re: Question for Devil Worshippers about Satan

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46738 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 3:55 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
I don’t believe it

So explain your position on morality. You seem to be quite judgmental. How do you justify your judgment of the Biblical God or anyone else for the "evil" they do (as you see it)? I saw that you reject the notion of objective moral reasoning. How can morality be meaningful in your worldview where morality is reduced to nothing more than personal preference?

quote:
but that verse says YHWH your LORD creates evil. To deny that is cherry-picking as you say

I'm a Reformed Christian and one of the somewhat unique aspects of Reformed (biblical) theology is the absolute sovereignty of God over all creation. I don't believe that God lets man be absolutely free in every respect to his will, because that would make man sovereign, not God.

With that said, when you compare Isaiah 45 with the rest of scripture, it's clear what it's talking about: that God is in control over all things, including evil. God doesn't create evil in a literal sense because evil isn't a thing that can be created. It's not a material thing like a rock or a pancake. Evil is the absence of God. When God withholds His righteous sustaining presence from humanity, evil is the result. God can allow or prevent evil by His actions, and in doing so, He is sovereign over even evil.

It's not cherry-picking to interpret a verse in light of it's context. It's cherry-picking to do the opposite: to lift a verse out of its context to make it mean what you want it to mean. That's what you do consistently.

quote:
The Bible is filled with contradictions.

I think we've discussed this before. A paradox is not a contradiction, but keep on telling yourself that if it makes you feel comfortable in your rebellion against your creator.

quote:
Go ahead and cherry-pick the ones that sort of say YHWH is the only god. There aren’t many but go ahead. Your feeble mind confuses boasts of incomparability with denial of existence. “There’s no god beside me” meaning there are no gods on the side of him at his level- that he has no equal.

This excerpt from psalm 89 is another of the plethora of boasts of incomparability found in the Bible, just as an example.

...

Deny all the other versus referring other deities if that’s what makes you happy. There’s probably 100 fold many versus making reference to other gods that you choose to ignore because it doesn’t fit your theology.

What you fail to see is that there are different meanings to what a "god" is in the Bible. Sometimes it is talking about a simple idol; something that receives a person's primary interest and devotion or worship. Sometimes it is referring specifically to man-made idols of stone, wood, or other materials. Sometimes it refers to a claimed god that doesn't exist but is believed to exist according to the perversions of man. Lastly, "gods" (elohim) can simply refer to anything that does exist within the spiritual realm. In that sense, God is an elohim. Angels are elohim. Even humans when they die are elohim.

Where you seem to get confused is where the Bible uses the word "god" in different senses and you interpret it as one sense when it means another. Or, you think even the concept of spiritual beings being "gods" is the same sort of language or meaning as when the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, or Hindus say "god". The gods of the Bible are not part of some pantheon that are greater than, less than, or equal to God in any way. The elohim in the Bible that refer to spiritual beings are all created beings and do not share in the divine attributes that exist only with Yahweh. The "gods" are not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent, for example. They do not create. They do not act on their own authority.

There is only one God, and all else is created. There are no "gods" like the Egyptian gods. There are angelic beings, demons (fallen angels), and spirits of dead humans that exist in the spirit realm, and they are not like Yahweh. There is only one God and there are no other gods, and no other beings comparable to Him. That's the message of the scriptures, and it doesn't pit one concept against another like you are trying to do with it.

quote:
Wrong there. Just like there was no historical Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. All fabricated. There’s no way for me to convince you. Most biblical scholars are atheists - for someone a couple standard deviations above average IQ actually reading and comprehending the Bible there’s generally no way they can believe the subject matter. There’s also this thing called archaeology and paleontology. Did you know modern Homo sapiens evolved in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago?

I'm sorry but you're absolutely wrong about this. Jesus as a historical figure absolutely exists, and even the most critical of unbelieving skeptics like Bart Ehrman believe that Jesus existed as a historical figure, even if they don't believe He did everything the Bible says He did.

