Satan and control

[Boetie]

PatrickHenry posts: Like what you worship is better

Now you are catching on. You realized there is another God. Your God wants to keep you in darkness.

The intellect has two goals, one is science, the other wisdom. When Adam named the animals that is the darkness, the one your God wants to keep you in. Eve gave Adam wisdom, which is what your God doesn't want you to have.

But as you know, God was unable to interfere with Eve because Eve was to powerful. As you can see, she was able to become the tree(wisdom) and pass that onto Adam.

[Athena]

Quote by: Two Cents Patrick Henry, I don't worship anything blindly. Especially something that I can't see, hear or feel. You also asked what created me. Again, this is nature and biology, I don't live at the whim of a god but by the laws of nature. I also don't want anyone to "translate" anything for me. Katrina is an act of nature, not god and bad things do happen to good people. That's because nature doesn't discriminate. The people caught in that hurricane were from all walks of life. Nothing targeted a particular population.

My yes, some of us have strong feelings about this being the belief we live with. Why? Because if Bush we living with this belief, his administration would have stayed with the funding for fixing the levies and the nation would have saved billions of dollars and the tragedy of New Orleans could have been prevented. Please, please, please it wasn't Satan or God who caused the hurricane. It was nature. If we took nature seriously and worked with nature as we are capable of doing, we can continue to make improvements in our life expectancy, curing diseases, replenishing the oceans, cleaning up rivers and lakes, etc.. Please, religion prevented us from learning how to make our lives better, because people thought Satan did everything, or it was the will of God.

Seriously, I started this thread so people would think about the concept that Satan or God does everything, what kind of clarity is there on which does what? Isn't Satan just a scapegoat for reality we don't like? Please, from my heart, take nature seriously and learn to work with nature and human nature.

[Athena]

Quote by: Boetie PatrickHenry posts: Like what you worship is better Now you are catching on. You realized there is another God. Your God wants to keep you in darkness. The intellect has two goals, one is science, the other wisdom. When Adam named the animals that is the darkness, the one your God wants to keep you in. Eve gave Adam wisdom, which is what your God doesn't want you to have. But as you know, God was unable to interfere with Eve because Eve was to powerful. As you can see, she was able to become the tree(wisdom) and pass that onto Adam.

The tree of wisdom is also the tree of life. Adam and Eve were locked out of Eden so they couldn't eat from the tree of life. The bible is full of metaphors and when it is interpreted abstractly, it is a very good book. The problem comes when the bible is interpreted concretely. That is when the metaphors are understood literally. Consider this, Jesus was asked why he spoke in parables, that is told stories. He said people listen to these stories. We do listen and often we remember. It is much better than my preaching at you to better people isn't it?

Look at where the literal interpretation came from. Germany, and at the same time as Martin Luther, in Germany was leading the Protestant Reformation, the witch hunts were going strong, and Martin Luther totally believed in witched, demon possion and the necessity of church authority. This is their 9/11, terrorist threat, hurricane, earthquake, flu plague threat, Satan and his demons. Please, look at our human nature and why thrive on these threats of evil, and who we understand them. Are we being emotional and rationalizing things so our fears seem justified? Are we being rational in response to real threats? NO, the levie problem wasn't taken seriously. Our country does not have the degree of protection from a flu plague that Britian has. "I will pray for you" isn't as effective as being scientific and practical.

Back to Luther and an autocratic God. This autocratic God is not the wise King God of Catholism. Bush as all Protestants, a religion coming from Germany have an autocratic God. Kucininch and all Catholics have a Wise King God. Protestants thought reforming the church means taking everything in the bible literally. Catholics didn't and don't do this.
When read the story of Adam and Eve as a parable, it has something of value to say. When we insist on interpreting it literally, it is ridiculus! God walking through the Sumerian Paradise with Adam and Eve. I think Catholics treat this story literally too, but orignally it was just story, not a science lesson.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Athena The tree of wisdom is also the tree of life

No. They were separate trees. Genesis 2:9

If you remember the story, the progenitors ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Then they were barred from the garden to prevent them eating from the tree of life. Genesis 3:22

I don't take the story literally, Athena. But don't restate the text and expect agreement.

[Athena]

Quote by: PatrickHenry No. They were separate trees. Genesis 2:9 If you remember the story, the progenitors ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Then they were barred from the garden to prevent them eating from the tree of life. Genesis 3:22 I don't take the story literally, Athena. But don't restate the text and expect agreement.

