it.

Quote: ["You're missing too, that all Christians are obliged to 'spread the word'. It's a rule we have!"]

I'm aware of that. Unfortunate as to the non-christian 'we's: It's not a rule 'WE' have. And as we consider our rules as good as yours (at least for us), .....well, you're an intelligent person and can see the consequences of everybody applying their own rules indiscriminately.

Being a former teacher, with a good grip on language and its meaning, I hope you will at least consider this: Regressing the 'spreading the word' debate a level, you'll see some semantic indecencies. Preaching/missioning = 'sharing' etc.

Sorry, those of us with different opinions aren't tricked by semantic sugar-coatings. Not even the 'small' ones. Take JW as an illustrative extreme in this case. They do have some opinions, which I find sympathetic, but the excessive and constant embellishment of practically everything they say, is something which p*sses ME off.

Quote: ["The persecution argument that you dismiss, is actually valid."

Is actually valid SOMETIMES, yes. When coming from a rabid gnostic atheist directed at a 'sweet' christian the persecution can be real. But how many gnostic atheists do we have on these sub-forums on ATS. How many would engage in violence?

Quote: ["A recent for instance, is a Christian school principal fired for 'down-loading porn' to his school computer. He was proven innocent, but still could not get his job back. His computer was targeted for a 'check' solely because he's a Christian."]

I completely agree with your example, but would like to have further information. No-one should be targeted because of their ideology, but then the story doesn't say anything about what kind of christian this guy is. Any kind of fire-and-brimstone christian pushing it 16 hours a day to unwilling recipients is bound to have enemies. Precision is important when such examples are used.



edit on 24-5-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
every thing need balance.negatron exist with positron.good exist with bad,justice exist with evil,god is in the cosmos,he must obey this rule,even he made the rule,god can not exist without satan.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by needhelp2
every thing need balance.negatron exist with positron.good exist with bad,justice exist with evil,god is in the cosmos,he must obey this rule,even he made the rule,god can not exist without satan.


While it would be difficult to deny, that cosmos consists of and dynamically functions through sets of polarized opposites (which I hope no-one will mistake for new-age dualism-speculations of the more moronic type), the existence of such polarized sets doesn't justify or verify just ANY set's reality.

On such a semantic ground I could postulate the 'real' existence of xxx%g3+, because it nicely polarizes :::mumblism::::.

'God' doesn't 'prove' Satan, and Satan doesn't prove 'god'.

The whole CATEGORY needs 'proof' first.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 



Because they don't exist. Ask yourself why a god would let billions of years pass by without fixing his own problems, then try to provide yourself with a good answer. It's very simple.
I have asked my self this same question, and the only correct answer would be that god ,being a spirit, according to the bible, does not live in a (any) space time continuum.God possesses Past, present, and future in one state of being. Your statement pertaining to God and time is flawed. Very simple.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Condemned0625
 



Because they don't exist. Ask yourself why a god would let billions of years pass by without fixing his own problems, then try to provide yourself with a good answer. It's very simple.
I have asked my self this same question, and the only correct answer would be that god ,being a spirit, according to the bible, does not live in a (any) space time continuum.God possesses Past, present, and future in one state of being. Your statement pertaining to God and time is flawed. Very simple.


Yes. but that's stopping at a for religionists convenient dogmatic step in the argumentation.

An application of the word 'god' to an alleged trans-cosmic existence-level is completely meaningless, especially if any specifics turn this 'god' into THE 'god'.

But I'll agree with, that a general gnostic atheist position is hard to defend (while it's sometimes possible to say: THIS alleged 'god' is nonsense).



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Why would GOD kill Satan? Dont you know how much Satan loves Her GOD given government Job or that Satan was created for GOD's good cause. Satan is a Good And Evil Angel whose been working undercover as a triple agent for GOD all along. Please look in a KJV Bible; Isa. 45:6-7 which says; GOD created all; including evil and darkness. Didnt you know the Tree of Knowledge of Good And Evil; was just one Tree. I bet you believed it was an apple tree huh....? Well it wasnt an apple tree at all the fruit from this Tree was Pear, Pair or Pare tree as in the 1st day of Christmas song "and a partridge in a Pear Tree".

