U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2013, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,049,018 times
Reputation: 258

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
So do you really think quoting the Bible to prove the Bible proves anything? Any more than quoting the Koran proves the Koran?
There was once an old preacher who was distressed that so many people living in his town didn't believe in God. He announced that the next Sunday he was going to prove the existence of God. His church was packed.

He climbed to the pulpit and announced he was about to prove the existence of God. He held up a Bible, and stated that the Bible said God exists, and therefore that was proof that God did exist. (That is, if it's in the Bible, it must be true because God wrote the Bible.)

We frequently find some posters making the same type of argument here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2013, 10:39 AM
Status: "The nicest curve on a woman's body is her smile" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Florida/Tennessee
2,420 posts, read 4,317,148 times
Reputation: 1312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
There was once an old preacher who was distressed that so many people living in his town didn't believe in God. He announced that the next Sunday he was going to prove the existence of God. His church was packed.

He climbed to the pulpit and announced he was about to prove the existence of God. He held up a Bible, and stated that the Bible said God exists, and therefore that was proof that God did exist. (That is, if it's in the Bible, it must be true because God wrote the Bible.)

We frequently find some posters making the same type of argument here.
...but always remember and never forget... truth does not require proof to be true. No one can proove energy can neither be created or destroyed but we accept by faith that science has exhausted all the possibilites to proove otherwise.

There is a difference between presumption and faith, but I do get your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:11 AM
 
284 posts, read 252,587 times
Reputation: 48
Clear lens commented that : Mike555, in referring to Satan as an actual fallen angel, a distinct character is, in this specific point quite accurate historically. Your theory that Satan is allegorical is not authentic and original Judeo-christian theory.

MysticPhD, said in post Post 64 “ I [Mystic] acknowledge the historical existence of the stories . . . but I take issue with you (or anyone) taking them seriously as literal historical fact.


Mystic PhD, I had thought to post but felt that I ought to ask for clarification on your position so that I can be more accurate in my response. I am assuming :

#1) that you and I both agree that the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves and their texts speak and describe the existence of Satan as a distinct character as demonstrated in posts #43 and #44 (or we can discuss more data if you need it), and

#2) that you and I agree that they interpreted Satan as a distinct character, but

#3) that you disagree with the ancients and their interpretation regarding Satan being a distinct character?

Is this correct?


If so, then I assume you are not denying the early texts and their descriptions and the interpretation of Satan as an individual character existed, but rather, you disagree regarding their interpretation and the meaning underlying the concept of Satan/Lucifer and that your theory regarding Lucifer is correct. Is my understanding on these issues correct?

I appreciate the added clarification Mystic.


Clear
ακφυσεω

Last edited by Clear lens; 10-18-2013 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:32 AM
 
21,903 posts, read 16,711,964 times
Reputation: 8732
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
So do you really think quoting the Bible to prove the Bible proves anything? Any more than quoting the Koran proves the Koran?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
There was once an old preacher who was distressed that so many people living in his town didn't believe in God. He announced that the next Sunday he was going to prove the existence of God. His church was packed.

He climbed to the pulpit and announced he was about to prove the existence of God. He held up a Bible, and stated that the Bible said God exists, and therefore that was proof that God did exist. (That is, if it's in the Bible, it must be true because God wrote the Bible.)

We frequently find some posters making the same type of argument here.
This thread is not addressed to either atheists or agnostics and was not intended as an attempt to prove the existence of either God or Satan. It is addressed on this supposedly 'Christian' forum to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ for the purpose of providing information on Satan's modus operandi in the sphere of human history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:47 AM
 
40,099 posts, read 26,761,498 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens View Post
Clear lens commented that : Mike555, in referring to Satan as an actual fallen angel, a distinct character is, in this specific point quite accurate historically. Your theory that Satan is allegorical is not authentic and original Judeo-christian theory.

MysticPhD, said in post Post 64 ď I [Mystic] acknowledge the historical existence of the stories . . . but I take issue with you (or anyone) taking them seriously as literal historical fact. ď

Mystic PhD, I had thought to post but felt that I ought to ask for clarification on your position so that I can be more accurate in my response I am assuming :

#1) that you agree that the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves and their texts speak and describe the existence of Satan as a distinct character as demonstrated in posts #43 and #44 (or we can discuss more data if you need it), and

#2) that you agree that they interpreted him as a distinct character, but

#3) that you disagree with the ancients and their interpretation regarding Satan being a distinct character?
Is this correct?

If so, then I assume you are not denying the early texts and their descriptions and the interpretation of Satan as an individual character existed, but rather, you disagree regarding the interpretation and meaning of the concept of Satan/Lucifer and that your theory regarding Lucifer is correct?. Is my understanding on these issues correct?