Oh bother, sign, I hate arguing. I don't know if you understanding what it means to interpret things literally. You are being too specific. The Tree of Life is not an actual tree. The writers of bible used concepts such tree to allude to a greater, non tanglible truth.

Oh bother, sign, okay go to Proverbs 3 and 11:30

13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,
and the man that getteth understanding:


14 for the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver,
and the gain thereof than fine gold.


15 She is more precious than rubies:
and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her.


16 Length of days is in her right hand;
and in her left hand riches and honor.


17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
and all her paths are peace.


18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her:
and happy is every one that retaineth her.



11:30 "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins is wise."

James 2


17

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

[Ken Carman]

I'm going to make an observation and cross post it over at the thread I started before this one, God and Control. I find both topics interesting and worthy of comment, discussion and debate. But isn't a little ironic that in a society that claims to be mostly Christian, and even many who are not worship God or a deity one would call "good," that there's a lot more interest in Satan's nature and how much control Satan may or may not have than God?

Observation: for all the good we claim to worship and the place so many wish to go to, we are so attracted to the darker sides to life and religion?

Could it be that the separation between the two is artificial?

To paraphrase fictional pop culture icon, James Kirk, "I need my dark side. It's part of what drives me on." A topic handled many times by Trek. Another SF pop icon, Battlestar, has been improved and filled out by pouring the mixed nature of people... part good, part bad and a lot of in between.

Could it be that our concept of heaven, not any heaven that may or may not be, if we were to go there would be pretty damn boring?

[Two Cents]

I've always understood good and evil as the flip sides of a coin. All of us have some of each. I don't think anyone who has lived a while has never lost control of their temper and done or said some stupid things. This may be the same person who stops for the lost dog in the road or the child wandering around a store looking for it's mother. Same person, two different sides of the personality.

[Athena]

Quote by: Two Cents I've always understood good and evil as the flip sides of a coin. All of us have some of each. I don't think anyone who has lived a while has never lost control of their temper and done or said some stupid things. This may be the same person who stops for the lost dog in the road or the child wandering around a store looking for it's mother. Same person, two different sides of the personality.

Bless you. I think we are finally having some pretty conversation now. It is my understanding the Hebrews/Jews did not separate good from evil as the Christians have done. Instead for the Jews good and evil are a continium of the same thing. One thing like a scale of 1 to 10. One end being good and the other bad.

Would others please search the bible and compare the Satan of the old testament with the Satan of the new, and when did demons come into the bible? Are the demons of the old and new testament the same? Where in the old testament does if make Satan the king of demons? I keep coming back to this question of what makes us evil. If is Satan why wouldn't God get rid of Satan instead of punishing Satans victims? A mother would not punish a molested child and allow the molester to do it again. This doesn't make sense. Also all the destruction is the work of God not Satan. Where in the bible does it say Satan destroyed a person or whole city? Repeatedly the bible tells us to appease God to prevent the destruction God brings upon us. This just doesn't make sense to me.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: CJFreeman A good point? Hardly. Try doing some research into theodicy. Then when you've figured out that your point is entirely hackneyed, we'll get on to something a little more intelligent. Christopher J. Freeman

Research into history will make relevant the Katrina disaster to God's mercy oh humans? Um, ok. You sound so intelligent calling my position hackneyed and yet not even arguing the good point he made. Sounds like a waste of education to me.

[Ken Carman]

Where in the bible does it say Satan destroyed a person or whole city?

That's a pretty good point. It also goes to the heart of both threads. How much control does Satan actually have or use? I assume most followers of traditional Christianity would answer God is "all powerful;" although I do find the concept of having a "struggle" with Satan kind of puts a kink in the concept, so I guess the question is how much he actually uses.

Atheists and agnostics... how convenient are believers concepts of control to their concept of God? ...how much of a contradiction to what they actually believe?

[CJFreeman]

Quote by: Athena It is my understanding the Hebrews/Jews did not separate good from evil as the Christians have done. Instead for the Jews good and evil are a continium of the same thing. One thing like a scale of 1 to 10. One end being good and the other bad.

Mmm... Sorry. Ever read the book of Job? It's the earliest known biblical Hebrew literature, and it is quite concretely a viewing of good and evil as oppositions.