As such we are all the spoiled rotten fruit and by products of what Adam & Eve did in the garden of Eden. But did you know the Bible has been proven as True and the Fall was actually Adam's fault? Yeah it was; Adam added to the words of GOD who said "Dont Eat" but told Eve GOD said she couldnt Touch the tree either. Poor Poor Eve was like a babe in the woods and when she saw the Serpent Touching the Tree and Talking to Her she became beguilded, bewitched or bewildered because she didnt know Serpents naturally touch trees, dont even like fruit or that they prefer flesh blood or meat.

I bet you didnt know that now Satan is Risen and reborn in the flesh of a Regular Christian woman. On May 19, 2011 this Woman filed suit in the US Supreme Court against a White Christian Body of Republican men who sold their souls to a "Dont Tread On Me" Serpent Spirit of independence flag pole. Satan also quoted Thomas Jefferson by saying; SHe Trembles in Fear cause she knows GOD is Just and the Almighty has no attribute that will take side with US in such a event. Satan demanded they replace the word No in the 1st AMEN-dment; and stop making folks disobey GOD's first and second commandments. Really, I dont recall; GOD ever Giving Adam the Right to say No, I wont respect your established religion laws and pledgig allegiance to a Flag and Republic before your allegiance is given to GOD is a Big No No.

So In closing I just thought you might want to know; that Satan Is Risen, Transformed, and Reborn as the Daughter of GOD, Sister Spirit and Wife of Jesus Christ (Rev. 19:7-10, 21:9 and 22:16) So I hope you wont forget to RSVP your invitation to a Wedding designed to End All Time ..Cause I promise it will be to Die For



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 


No, you're wrong. There is no evidence for any god, no evidence that any god could possess all states of time and you can't possibly prove it. That is the flaw in your statement. If you believe that a god exists, which god is it? Why is it your particular god and not any of the millions of others? If you don't believe that goddesses exist, why not? Why accept one thing and reject all of the other similar ones? There are way too many flaws in your logic. Furthermore, the past has already happened. Nobody can possess time that has already passed nor can they possess time that has not occurred yet. Time is a conceptual creation by humans and any other intelligent species beyond our planetary system. It cannot be possessed.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 1MrsJesusChrist
 


Well, your version certainly makes some sense; considering the bad press Satan has had over the years, in spite of only being a bureaucrat, not creating a mess anywhere close to what Lucifer did.

But then, being a career woman in a patriarchy explains it. Women are expected to be chained to the kitchen stove and give birth. We can't have them running around doing a man's job.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The below is proof that the KJV is True and why its grossly misunderstood. From the beginning we are told; We are made in GOD's image which in Gen. 1:27 says "Male and Female made he them". So if you use Mendel's 4th Black Humor and Gender theories i.e., Xy= all males and XX= all females, then add them together as One God Parent X(yX)X you can see the Twin Son=y and Daughter X inside a Female Goddess or Holy Hostess. This example of GOD Heavenly Body, Waters and Womb is also explained in Gen. 25:22-24 when GOD told Rebeccah about the Twin inside of Her. The view of a Father & Mother as One X(yX)X also described in Rev. 22:2 as the Tree of Life because the center X above is GOD's whose both our Father And Mother's pms seed or blood and the center X by the only begotten Son's side is his espoused wife. As you can see within the Trinity of Xs and as with any family you have a Father X, Son, y, Daughter X, and Mother X is really a Holy Hostess XX and this proves that "as in heaven so in earth" the father of Jesus Christ is Female just like his mother in earth.


reply to post by Condemned0625
 



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 



No, you're wrong. There is no evidence for any god, no evidence that any god could possess all states of time and you can't possibly prove it. That is the flaw in your statement.


Lets take a closer look shall we. Your argument goes like this: "There is no evidence for any god". Actually, what you should have said is there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for any god. See,The bottom line is that science is the study of physical matter. God on the other hand is a spirit. This is a FACT, and I have just provided you with this truth. By your own admission, ( There is no evidence for any god ) we have just proved that there is no scientific evidence for god,That is, physical evidence for god. This can only mean one thing, Which brings us to our second truth about god. If god is not in our physical realm of understanding,That is that science cant prove it, then it must be that God is in a spiritual world.