I appreciate the added clarification Mystic.
Clear
ακφυσεω
You are correct, Clear . . . not surprising given your amply demonstrated intelligence. The primitive mind is not particularly adept at cognitive abstractions. It is an advanced evolutionary development of consciousness. This is generally what is meant by the natural man does not understand spiritual things. Even today godofthunder is bemoaning the use of literary abstractions as interpretations of the ancient texts . . . in fear that Jesus and the apostles might subsequently be so characterized. It is similar to the fear that if error is acknowledged in the ancient texts then God-inspiration would be voided. None of these fears are rational.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 12:19 PM
 
9,872 posts, read 6,742,053 times
Reputation: 2487
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are correct, Clear . . . not surprising given your amply demonstrated intelligence. The primitive mind is not particularly adept at cognitive abstractions. It is an advanced evolutionary development of consciousness. This is generally what is meant by the natural man does not understand spiritual things. Even today godofthunder is bemoaning the use of literary abstractions as interpretations of the ancient texts . . . in fear that Jesus and the apostles might subsequently be so characterized. It is similar to the fear that if error is acknowledged in the ancient texts then God-inspiration would be voided. None of these fears are rational.
Agree, 100%.


I encourage the Bible fundamentalists to take the NT academic course by YALE university. It is 24 set of 45 minute sessions and the professor is Dale B Martin a former Fundie and now an academician. Someone that has grown intellectually.

I also encourage folks to read Saint Augustine which is required reading in most liberal arts schools.

We need to get out of the Dark Ages, this is the 21st century!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 03:49 PM
 
20,421 posts, read 9,840,546 times
Reputation: 1678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
The Hebrew term for Satan is merely that of an adversarial role or that which equates to adversity.
Although, it is very real given that of the human nature and nature itself;
it's not a separate entity.

"You will face many adversities in this life, including those who are adversarial."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
The Latin term Lucifer refers to mankind, as in the King of Babylon; itís not a reference to an evil entity called Satan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
You need not that any man should teach you from their mindset, because you have the Spirit within you.
If what a person is saying does not resonate with the Spirit that is within you, itís probably not truth.

"Truth is something not before realized, even if the whole world of Religion opposes it based on what is written."
Claiming that Lucifer, son of the morning, the Prince of Tyre, or the Leviathan of Job, were all the same entity (the Devil or Satan Ė a fallen angel), is a matter of tradition, which derived from the ideologies of Origin (185-254 AD), Tertullian (155-220 AD) and the use of the Latin word "Lucifer" by Jerome in or about the fourth Century. Although it may be a historical fact, which was predicated on their perceptions, it does not make it factual. Rather, it falls (no pun intended) within the category of speculation, which was integrated within the parameters of the doctrines of men. However, that does not make it truth. For we believe, what we believe or are taught; until, we no longer believe it.

[It] is my humble opinion that Religion has become an immortal blemish of mankind, self-perpetuating from extinction through a system of indoctrinations, which were, and are being taught by those who have accommodated themselves within a regime of thought, put down by their predecessors. I believe itís time we stopped using the Bible as a weapon of division, adversity, or separation from that which created all things, including humanity. Instead, we should use it to grow and mature beyond the perceptions of others, distinguishing between that which is good, right and of sound mind from that which is not. You have been given a measure of knowing right from wrong, itís about time we exercise it, lest we remain in the dark ages.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 05:55 PM
 
21,903 posts, read 16,711,964 times
Reputation: 8732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
Claiming that Lucifer, son of the morning, the Prince of Tyre, or the Leviathan of Job, were all the same entity (the Devil or Satan – a fallen angel), is a matter of tradition, which derived from the ideologies of Origin (185-254 AD), Tertullian (155-220 AD) and the use of the Latin word "Lucifer" by Jerome in or about the fourth Century. Although it may be a historical fact, which was predicated on their perceptions, it does not make it factual. Rather, it falls (no pun intended) within the category of speculation, which was integrated within the parameters of the doctrines of men. However, that does not make it truth. For we believe, what we believe or are taught; until, we no longer believe it.

[It] is my humble opinion that Religion has become an immortal blemish of mankind, self-perpetuating from extinction through a system of indoctrinations, which were, and are being taught by those who have accommodated themselves within a regime of thought, put down by their predecessors. I believe it’s time we stopped using the Bible as a weapon of division, adversity, or separation from that which created all things, including humanity. Instead, we should use it to grow and mature beyond the perceptions of others, distinguishing between that which is good, right and of sound mind from that which is not. You have been given a measure of knowing right from wrong, it’s about time we exercise it, lest we remain in the dark ages.

I made no mention of the Leviathan of Job being Satan, nor have I heard that claim made.