In regards to archeology, it's interesting how every year, archeological findings seem to confirm the historical record of the Bible more and more.

quote:
Sounds like they don’t include it because there’s an agenda to disconnect the scene from the scapegoat sacrifice ritual.

Sounds like you don't understand how the Bible is translated.

The modern English translations are usually based on either the Textus Receptus or the eclectic texts, which are translations of the "best" manuscripts based on a series of factors like age, usage, regions manuscripts were spread across, etc. When a textual variant is in a tiny minority of manuscripts and/or they are only in manuscripts that have suspect passages (meaning the manuscripts contain many portions that are clearly not original to the autographs), then those variants are not used in the main text of a translation. They may be referenced in the footnotes, but they won't be contained in the actual readings.

quote:
Just remember Deut 32:8. That’s probably my favorite verse of the whole Bible. El Elyon, chief Canaanite deity and creator of the universe, gives his sons divine kingship of the nations of the Earth. YHWH’s portion was Jacob - Israel was the lot of his inheritance. If you read that passage and disregard the “sons of El” and the whole inheritance thing, and think that one can inherit something from oneself, then you are a grade-A retard. It’s one thing to not be sure or to be confused, but you’ll sit there reading the plain language and ignore it, and go cherry-pick other versus (contradictions) saying El Elyon and YHWH and El Shaddai are the same (they were not the same).

Psalm 82 is a great complement to Deut 32:8-9. In Deut is describes how YHWH got Israel from his father El Elyon. In psalm 82 it’s a poem with the subject matter being the writer’s desire for YHWH eventually judging all the other gods (plain text gods, in plural form, which you deny, since you are a cherry-picker) and inheriting all the nations.

Your misunderstanding of the names and titles of the one God are at the root of your misunderstanding of all of these passages. You think El Elyon and Yahweh are two different deities rather than different names for the same God. When Yahweh revealed Himself to Moses, He said He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet the same God who revealed Himself to Abraham called Himself El Elyon and El Shaddai. They are the same God.

The same is true in the New Testament. In Luke, God (the Father) is called both hypsistos (the most high) and theos (God). Luke wasn't referring to someone other than Yahweh/Jehovah.

Everything else you've said has its own explanations but it won't do any good until you understand that El Elyon is not described as a wholly other "god" than Yahweh.

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46738 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:06 pm to AggieHank86

quote:
Foo, I know that you are genuine in your beliefs, but think a minute about what you just said.

You are describing a situation in which you decide what you want the outcome to be, then seek out only the evidence which supports it, rather than evaluating the evidence objectively and letting the results fall where they may.

Additionally, most of the evidence you "accept" comes from the very text that you are seeking to "prove." Essentially, you say "We know that everything in Chapter 3 is true, because Chapter 8 says so."

Surely you understand that many rational people would not be comfortable with that approach. It is a wonderful way to confirm one’s preconceptions, but as an investigative tool, it is somewhat lacking.

I understand the issue you and others have with this. You think it's a logical fallacy. However, a circular argument is only fallacious if it is a vicious circle. It's also fallacious to have an infinite regression of causes, so you must have a first cause somewhere, and that first cause cannot have a cause to appeal to or reason beyond, so at some point, you have to start somewhere and can't go beyond that. I've used the example many times, but it's like having to assume logic exists in order to prove that logic exists. Likewise, if God exists, then there can be no greater authority or cause to appeal to, and out of necessity, He would be the starting point of all reason.

Even so, the argument used is the transcendental argument, namely that the proof of God's existence (who would be the highest authority and cause) is that if God didn't exist, you couldn't prove anything (make sense of reality).

While you and others may not be comfortable with this line of argumentation, it's not irrational. On the contrary, I believe it is the only thing can make sense of reason at all.

2 ...

Posted by DiamondDog

Louisiana

Member since Nov 2019

13202 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:06 pm to Lickitty Split

This will likely get lost in the muck but I've been watching tons of videos across the spectrum of people with Near Death Experiences.