Now ,for the second part of your statement,

no evidence that any god could possess all states of time and you can't possibly prove it
God, being a spirit, which we have proved in the above paragraph, transcends time, as only a spirit can do. Time is a form of measurement, in this particular instance, time is intervals between physical events. With such a being as a spiritual one such as god, there would be no physical measurement, thus meaning such a being would possess past present and future as one continuous burst of being. Not saying that God possess time like you or I possess a material object. God is in eternity, we are in time.
The problem with secular thinking is that it always produces secular results. Your statement may not be flawed however, your thinking is.

edit on 24-5-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 


You wrote:

[" is the study of physical matter. God on the other hand is a spirit. This is a FACT, and I have just provided you with this truth. By your own admission, ( There is no evidence for any god ) we have just proved that there is no scientific evidence for god,That is, physical evidence for god. This can only mean one thing, Which brings us to our second truth about god. If god is not in our physical realm of understanding,That is that science cant prove it, then it must be that God is in a spiritual world."]

Sorry, this is plain non-sense. The basic assumption to start from was: 'IF there is a 'god'. You axiomatically declare this to be the case, and then unravel your argument backwards.

"Because there is a a 'god' and he can't be verified by materialistic science, there must be a 'god'" Jeeeeez.

Besides is the science you refer to at least 60 years outdated. Reductionist materialism is kind of passed these days.

Quote: ["God, being a spirit, which we have proved in the above paragraph,"]

You haven't proven anything at all, only put out a baseless postulate.

Quote: ["transcends time, as only a spirit can do." ]

Don't you read all posts? Otherwise a thread doesn't give meaning. Go back and read my answer addressed to you above.

Quote: ["With such a being as a spiritual one such as god, there would be no physical measurement, thus meaning such a being would possess past present and future as one continuous burst of being."]

Knowledge-gaps filled with speculative mumbo-jumbo. You could have put the flying spaghetti into the knowledge-gaps also, and it would be as reasonable as what you say now.

Quote: ["The problem with secular thinking is that it always produces secular results."]

And vice versa with theist thinking.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



Sorry, this is plain non-sense. The basic assumption to start from was: 'IF there is a 'god'. You axiomatically declare this to be the case, and then unravel your argument backwards.

My assumption, clearly stated, is that there is a material realm of existence, which is a fact( I can prove this). And a spiritual realm of existence, which is also a fact ( I can also prove this). You do know the difference,right?. All Im saying is if God cannot be "proven" by science, (which is the study of material things) Then a reasonable logical assumption would be that God does not contain material properties. This would be the definition of spirit, which the bible declares God to be.


"Because there is a a 'god' and he can't be verified by materialistic science, there must be a 'god'"
No, what I am saying is that There is a verifiable material world, and a verifiable spiritual world. The Bible says that God is a spirit, this would make absolute sense, considering god has no material attributes what so ever.
Its pretty much black and white. There is a material universe, and there is not.

Besides is the science you refer to at least 60 years outdated. Reductionist materialism is kind of passed these days.
How funny is that? The theology that I am referring to is at least 2000 years old maybe 6000 years old. Science will never be anything less than man studying the material world. How could it be?
If you have a different theology as to why there is no God please, by all means elaborate.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 


Now this is interesting...

Please elaborate your proof of the spirit. I actually agree that it is provable but i'd love to hear how others proved it to themselves as well




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Akragon, Its always a pleasure hearing from you. However, first things first. Lets all be in agreement that there is a material world in which we and everything in the known universe is composed of (matter) then there is that of which is not composed of matter. One example would be your thoughts. Arguments on brain function, electrical pulses ect, have no bearing as to what a thought is. Pure and simple ones thoughts are not materialistic in nature.and this too can be proven. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Theophorus
 


You wrote:

["My assumption, clearly stated, is that there is a material realm of existence, which is a fact( I can prove this)."]

No, you can't. At least not from an extreme epistemological position or a position of an observer-created universe.