But Satan as the ruler of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) and who influences rulers (1 Chronicles 21:1-5) was the power behind the throne of Tyre. In Ezekiel chapter 28, verse 12 shifts from the human ruler of Tyre to Satan. Descriptions are given which could apply to no human ruler. The human ruler of Tyre was not created perfect. Nor was he ever blameless in his ways. Every human being is born with a sin nature and spiritually dead. Neither was the human ruler of Tyre ever an appointed Cherub who covers. The reference being to what is represented on the lid of the ark of the covenant where two cherub angels covered the Mercy seat which itself represented the reality in heaven. One of the duties of Cherubim is to cover and protect. Cherubim were stationed at the entrance to the Garden of Eden to guard it (Genesis 3:24). The Cherubim who guard the Mercy seat in heaven are perhaps to be thought of as in the manner of an honor guard. A ceremonial function. One similarity between the human ruler of Tyre and Satan was that they were both judged for their pride. Pride was Satan's original sin.

Last edited by Mike555; 10-18-2013 at 06:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 08:19 PM
 
284 posts, read 252,587 times
Reputation: 48
Clear lens commented that : Mike555, in referring to Satan as an actual fallen angel, a distinct character is, in this specific point quite accurate historically. Your theory that Satan is allegorical is not authentic and original Judeo-christian theory.

MysticPhD, said in post Post 64 “ I [Mystic] acknowledge the historical existence of the stories . . . but I take issue with you (or anyone) taking them seriously as literal historical fact. “

Clear Lens responded : Mystic PhD, I had thought to post but felt that I ought to ask for clarification on your position so that I can be more accurate in my response I am assuming :

#1) that you agree that the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves and their texts speak and describe the existence of Satan as a distinct character as demonstrated in posts #43 and #44 (or we can discuss more data if you need it), and

#2) that you agree that they interpreted him as a distinct character, but

#3) that you disagree with the ancients and their interpretation regarding Satan being a distinct character?
Is this correct?

If so, then I assume you are not denying the early texts and their descriptions and the interpretation of Satan as an individual character existed, but rather, you disagree regarding the interpretation and meaning of the concept of Satan/Lucifer and that your theory regarding Lucifer is correct?. Is my understanding on these issues correct?

MysticPhD clarified : You are correct, Clear . . .[...] The primitive mind is not particularly adept at cognitive abstractions. It is an advanced evolutionary development of consciousness. This is generally what is meant by the natural man does not understand spiritual things.






Hi MysticPhD
,


Thank you so much for the clarification. It’s very, very nice to have someone take a very clear and simple position on an issue when so many disputes in the forum seem so inefficient in making any headway.


AREAS OF AGREEMENT :
I am glad that you and I and Mike555 (I assume) agree that

#1)the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves and their texts speak of and describe the existence of Satan as a distinct character. I’m also glad that we three can agree that

#2 The ancients interpreted the texts to describe Satan as a distinct character.

If we are correct in our agreement on these issues, then Satan as a distinct individual personality or character IS the authentic and original Judeo-Christian worldview. Once we leave this specific model for other models regarding Satan, then we are no longer discussing a christian model, but some other model. That is, we could be discussing a philosophical model of “Satan”; a scientific model of “Satan”; a medical model of “Satan”, etc... - but not the ancient christian model. Please let me know if my reasoning if faulty on this. If we are still in agreement, then we don’t need to spend time on whether your model represents the ancient christian model on this specific issue.




DISCRETE AREA OF DISCUSSION

MysticPhD’s theory in post #57 that “Satan is within all of us as the Serpent (reptilian brain) that manifests as the source of all our animal drives and urges. “


Data sets : In post # 57, you said to mike555 : “ There is so much wrong in your theology, Mike [...] Satan is within all of us as the Serpent (reptilian brain) that manifests as the source of all our animal drives and urges. When we do not control our carnal drives and discriminate for it . . . we produce evil. “

While Mike555 and I can provide significant amounts of data for our model (i.e the ancient Christian interpretation), it would be helpful to see the data sets upon which your theory is derived and compare the data sets. If you declare such a firm declaration of theory based on a small or subjective or incomplete data set, your theory will seem more arbitrary and less objective. So, can you provide your data upon which you base your theory so as to let us examine it and compare it to ours?


Differing Theory
: Any theory where “Satan is a diffuse set of genetic physical characteristics” which all mankind have (if it’s fair to describe it that way...) is quite interesting and it changes philosophical and religious and ethical dynamics. For examples :

If evil, in your model of “satan as a fallen angel” (evil) exists inside the individual as a physical genetic phenomenon, does your theory propose that “good angels” exists inside of mankind as a similar genetic phenomenon as well?

Does your theory relieve any philosophical and moral dilemmas of the existence of evil? Does it cause any new ones?

Does your philosophical/material theory of Satan as the "reptilian brain" have any philosophical superiority over the
original judeo-christian models for satan?