As a Christian, I know much of these are patently false but I watched one account I felt was legitimate enough in it's portrayal that aligned with scripture and those unbelievers earth here believe (light, peaceful place, reunite with dead relatives, pieces of their past, etc.)

People who know the scriptures know that what you go to Hell you're not essentially immediately tormented. You're in a terrible place awaiting Judgement at the Great White Throne Judgement. Think cell blocks in terrible conditions.

Essentially what the guy says he was brought to hell and shown pieces. Essentially in one account you're dropped into a cell but what is happening is not what you initially perceive...a peaceful place with projections by demonic entities that twist and contort their perception of what is going on.

His account says he saw a lady who had just died, drop into a cell, saw projections of continually changing places but eventually it all wiped away and the stark reality was she was in hell and this was one piece of demonic torture.

What some unbelievers claim to experience at NDE as demonic projections in some instances that gives the illusion of false reality.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

This post was edited on 12/28/22 at 4:31 pm

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46738 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:19 pm to DisplacedBuckeye

quote:
Claim...you don't "realize" anything.

No, I realize what I said is true. I've studied the issue for a long time, and there is no epistemological framework that provides what God's revelation does or can. Most atheists are empiricists in their epistemology, yet that is a self-defeating framework, because it cannot be substantiated using empiricism. It's something most haven't realized because they haven't thought through it.

quote:
You simply make the claim, and work in the opposite direction to justify it to yourself.

I'm starting with the highest authority and first cause and moving forward from there. You can work backwards, too, but you'll eventually get to the same conclusion.

quote:
Once you've done that, you try to spread it to others. On some, it works, because they're looking for something similar. On those who possess epistemic curiosity, it's almost entirely ineffective.

First of all, I don't believe that salvation can be reasoned into. No one is going to believe upon the work of Jesus Christ to save them from their sins by reason alone. Many people saw the miracles He did and still didn't believe He was who He said He was, so using reason alone isn't going to do the trick, though not because it's unreasonable, but because the truth is spiritually discerned.

Secondly, this line of argumentation is not mean to necessarily persuade someone into believing Jesus is Lord, but to show the foolishness of believing otherwise. Many people know that they believe something irrational but do so because they can't accept the truth. My goal is to show the irrationality of any position that denies the truth of the scriptures and the reality of Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord. I may fail to adequately show that in my own weakness, but I keep trying.

2 ...

Posted by DisplacedBuckeye

Member since Dec 2013

76732 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:20 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
I believe

Every damn time.

No matter how you disguise your arguments, it always comes down to "guy, just believe what I believe and you'll see."

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46738 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye

quote:
Every damn time.

No matter how you disguise your arguments, it always comes down to "guy, just believe what I believe and you'll see."

You're deflecting. Instead of addressing anything I said, you're focusing on a red herring. If what I said is true, then saying "I believe" shouldn't matter. In addition, there are truths that some people don't believe, yet neither belief nor disbelief of truth doesn't impact the truth, itself.

This post was edited on 12/28/22 at 4:24 pm

Posted by DisplacedBuckeye

Member since Dec 2013

76732 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:33 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
No, I realize what I said is true.

No, you don't.

quote:
I've studied the issue for a long time

Sure, but not because of honest curiosity. And that is why you fail. You're not interested in the possibility of being wrong, and without that, you're only studying from the perspective of confirming your beliefs.

So no, you haven't realized anything. You believe something, and that drives you to make these claims. That's all they are, and nothing more.

quote:
I'm starting with the highest authority and first cause and moving forward from there.

You believe that, correct.

quote:
Many people saw the miracles He did and still didn't believe He was who He said He was

That's the story.

quote:
I may fail to adequately show that in my own weakness, but I keep trying.

This is accurate, and isn't something I think you'll ever be able to overcome.