Christopher J. Freeman

[Lilith]

I'll read the book of Job and get back to you on the matter. I personally, find it hard to believe that Satan is a literal being. I wonder what he looks like? Does the Bible say? I mean he used to be an archangel.....so he should be quite beautiful...or I guess his sinful nature made him quite ugly...and are all angels male, like god, or are there some female ones too? And Catholics don't take the bible literally...well now...Catholic is looking better and better....*sigh* I'm so unchurched...and I feel the pressure daily...Oh lord, deliver me from this dilemma! :)

[Athena]

Quote by: CJFreeman Mmm... Sorry. Ever read the book of Job? It's the earliest known biblical Hebrew literature, and it is quite concretely a viewing of good and evil as oppositions. Christopher J. Freeman

Oh my goodness, there is not a good understanding of the meaning of concrete thinking verses abstract thinking. No matter how fictional a story is, it does not make the moral meaning any more or less concrete. Take any of the moral stories, "The Little Red", "The Fox and the Grapes", The Little Engine that Could", the moral meaning is not changed by the fact this stories are make believe because animals and train engines don't talk. Concrete thinking is intrepreting these literally, to believe animals really do talk like people talk of abstract things such as morals.

Understand? The story of Adam and Eve and Job when understood as moral stories, equal to the above mentioned moral stories, have moral lessons to teach us. This is abstract thinking, what separates humans from animals. But to interpret all these biblical stories literally, runs us into trouble. Here is where the conflict between Protestants and the rest of the world arises. Catholics have practiced abstract interpretation all along, so the problem comes with Protestants who thought reforming the church means a literal interpretation of the bible. Now Adam and Eve walking with God in a Garden is no longer a moral story we can appreciate, but becomes an argument about what is true and what is unbelievable. This argument has nothing to do with a person's moral stance. I will compare my morality with the most pious. I will also say, God walking in a garden with Adam and Eve is a Sumerian story that was translated by Hebrews and should not be taken literally. It is not a concrete fact that a God walked in a Garden with magical trees with Adam and Eve, and a talking snake and cherubs are as real as talking hens, foxes and fairies.

[Athena]

Quote by: Ken Carman That's a pretty good point. It also goes to the heart of both threads. How much control does Satan actually have or use? I assume most followers of traditional Christianity would answer God is "all powerful;" although I do find the concept of having a "struggle" with Satan kind of puts a kink in the concept, so I guess the question is how much he actually uses. Atheists and agnostics... how convenient are believers concepts of control to their concept of God? ...how much of a contradiction to what they actually believe?

This is very much the basis of conflict with Islam (Muslims). From there point of view, Christians are politheist, believing in more than one supernatural being (God). To tell their story they embellished on the old testiment Satan and demons. This wasn't just a deliberate effort to tell a new story, but Rome being the empire it was, increased contact with the east and therefore the eastern understanding of demons. This eastern understanding of demons was assimulated into the new Roman religion, helping separate this religion from Judism and create the new religion Christianity.

Realistically, at no time in history did humans have a special contact with God and angels that we do not have today. In the past, as today, we increase our information and our world view changes. Democracy is best fit for this. Religion however, holds people to a past that doesn't work in the present, unless the holy books are understood abstractly and we appreciate the human effort in all of them.

[Bighugs]

Quote by: Athena Oh my goodness, there is not a good understanding of the meaning of concrete thinking verses abstract thinking. No matter how fictional a story is, it does not make the moral meaning any more or less concrete. Take any of the moral stories, "The Little Red", "The Fox and the Grapes", The Little Engine that Could", the moral meaning is not changed by the fact this stories are make believe because animals and train engines don't talk. Concrete thinking is intrepreting these literally, to believe animals really do talk like people talk of abstract things such as morals. Understand? The story of Adam and Eve and Job when understood as moral stories, equal to the above mentioned moral stories, have moral lessons to teach us. This is abstract thinking, what separates humans from animals. But to interpret all these biblical stories literally, runs us into trouble. Here is where the conflict between Protestants and the rest of the world arises. Catholics have practiced abstract interpretation all along, so the problem comes with Protestants who thought reforming the church means a literal interpretation of the bible. Now Adam and Eve walking with God in a Garden is no longer a moral story we can appreciate, but becomes an argument about what is true and what is unbelievable. This argument has nothing to do with a person's moral stance. I will compare my morality with the most pious. I will also say, God walking in a garden with Adam and Eve is a Sumerian story that was translated by Hebrews and should not be taken literally. It is not a concrete fact that a God walked in a Garden with magical trees with Adam and Eve, and a talking snake and cherubs are as real as talking hens, foxes and fairies.

