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.

 

The Case for Satan (Let the Defense speak)

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You wrote:

["My general rule of thumb is, If you meet someone saying, 'I am God, worship me', then that is not God. God is someone you will never meet or know His name or what He looks like. God needs no service from puny beings He made. He has a full complement of such to praise His every move and word, way up somewhere, where we are never going to go. The war is in our minds, where we need to expel the Satan in our head."]

From my agnostic position (on 'god'), that appears to be sound god-validating criteria. I find all the anthropomorphization of an alleged primary source not only unjustified, but straight out primitively self-defeating for any theist argument.

A speculative regression of a 'creation' causality-chain would do better to stick with the various 'neutral' concepts like 'the unknown', Tao, Ain Soph, Brahman etc.

Quote: [" The revealing is the taking away of that bad thing and we need to do it now, and not sit here waiting to be teleported to the mother ship."]

In very broad terms I agree, but as you probably know, my operational basis starts with the 'observable' (not to be confused with reductionist, materialist empiricism), so the observable 'bad' is for me the hardships of biological life in this cosmos (~'suffering'). Taking the various theist 'answers'/explanations for absolutes is of no use except for a believer, because absolutes of that kind are blind alleys, where you eventually end up staring at the wall at the end and beliving it to be 'truth'.

Whereas I have a great deal of respect for the pragmatic approaches, which while they don't find the ultimate 'answer' still help much to lessen suffering. E.g. the gentle Jesus, budhhistic compassion, Jain ethics and also the ethical branch of utilitarian philosophy.

Such practically manifested paths are not incompatable with truth/reality-seeking, but are not depending on premature answers. And as you said hanging around waiting for the mothership to solve any problems isn't especially useful. To which I can add: There are talented individuals from many parts of life, who can add much to human understanding and give inspiration, but giving them divine-messiah status is useless. That's just another blind alley dead-end.



edit on 28-9-2011 by bogomil because: small punctuation addition




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NZkraw
 

sorry but the OT and NT are in the same book
The OT is an addendum to the New Testament in case someone wonders what Jesus was talking about when he said, The Law and the Prophets.
No one is supposed to somehow assume that the Lord of the OT is the same as God in the NT.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


The fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the ignorance introduced in the fall of consciousness into duality and of should and should not. It may seem a contradition when God tells Adam and Eve that they "should not" eat of this tree, but it was only good advice, the consequences of which were dire.

The tree of life is unitive and non-dualistic, and therefore represents consciousness in eternity without separation.


How was that 'good' advice? 'Do not partake in knowledge and wisdom?"

That sounds like "Stay dumb you ignorant slave. I won't be able to control you if you gain intelligence".

No?

Sadly, you missed the point. All wisdom and intelligence resides in the holy spirit and is available via the tree of life. Everything else is dualistic and represents a completely different type of knowledge.

By eating of the tree of the duality of good and evil, they were removed from a direct, experiencial gnosis, or true knowledge and wisdom, which leads to life.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil leads to destruction, separation from the Godhead, and therefore death of the soul.


This sounds reasonable until you get to 'godhead'. The 'godhead'-concept (especially the abrahamic one) is the epitome of dualism and completely incompatible with non-dualism.

Putting the components through the new-age homogenizing ideology-blender doesn't create compatibility, but only gives the impression of a useless methodology.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

In John 14:8-9 it says, "Philip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father?'"

Need i go on?


I guess I was wrong when I thought the OT god was different?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

. . .but giving them divine-messiah status is useless.
It is in that it brings into play a secondary rule of thumb, which is: If you meet someone who claims to be a Messiah and says you should follow him, then you can say, Sorry, no go, already have one and he is somewhere far away and I never see him but he sends divine inspiration to me, which is what I choose to follow, thank you very much!
Bad is not having things done which obviously should be done, and is possible to do.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 

I guess I was wrong when I thought the OT god was different?
You need to stop guessing and be sure. God is not schizophrenic. The Lord said, 'First born son, that is Mine, which just means destroy it so no one else can use it.'
The person who was to later be born, Jesus, was there and directed Abraham to not do what The Lord said, and to instead kill the ram.
Same thing in Sinai, where The Lord led the Israelites into the desert, the person later to be born, Jesus, followed them and made sure they did not die, by providing water for them.
edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Well it's confusing, I am sorry.

I feel certain the OT God is also the Sumerian Warrior God En-lil. I cannot confirm this though but my gut tells me.

Where can I find links to the information you just divulged?
edit on 28-9-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 
There isn't links to look any of this up, it is just a way of understanding the Bible by lookig past the nominclature used in the OT and comparing it to how the same things are described in the NT.
such as,
1 Corinthians 10:4
and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

and thinking about who was leading, and who was following.


edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


And the killing of the ram thing? Where can I read that?