Allegorism vs literalism : The characteristics which distinguish one christianity from another is often what the earliest judeo-christians took literally versus what differing christian movements took literally (and what both took metaphorically).

Certain things must BE literal in order to have any religious power, purpose, utility, and motivation. If there is no God and no heaven, no one need work toward a relationship with God or work toward a place in heaven. In the same proposition, Philosophers who teach college philosophy may argue about the reality of reality, but all of them still want to cash their paychecks on payday. Thus, we may differ on what we feel is literal and fundamental and what is metaphorical and spiritual but we depend upon certain realities to exist.

I’ve noticed that your interpretations also seem to assume certain literalness and certain metaphoricals to exist (as do all of us...).

For example, regarding John 4:13-14 “Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

You quoted this verse and interpreted it in post #8 of a different thread thusly : "This water of life within us that relates to our ability to achieve rebirth must refer to the fluid surrounding our brain. It is truly a water of life. However, at the time of Christ and John the Baptist, this was not exactly common knowledge. If God's consciousness really is available to inspire our consciousness and those of the early "prophets," it is not inconceivable that this basic idea would be communicated (received) in terms that would make sense to such primitive minds. Submersion into river water seems an obvious analogue. “ (MysticPhD - different thread)


a) In this prior case
, your theory that the “water of life” Jesus referred to was the literal and physical cerebrospinal fluid which surrounds our physical brain.

While this is an incredibly “physical” allegorical interpretation, the early Christians would have interpreted it much less “physically” and less “literally” and much more "spiritually" than you did, (as it relates to "the water of life". While their interpretation in this case is LESS literal and more spiritual, yours was MORE literal/physical and less spiritual.



b) In this present case, your current theory assumes “ Satan is within all of us as the Serpent (reptilian brain) that manifests as the source of all our animal drives and urges “.

In this case, your theory shifts the literalness from a literal Judeo-Christian “Satan” which becomes metaphor and, in your theory, literal component of Satan resides in the physical brain of all individuals. It remains a carnal and "physical" theory. Your theory has no less a physical locus than the early judeo-christians. It's simply in a different and diffuse physical local.


In this way, the sort of interpretations you are offering are not particularly “spiritual”, but instead, they simply shift the physical locus from a literal Satan to a literal and physical human brain and the cerebrospinal fluid. This is significant, especially if your rule concerning scriptures is that “They are ALL to be read and interpreted SPIRITUALLY . . . NOT carnally or temporally” (MysticPhD in post # 67)


I also very much agree with you
regarding your specific point that one cannot always maintain that stories in early texts are “literal historical fact”.

However, as I am trying to point out, your interpretations are relieving the stories in the early texts of “literal physical facts”. The unwritten rule that a “physical” literalness of “satan” in your theory is acceptable while the “historical” literalness of “satan” in christianity is to be avoided seems inconsistent and arbitrary. Especially since the physical/temporally existing brain as satan theory does not follow your rule that texts “are ALL to be read and interpreted SPIRITUALLY . . . NOT carnally or temporally.

Your own interpretation that John 4:13-14 is speaking about the temporal and carnal (physical) "cerebro-spinal fluid" and your theory that “Satan” is actually a temporal and quite carnal (physical) “Serpent (reptilian brain) “ that exists in the carnal skulls of all individuals is a different theory than any of the early Judeo-Christian texts describe.

Yet, you are able to read the biblical text and come away with a very discrete and detailed interpretation to the point of expressing satisfaction “That such an early and primitive story would contain truths about the structure of our brain and its functioning thousands of years before we ever discovered those functions validates their God-inspired content, IMO. YMMV “ (MysticPhD in post # 67).

Upon what data set are you able to give your own personal interpretation such a great priority over the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christian interpretation?

I am so busy at work that I am writing between appointments and need to stop (I lose train of thought each time I return to the computer...) and let you offer your data set to us.

At any rate MysticPhD, I am quite interested in your theory; it’s origins and reasoning and to know what sort of data underlies this theory. I appreciate your time in presenting this theory and supporting data to us.



Clear
νεδρνεω

Last edited by Clear lens; 10-18-2013 at 08:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 09:20 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,819 posts, read 2,876,106 times
Reputation: 1246
When people say "satan" I wonder if they just mean the demons. Because if satan is here in my city, he cannot be in your city. If it is demons, are they independent of satan? Does satan even know that it believe in Jesus, if satan is in your city. We give this satan toooo much power. A demon has to travel, I doubt it travels at light speed. Satan does not know everyone that is a Christian. If I say "satan made me do it" then there is no way he is anywhere else. If a demon is given an order from satan to attack me, and satan is in Italy , that demon has to travel. I will not be at the same place the demon last saw me. How does the demon find me.?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top