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.
I have not seen Satan or felt a presence similar to Satan.
I have not seen Good either, but have experienced a somewhat mystic experience with God.
I have also studied cosmology and the elements of the universe to the best of my ability and have discovered that no one knows what caused the Big Bang. As of now there is a creative force that may be God. I do not use the Bible to prove that there is a God. Circular logic is not acceptable anywhere in the universe. When Aquinas proved the existence of God he certainly did not use the Bible. So I am a bit like Aquinas.
Lastly the existence of Satan would imply an imperfect God.
Questions:
Is the entire Bible allegorical?
The Big Bang theory is no longer popular with prominent physicists of today.
What mystical experiences have you had?
Your quote---"As of now there is a creative force that may be God," does not sound like it's coming from someone totally convinced. Since the Bible is allegorical (as you've stated in other posts), isn't God, just as Satan and demons, also? That is not circular logic or a straw man.
St. Thomas Aquinas. Your assertion Aquinas did not use the Bible in his 5 Proofs is not true.
In his Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 1, Articles 1-10, Aquinas, correctly contends that not only is Sacred Scripture and Doctrine on par with Science and Philosophy, it is the mother of them. The Five Proofs come later in the Summa Theologica, in Part 1, Question 2, Article 3 after he shows Sacred Scripture and Doctrine to be the wellspring.
You have said in other posts Aquinas believed evil originated within man. That is not true.
In Question 114. The assaults of the demons
Article 1. Whether men are assailed by the demons?
Aquinas-I answer that, Two things may be considered in the assault of the demons--the assault itself, and the ordering thereof. The assault itself is due to the malice of the demons, who through envy endeavor to hinder man's progress; and through pride usurp a semblance of Divine power, by deputing certain ministers to assail man, as the angels of God in their various offices minister to man's salvation. But the ordering of the assault is from God, Who knows how to make orderly use of evil by ordering it to good. On the other hand, in regard to the angels, both their guardianship and the ordering thereof are to be referred to God as their first author.
You have stated numerous times that if God allowed Satan and demons to exist it would lessen His character. In part, Aquinas talks to this in the following.
Reply to Objection 1. The wicked angels assail men in two ways.
Firstly, by instigating them to sin; and thus they are not sent by God to assail us, but are sometimes permitted to do so according to God's just judgments. But sometimes their assault is a punishment to man: and thus they are sent by God; as the lying spirit was sent to punish Achab, King of Israel, as is related in 1 Kings 22:20. For punishment is referred to God as its first author. Nevertheless the demons who are sent to punish, do so with an intention other than that for which they are sent; for they punish from hatred or envy; whereas they are sent by God on account of His justice.
You say evil is within the person and the result of free will only. Aquinas disagrees as his answer to the intellect causing unbelief demonstrates. Whether unbelief is in the intellect as its subject? Objection 3. Further, a gloss [Augustine, Enchiridion lx.] on 2 Corinthians 11:14 "Satan . . . transformeth himself into an angel of light," says that if "a wicked angel pretend to be a good angel, and be taken for a good angel, it is not a dangerous or an unhealthy error, if he does or says what is becoming to a good angel." This seems to be because of the rectitude of the will of the man who adheres to the angel, since his intention is to adhere to a good angel. Therefore the sin of unbelief seems to consist entirely in a perverse will: and, consequently, it does not reside in the intellect.
Reply to Objection 3. He that believes a wicked angel to be a good one, does not dissent from a matter of faith, because "his bodily senses are deceived, while his mind does not depart from a true and right judgment" as the gloss observes [Augustine, Enchiridion lx]. But, according to the same authority, to adhere to Satan when he begins to invite one to his abode, i.e. wickedness and error, is not without sin.
In Questions 63 and 64 Aquinas explains not only the existence of demons, but their characteristics.
Objection 5. Further, whoever is obstinate in malice, never performs any good work. But the demon performs some good works: for he confesses the truth, saying to Christ: "I know Who Thou art, the holy one of God" (Mark 1:24). "The demons" also "believe and tremble" (James 2:19). And Dionysius observes (Div. Nom. iv), that "they desire what is good and best, which is, to be, to live, to understand." Therefore they are not obstinate in malice.
Reply to Objection 5. A demon's act is twofold. One comes of deliberate will; and this is properly called his own act. Such an act on the demon's part is always wicked; because, although at times he does something good, yet he does not do it well; as when he tells the truth in order to deceive; and when he believes and confesses, yet not willingly, but compelled by the evidence of things. Another kind of act is natural to the demon; this can be good and bears witness to the goodness of nature. Yet he abuses even such good acts to evil purpose.