Posted by DisplacedBuckeye

Member since Dec 2013

76732 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:36 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
You're deflecting. Instead of addressing anything I said, you're focusing on a red herring.

Nope.

I'm highlighting your continued reliance on your belief as a substitute for truth.

quote:
If what I said is true

Right.

If.

But that isn't how we approach discussion of the unknown.

Posted by AggieHank86

Texas

Member since Sep 2013

44345 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:46 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
that first cause cannot have a cause to appeal to or reason beyond, so at some point, you have to start somewhere and can't go beyond that.

Not really.

It is perfectly-OK to just say "I don't know the answer to this question yet."

quote:
this line of argumentation ... is not irrational. On the contrary, I believe it is the only thing can make sense of reason at all.

It is belief-based, rather than evidence-based. You nonetheless consider it to be "rational." I do not.

Such is life.

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46738 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:49 pm to DisplacedBuckeye

This will be my last response to you in this thread because we'll get just into another childish back-and-forth where you say "nuh uh" and I say "yes", because you don't offer anything of substance.

quote:
No, you don't

Yes, I do. It's true out of necessity.

quote:
Sure, but not because of honest curiosity. And that is why you fail.

I'm not failing at all because I'm providing a coherent response to the irrationality of worldviews like you one you possess that doesn't make sense of reality.

It doesn't matter why I study these things, but curiosity certainly is a part of it.

BTW, I notice that you never (to my knowledge) present a positive case for what you believe to be true. I wonder why that is.

quote:
You're not interested in the possibility of being wrong, and without that, you're only studying from the perspective of confirming your beliefs.

So no, you haven't realized anything. You believe something, and that drives you to make these claims. That's all they are, and nothing more.

You pretend that you are neutral and can come at these topics with neutrality, but you lie to yourself. It's precisely why you take issue with me acknowledging my own presuppositions, because you don't want to acknowledge yours.

I realize that no one is neutral, and everyone has biases and presuppositions that feed into a worldview that determines how we approach these discussions. That's why I spend so much time on the presuppositional level.

quote:
You believe that, correct.

Yes, I believe the truth.

quote:
That's the story.

That's the true story.

quote:
This is accurate, and isn't something I think you'll ever be able to overcome.

Perhaps not, at least to someone like you with a hardened heart and a hatred for the truth.

But I'll keep praying for you anyway (and no, that's not an argument).

Posted by imjustafatkid

Alabama

Member since Dec 2011

65539 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:52 pm to Powerman

quote:
Do you think there are satanists lurking on here?

Absolutely. Some just don't realize they're doing his bidding.

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46738 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:52 pm to AggieHank86

quote:
Not really.

Yes, really. You can't have an infinite regress.

quote:
It is perfectly-OK to just say "I don't know the answer to this question yet."

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to say such a thing when you don't know the answer to the question.

quote:
It is belief-based, rather than evidence-based. You nonetheless consider it to be "rational." I do not.

Don't conflate "rational" and "evidential". You're talking about two different things there. Empiricism speaks to epistemology, not how to reason from A to B.

Posted by AggieHank86

Texas

Member since Sep 2013

44345 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:54 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
Don't conflate "rational" and "evidential"

I consider any conclusion which is not evidence-based to be INHERENTLY irrational. Sue me.

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46738 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 4:59 pm to AggieHank86

quote:
I consider any conclusion which is not evidence-based to be INHERENTLY irrational. Sue me.

But that's philosophically incorrect. When you speak of rational or irrational, you're talking about philosophical categories of what corresponds to logic and reason, and reason doesn't exclusively concern itself with what can be empirically shown to be true, as you seem to want it to do.

Posted by El Segundo Guy

1-866-DHS-2-ICE

Member since Aug 2014

11625 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 5:00 pm to FooManChoo

I respect your convictions even if I disagree.

An honest question...how would you reconcile intelligent alien life forms?