Sorry, that was just my peculiar sense of humour, finding witty aspects in this kind of stuff.

So I'll go along and accept a material realm as a relative reality.

Quote: ["And a spiritual realm of existence, which is also a fact ( I can also prove this)."]

Please do, but be careful about the word 'prove'. It's tricky.

Quote: [" You do know the difference,right?."]

I like to think so.

Quote: ["All Im saying is if God cannot be "proven" by science, (which is the study of material things)"]

That's what you said before, and I both understood and answered it. One more round??

Quote: ["Then a reasonable logical assumption would be that God does not contain material properties."]

It's an option, but I can't see why it's a 'reasonable logical assumption'. Maybe there's another 'god' than the one you talk about, who (this other god) is the 'real god', and who also has material properties. How would you know?

Quote: ["This would be the definition of spirit, which the bible declares God to be."]

Obviously I won't dispute the biblical definition of a biblical god.

Quote: [.........and a verifiable spiritual world."]

You haven't verified it yet. You only said you COULD do it.

Quote: ["The Bible says that God is a spirit, this would make absolute sense, considering god has no material attributes what so ever."]

So on top of the other things you need to 'prove' or verify, you have now added a need of proving the bible as a valid source.

Quote: [" Its pretty much black and white."]

Theist arguments usually are. But building up a set of restricted options of your choice, exclusively leading to answers of your choice is called demagogy or twisted semantics. It's nor a rational chain of reasoning.

Quote: ["There is a material universe, and there is not."]

Repeating the same postulate several times doesn't make it more 'true'.

Quote: ["The theology that I am referring to is at least 2000 years old maybe 6000 years old."]

And that is an argument for .....?

Quote: [" Science will never be anything less than man studying the material world."]

How do you know that? And actually contemporary science has passed the purely materialist stage already, as I've told you before.

Quote: [" How could it be?"]

I believe, I'm repeating myself now. There are such things as abstracts and concepts.

Quote: ["If you have a different theology as to why there is no God please, by all means elaborate."]

DO you mean 'theology', not religion? A premature answer from me, awating your clarification, is that you seem to enforce a need of theology (or religion) on me. I can do well without.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
 


Akragon, Its always a pleasure hearing from you. However, first things first. Lets all be in agreement that there is a material world in which we and everything in the known universe is composed of (matter) then there is that of which is not composed of matter. One example would be your thoughts. Arguments on brain function, electrical pulses ect, have no bearing as to what a thought is. Pure and simple ones thoughts are not materialistic in nature.and this too can be proven. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)


You should get to the point though man. You've already stated this several times...

We're not ahead of ourselves, we're waiting on you...




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



No, you can't. At least not from an extreme epistemological position or a position of an observer-created universe.
Sorry, that was just my peculiar sense of humour, finding witty aspects in this kind of stuff.


lol


So I'll go along and accept a material realm as a relative reality.


Great, now by excepting that there is a material universe you must also accept the idea that we, including all material things, are here in existence. Yes or no?


Quote: ["And a spiritual realm of existence, which is also a fact ( I can also prove this)."]
Please do, but be careful about the word 'prove'. It's tricky.
First lets go back to the question above. It will be easier if we take this step by step.



It's an option, but I can't see why it's a 'reasonable logical assumption'. Maybe there's another 'god' than the one you talk about, who (this other god) is the 'real god', and who also has material properties. How would you know?
there can only be one God -Omni everything.No other God would surfice. This God we'll assume is the God depicted in the Bible as the one true God.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
 


Akragon, Its always a pleasure hearing from you. However, first things first. Lets all be in agreement that there is a material world in which we and everything in the known universe is composed of (matter) then there is that of which is not composed of matter. One example would be your thoughts. Arguments on brain function, electrical pulses ect, have no bearing as to what a thought is. Pure and simple ones thoughts are not materialistic in nature.and this too can be proven. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)


You should get to the point though man. You've already stated this several times...

We're not ahead of ourselves, we're waiting on you...



I have already given you one example.Ones thoughts would have the same attributes as those of which a spirit would have. Would you like to examine this fact in depth ?
edit on 24-5-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join