It's easy to pull bit and pieces out of context from Aquinas's writings and arrive at false conclusions. One must read the entirety of the Summa Theologica to understand the parts of it.
Questions:[list=1][*]Is the entire Bible allegorical?
A huge chunk of the bible is allegorical.
The only things that are not clearly allegorical are the teachings of Jesus. What Jesus taught is universal and the true essence of Christianity. A lot of the Disneyland allegoric stuff is dressing that reflects the mind set of primitive men of that era. I often think about publishing a stripped down version of the bible after removing all the goofy allegory. But, I just realized Thomas Jefferson beat me to it.
However, I think jefferson took out way too much, ha, ha.
Quote:
[*]The Big Bang theory is no longer popular with prominent physicists of today.
You are joking! That is like saying the moon does not exist. The evidence for the BB is very STRONG. However, we do not know the BB at time zero. Furthermore, the math (relativity and quantum mechanics) breaks down as we get close to time zero. So the BB origin remains a mystery.
Quote:
[*]What mystical experiences have you had?
Very few and fleeting. Lasting no more than a few seconds, but realizing at that moment there is a creator.
No, I do not have hallucinations, it is just a sensation that lasts a 1-2 seconds and only happens once every 20 years or so. That in itself proves nothing, I agree.
Quote:
Your quote---"As of now there is a creative force that may be God," does not sound like it's coming from someone totally convinced. Since the Bible is allegorical (as you've stated in other posts), isn't God, just as Satan and demons, also? That is not circular logic or a straw man.
You are correct, I cannot be totally convinced there is a God. At the end of the day God is a mystery and I don't pretend to understand God. And I don't think the writers of the Bible have a clue either as to what is God. However, I accept Christianity, because as a Catholic that is what I am and the message of Jesus was the right one. So I am a follower of Christ even if I do not understand God.
Quote:
St. Thomas Aquinas. Your assertion Aquinas did not use the Bible in his 5 Proofs is not true.
The five proofs stand on their own without the allegoric stuff. I disagree.
Quote:
In his Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 1, Articles 1-10, Aquinas, correctly contends that not only is Sacred Scripture and Doctrine on par with Science and Philosophy, it is the mother of them. The Five Proofs come later in the Summa Theologica, in Part 1, Question 2, Article 3 after he shows Sacred Scripture and Doctrine to be the wellspring.
You have said in other posts Aquinas believed evil originated within man. That is not true.
In Question 114. The assaults of the demons
Article 1. Whether men are assailed by the demons?
Aquinas-I answer that, Two things may be considered in the assault of the demons--the assault itself, and the ordering thereof. The assault itself is due to the malice of the demons, who through envy endeavor to hinder man's progress; and through pride usurp a semblance of Divine power, by deputing certain ministers to assail man, as the angels of God in their various offices minister to man's salvation. But the ordering of the assault is from God, Who knows how to make orderly use of evil by ordering it to good. On the other hand, in regard to the angels, both their guardianship and the ordering thereof are to be referred to God as their first author.
That is to be expected for a man that lived in the 13th century. Aquinas was a philosopher and a thinker, a very clever man, but at the end of the day he was a Catholic priest. I admire him for separating his philosophy side from religion. I actually do the same thing and embrace Catholicism. This may sound contradictory, but religion (when done correctly without fanaticism) has a profound positive effect on our humanity.
Quote:
You have stated numerous times that if God allowed Satan and demons to exist it would lessen His character. In part, Aquinas talks to this in the following.
Reply to Objection 1. The wicked angels assail men in two ways.
Firstly, by instigating them to sin; and thus they are not sent by God to assail us, but are sometimes permitted to do so according to God's just judgments. But sometimes their assault is a punishment to man: and thus they are sent by God; as the lying spirit was sent to punish Achab, King of Israel, as is related in 1 Kings 22:20. For punishment is referred to God as its first author. Nevertheless the demons who are sent to punish, do so with an intention other than that for which they are sent; for they punish from hatred or envy; whereas they are sent by God on account of His justice.
There are no demons trying to manipulate us, that is silly. And i cannot get inside of Aquina's mind because he is dead. However, as a writer in the 13th century he had to guard against being labeled a heretic. So he was forced to tow the line of the Church to get his work published.