Posted by DisplacedBuckeye

Member since Dec 2013

76732 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 5:21 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
This will be my last response to you in this thread because we'll get just into another childish back-and-forth where you say "nuh uh" and I say "yes", because you don't offer anything of substance.

You quite literally only ever offer "I believe" wrapped up in whatever words you heard from William Lane Craig and others.

As soon as you're challenged on that, you do what you should've done from the start and move on.

Either way, up to you. If you can refrain from acting like a child, we can certainly avoid it devolving into that.

quote:
Yes, I do. It's true out of necessity.

No, you don't. You claim it. You believe it. You wish it.

But, you don't realize it.

quote:
I'm not failing at all because I'm providing a coherent response

You're failing, and "repent to my lord because I have the truth" isn't exactly a coherent response.

quote:
BTW, I notice that you never (to my knowledge) present a positive case for what you believe to be true. I wonder why that is.

You shouldn't wonder. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to me. I don't have a need to fill it with something, particularly your mythology.

quote:
You pretend that you are neutral and can come at these topics with neutrality

No I don't. I even asserted quite the opposite to another poster earlier. I'm anything but neutral when it comes to religion, and even more so when it comes to someone bullshitting everyone about their flavor of the truth.

quote:
Yes, I believe the truth.

That's the true story.

You believe your version of each. Nothing more.

quote:
Perhaps not, at least to someone like you with a hardened heart and a hatred for the truth.

But I'll keep praying for you anyway (and no, that's not an argument).

I'm never going to stop someone from their hobbies. We all need ways to waste some time every once in awhile.

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3650 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 5:24 pm to AggieHank86

quote:
Your posts are interesting, but I detect a tendency to use the biblical translation of any verse which is most-contrary to orthodox Christian views and to act as if that translation is the ONLY interpretation.

I’m just about done with that nutcase, so my posts are about to go more towards outdoor topics. Naturally when trying to show an unhinged fundamentalist nut something about the Bible, I’m going to focus on the subject matter that best suits my arguments. I also find that very contradictory material fascinating, as much of it is leftover from Canaanite religion, or first temple theology that the Deuteronomist or Priestly source or later redactors and editors “missed” when trying to cover up the past. I genuinely love learning about ancient near East religions. There are multiple translations and interpretations but some here can’t seem to comprehend that. I do have my beliefs though, and often they are driven by research that is sort of paired to many of the most-contrary writings within the Bible.

quote:
Your analysis of Deuteronomy 32.8 is a perfect example. Only a couple of the translations see a reference to dividing humanity into nations based upon the number of "gods."

You’ve got to look at the source material. For 1900 years there was the Septuagint “LXX” and for about the last 500 years there was the Masoretic Text “MT”. I know you know this but writing this for others . The LXX was written in Koine Greek about 100BCE give or take and was a translation direct from original hebrew. The MT was a Hebrew text that the medieval Jews were using. Depending on if your English Bible used the LXX or MT, you’d get “sons of God (El)” or “sons of Israel (beney YisraEl)”. Which one is right?

For me it was solved looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls of Deuteronomy found in Qumran. Those date back to around the time of the Septuagint and Pontius Pilate. All of the Deuteronomy scrolls found in Qumran say “sons of God (El)”. I personally choose to believe all the copies of the Dead Sea scrolls plus the LXX rather than the MT. I believe the MT was altered to reflect their newfound monotheism. The original older copies of DSS and LXX preserved the original.

One last thing… Paul and the Gospels including Jesus himself (allegedly) quoted from the LXX. The same verses in the MT are different than the way the New Testament quoted those verses because they were using the LXX and to me that gives extra legitimacy to the LXX.

Not to mention “sons of Israel” makes no sense in Deuteronomy 32:8-9!

Posted by Flats

Member since Jul 2019

28020 posts

Posted on 12/28/22 at 6:10 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
for someone a couple standard deviations above average IQ actually reading and comprehending the Bible there’s generally no way they can believe the subject matter.

You're not even being original now. There are no intelligent Christians?

Really?