Also the OT links too for where they originally appear if you can remember them, please?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


On thread like this one, assumption on your own behalf is what stops you from being gullible.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil
 

. . .but giving them divine-messiah status is useless.
It is in that it brings into play a secondary rule of thumb, which is: If you meet someone who claims to be a Messiah and says you should follow him, then you can say, Sorry, no go, already have one and he is somewhere far away and I never see him but he sends divine inspiration to me, which is what I choose to follow, thank you very much!
Bad is not having things done which obviously should be done, and is possible to do.


Sincerely: Excellent.

The distinction...... between blind obedience and personal choice based on informed knowledge;...... between pushing and offering; .......between using premises of subjective mindset(s) and a wellfounded methodology.

As to "which obviously should be done" it's imo best approached from a pragmatic consensus, where I'm optimistic enough to suggest a 'lessening of suffering' as a generally acceptable starting-point in the simplistic context of mundane existence.

This implies feeding of the poor, helping the weak, non-aggression etc., but does not exclude any individual choice of personal 'soul-care', truth/reality-seeking, good/bad guy scenarios or similar existential perspectives.

Mankind has long enough suffered from the excessive 'guru-thingy' with its ups-and-downs black/white'ishness. For good or bad we have an intellect, which can be used or not (according to choice), but to turn the intellectual option into the equalent of a drooling Pavlov'ian dog when the (doctrinal) bell rings is not only meaningless, but destructive.

(For the observant reader this is not off-topic, but relates to the use of non-circular criteria on e.g. the subject of good/bad-guy, a point the pushy theist either don't understand or ignore).



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

As to "which obviously should be done" it's imo best approached from a pragmatic consensus, where I'm optimistic enough to suggest a 'lessening of suffering' as a generally acceptable starting-point in the simplistic context of mundane existence.

This implies feeding of the poor, helping the weak, non-aggression etc., but does not exclude any individual choice of personal 'soul-care', truth/reality-seeking, good/bad guy scenarios or similar existential perspectives.
That is a good way to describe what I was thinking, in a sort of objective language. I was hoping you could read my mind because I was already in crash mode when I was able to write as much as I did.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
And the killing of the ram thing? Where can I read that?
Also the OT links too for where they originally appear if you can remember them, please?
That's in Genesis 22, and I will quote the section.
But the Lord’s angel called to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am!” he answered. “Do not harm the boy!” the angel said. “Do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me.”
Abraham looked up and saw behind him a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.


There is a common interpretation of what Jesus meant when he says, "Before Abraham was, I am." that he was there, in this story about the commanded sacrifice of Issac and the actual sacrifice of the ram. That much I agree on. What I don't agree on is which of these characters represented Jesus. People get confused because of a trick employed in the Translation of
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”,

where they break the rules for translating the Greek by making up a fake exception rule for when it would be useful to support the notion of a trinity and a godhead. What this translation trick does is divert people from thinking that Jesus was either represented by the ram or by the angel. This is because this "I am" shows up in people's Bibles where it normally would just say, "I was already in existence", which is to make people want to fall into doctrinal conformity. This, "I am", to make Jesus seem to be describing trinity, makes it draw an artificial connection between him and this OT The Lord person. To understand the whole scenario the way I do, is to look beyond the nomenclature of the OT and to view it through a NT perspective, which is that the thinking and caring person is the Angel, and the unthinking, uncaring person is The Lord.
The next step is to determine how they fit into a Modern Pantheon. You would have God, way up somewhere very far a way and dealing with an entire universe, a local deity supposed to be actually caring for the planet but involved in cross-deity rivalries. Then a second person who is someone well connected with God who is distant, but knows the mind of God and is free to move about and carry out His philosophy on a smaller scale such as intervening with a local god run amuck.
edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
You are quoting verses out of context!! In the book of Job it was not God speaking, it was Job!! Job was telling a parable to Bildad the Shuhite. What you wrote has NOTHING to do with anything, it is just a story. You make it sound as if God was saying this to humans when it was just a written conversation between two people!!

You are trying to mislead people and i think it is shameful!!

You are also quoting scriptures from a bible other than the King James Version Holy Bible.

The words are different and we all know the difference a simple word can make.
edit on 9/27/2011 by ProphecyPhD because: You are also quoting scriptures from a bible other than the King James Version Holy Bible. The words are different and we all know the difference a simple word can make.


Wow. You say that the Lord God is not talking in the book of Job?????