How do you know that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden isn't literal, unless of course, you were hiding in some tree watching the whole thing.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Bighugs How do you know that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden isn't literal, unless of course, you were hiding in some tree watching the whole thing.

Because that would make it all true. Nothing can be true without full evidence of the truth itself, and when this evidence arises, everyone usually excepts it. Like when Magellan sailed around the world, proving to people the Earth was round. No one, who was anywhere near objective in opinion, denied that the Earth was round after this event.

[Athena]

Quote by: Bighugs How do you know that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden isn't literal, unless of course, you were hiding in some tree watching the whole thing.

I assume the story of Adam and Eve is not a fact based on what happened, because we have no phycial evidence of talking snakes, trees with magical powers, cherubs, that dust or mud can be turned into bodies of flesh and blood as the bible explains, rather than the changing of matter as science explains.

Geologist believe they can identify the area of Paradise with the four rivers, and this is around Iran, in what used to be the territory of Sumer. Geologist know this area has ungone dramatic climate change, and this would explain the Sumerian explanation of what happened. We start with a lush valley fed by rivers, and then go to flooding followed by a very long draught that almost completely dried up the river. Then a returned to favorable weather. This explanation is written in cuneiform, the language of Sumerian writing. It tells us that when the weather returned to good weather, the river filled, and we have Eden, literally an uncultivated valley. Then we have Adam the cultivation of this valley. These are Sumerian words, and when the Hebrews settled in Ur, translated these clay tablets, they adjusted the story to fit their world view of one God. Eden, a place of many gods, becomes the special garden of one God. Adam instead of people settling the valley, becomes one person. Eve, instead of being one of the goddesses who helped heal the river, "he lady of the rib" because this goddess specialized in healing ribs, and the "Lady who makes live" as her name also meant, becomes the women made out of Adam's rib.

This information has been available for many years, and I find it amazing, considering the story of Adam and Eve is so vital to the world view of Judism, Christianity and Islam, that the Sumerian origin of the story is not well known. But then can you image the Christian reaction to putting this is school book?! Here for those of you who want an Intelligent Design explanation of creation, is one of the most important creation stories. Deal with it.

Oh one more thing, in the sumerian version it was a Goddess who made a man and woman from mud and breathed life into them. She created them because the river asked for helpers to him stay in his banks. The orginal version agrees with so many pre religion explanations of our human creation, that are here to take care of this planet.

[Bighugs]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Because that would make it all true. Nothing can be true without full evidence of the truth itself, and when this evidence arises, everyone usually excepts it. Like when Magellan sailed around the world, proving to people the Earth was round. No one, who was anywhere near objective in opinion, denied that the Earth was round after this event.

Some say it was Columbus who discorvered the world was round. Can you deny that also?
My point being, nobody denies that occording to the Holy Bible, Adam and Eve were the first people .
However many debate the Magellian vs Columbus Theory.

[belverron]

Yeah, that Sean really is a Type A. I think.... Oh. "Satan." Nevermind.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Athena Oh my goodness, there is not a good understanding of the meaning of concrete thinking verses abstract thinking. No matter how fictional a story is, it does not make the moral meaning any more or less concrete. Take any of the moral stories, "The Little Red", "The Fox and the Grapes", The Little Engine that Could", the moral meaning is not changed by the fact this stories are make believe because animals and train engines don't talk. Concrete thinking is intrepreting these literally, to believe animals really do talk like people talk of abstract things such as morals. Understand? The story of Adam and Eve and Job when understood as moral stories, equal to the above mentioned moral stories, have moral lessons to teach us. This is abstract thinking, what separates humans from animals.

In short form, whether it happened exactly as stated is far less important than what the story is trying to tell us? I'll go with that. As humans we tend to focus on the wrong things, over and over: the grail, the shroud... and put it up high and worship that. What was Jesus, Moses, Budda... whomever you follow, trying to say to you, to us, to humanity? I'm reminded of a scene from Life of Bryan where the crowd who is following him picks up a shoe he dropped trying to get away from them and they scream out, "Shoe of Bryan!"