42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. 42:8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

and

40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

40:3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, 40:4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.

and

1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Come on.....know your book



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD

Originally posted by NZkraw
King James bible
genesis 2:11-13
The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. and the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
genesis 2:15
and the lord god took the man, and put him into the garden of eden to dress it and keep it.

Sounds like slave work to me.


So God creating man for a purpose is slave work? If you read the chapter you quote it says how beautiful the land is and how much gold and onyx is there, it is also only the second chapter in Genisis, it is describing the earth that God made.

No where does it say man was to mine gold, it simply says the "gold of the land was good". Did not Jesus say in Heaven there were streets of gold? Does man on Earth love gold to this day? In the Garden of Eden there was plentiful gold just as there will be in Heaven.

Do you think our souls will mine gold in Heaven too


NZKraw is correct.

Yes, the gods' (plural) purpose for creating a 'lulu' (worker) was for gold mining and catering to the gods.

Slavery.

What did you think all of the slavery in the bible is talking about?

And yes, gold mines (where else do you dig for gold)?

Remember, it is written in a biased way toward the winner (Lord God) and yes, the propaganda used was calling the Garden of Eden 'Paradise'....uhhh..since when do gardens have gold?

They were in the gold mine....and they were slaves.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD

Originally posted by NZkraw
King James bible
genesis 2:11-13
The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. and the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
genesis 2:15
and the lord god took the man, and put him into the garden of eden to dress it and keep it.

Sounds like slave work to me.


It's funny how you take two verses out of twenty-five, two verses that don't even follow each other and say that man was put on Earth to mine gold.

Genesis Chapter 2 verse 12: And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

Genesis Chapter 2 verse 15: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Why do you assume they were there to mine gold? Why not bdellium or onyx stone


Because not only gold repeated throughout the bible, but it is also in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ya know, the ancient text form where the stories of the bible orignally came from). The Sumerians, (1st Civilization, in Mesopatamia), talked about the gods and their visitation to Earth and their purpose for creating a hybrid prototype to mine for gold.

or do we just discount anything not approved by King James for the bible......



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NZkraw
 

sorry but the OT and NT are in the same book
The OT is an addendum to the New Testament in case someone wonders what Jesus was talking about when he said, The Law and the Prophets.
No one is supposed to somehow assume that the Lord of the OT is the same as God in the NT.


What??????????

No wonder Christians have no clue of what is going on in the bible....

An addendum? For what? This is history, the good and the bad, in that book. The gods are the same; just are talking more about the different generations of the gods like Ra, Isis, Osiris, and such....ya know; the names that got changed at the Council of Nicea...

There is not one god in the bible...There were MANY...because there was an entire race of them here.

The Lord God is evil from beginning to end; its just that the NT talks more about 'Jesus' (name was changed) because he was in satan's lineage....that's why the Lord God ordered his murder.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by LightAssassin
 

I guess I was wrong when I thought the OT god was different?
You need to stop guessing and be sure. God is not schizophrenic. The Lord said, 'First born son, that is Mine, which just means destroy it so no one else can use it.'
The person who was to later be born, Jesus, was there and directed Abraham to not do what The Lord said, and to instead kill the ram.
Same thing in Sinai, where The Lord led the Israelites into the desert, the person later to be born, Jesus, followed them and made sure they did not die, by providing water for them.
edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Correct!! Not schizophrenic.

There was more than one. The main two gods are referred to as Lord God and God (aka, the Lord v Satan)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 

This is history, the good and the bad, in that book.
It is accepted history, which means that no other version of history exists, seeing how that would make you a heretic and libel to death as punishment, so no one knows another. This is pretty close to the definition of mythology, where religion dictates what is history and what is not.

There was more than one. The main two gods are referred to as Lord God and God (aka, the Lord v Satan)
This is what I mean about looking past the nomenclature, the more a god wants to be worshiped to the exclusion of others, then the more he will heap up superlatives to connect to himself, while the One who really is all of that feels no necessity. So it may be better to flip your understanding of who is who.
edit on 28-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Actually your jahova (lord god, enill) told people to worship him or die, and told his followers to kill anyone that doesnt follow their beliefs.
Has Lucifer (Enki) ever told anyone obey my word or die? No.
If you believe in something that needs worship (your god) then said god is not all powerful like your kind thinks he is. So by your quote "the more a god wants to be worshiped to the exclusion of others, then the more he will heap up superlatives to connect to himself, while the One who really is all of that feels no necessity" you just proved this thread right.

"So it may be better to flip your understanding of who is who." Seems as though the shoe in on the other foot, you need to find out who is who

edit on 9/28/2011 by NZkraw because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join