Quote:
You say evil is within the person and the result of free will only. Aquinas disagrees as his answer to the intellect causing unbelief demonstrates. Whether unbelief is in the intellect as its subject? Objection 3. Further, a gloss [Augustine, Enchiridion lx.] on 2 Corinthians 11:14 "Satan . . . transformeth himself into an angel of light," says that if "a wicked angel pretend to be a good angel, and be taken for a good angel, it is not a dangerous or an unhealthy error, if he does or says what is becoming to a good angel." This seems to be because of the rectitude of the will of the man who adheres to the angel, since his intention is to adhere to a good angel. Therefore the sin of unbelief seems to consist entirely in a perverse will: and, consequently, it does not reside in the intellect.
Reply to Objection 3. He that believes a wicked angel to be a good one, does not dissent from a matter of faith, because "his bodily senses are deceived, while his mind does not depart from a true and right judgment" as the gloss observes [Augustine, Enchiridion lx]. But, according to the same authority, to adhere to Satan when he begins to invite one to his abode, i.e. wickedness and error, is not without sin.
I don't believe in Angels or Demons, I think it is allegory. Furthermore EVIL is not a thing. Evil has no matter and hence cannot be created. Evil is basically absence of GOOD. Lets say God created Hitler (and lets forget Lucifer for a second). The creation of hitler is good because the creation of a living entity with free will is always good. However the entity is capable of EVIL and this is where is gets tricky. Did God create the EVIL? I don't believe God did because this EVIL was the result of the free will of Hitler and furthermore EVIL is not a thing. Evil is simply the absence of good.
Quote:
In Questions 63 and 64 Aquinas explains not only the existence of demons, but their characteristics.
Objection 5. Further, whoever is obstinate in malice, never performs any good work. But the demon performs some good works: for he confesses the truth, saying to Christ: "I know Who Thou art, the holy one of God" (Mark 1:24). "The demons" also "believe and tremble" (James 2:19). And Dionysius observes (Div. Nom. iv), that "they desire what is good and best, which is, to be, to live, to understand." Therefore they are not obstinate in malice.
Reply to Objection 5. A demon's act is twofold. One comes of deliberate will; and this is properly called his own act. Such an act on the demon's part is always wicked; because, although at times he does something good, yet he does not do it well; as when he tells the truth in order to deceive; and when he believes and confesses, yet not willingly, but compelled by the evidence of things. Another kind of act is natural to the demon; this can be good and bears witness to the goodness of nature. Yet he abuses even such good acts to evil purpose.
I have seen his writing on Angels and I disagree. However, I judge Aquinas within the context of the 13th century. However, his view on EVIL and God is spot on. I am simply taking Aquinas point a bit further and taking Satan out of the mix. In the end Satan is just a symbol and the theory does not change at all by removing Satan. As I said above we can use Hitler or any other human for that matter.
Quote:
It's easy to pull bit and pieces out of context from Aquinas's writings and arrive at false conclusions. One must read the entirety of the Summa Theologica to understand the parts of it.
Oh, please! I am not buying the whole Aquinas package just as I don't buy the entire bible.
But, I give you credit for debating these issues.
I know I always learn a great deal out of these exchanges.
There is nothing to fear folks because there is no Satan.
I could call on Satan from now until eternity and he will never show up. Furthermore, Jesus is within me, I am a Christian.
I do not get the fear you people have.
Just curious, Julian. If there is no Satan, who do you believe Jesus was talking to in Luke 4:8? ("And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.")
Just curious, Julian. If there is no Satan, who do you believe Jesus was talking to in Luke 4:8? ("And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.")
It wasn't Peter (I believe you have blended various verses, which is not like you?)
It wasn't Peter (I believe you have blended various verses, which is not like you?)
This is the passage I'm referring to, Jerwade.
Luke 4:1-13
[1] And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
[2] Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
[3] And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
[4] And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
[5] And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. [6] And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
[7] If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
[8] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
[9] And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
[10] For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
[11] And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
[12] And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
[13] And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
Apparently Jesus believed in Satan (i.e. believed he was a real being). Isn't that what's in dispute here?
Just curious, Julian. If there is no Satan, who do you believe Jesus was talking to in Luke 4:8? ("And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.")
Quote:
4 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
This is an allegory to convey a message and a teaching. You know quite well the Bible is full of stories and parables like this. However, like many you take this literally.
The only things in the bible that are not allegoric are the teachings of Jesus. What is really important is to live like a Christian and emulate Jesus. Follow Jesus advise on how to treat your neighbors and you will be fine. Don't sweat the devil anymore. It gets boring to see how much important folks give to Satan which is really a non-entity.
Thomas Jefferson published a Bible without all the Satanic allegoric stuff. He mainly concentrated on the teachings of Jesus. So I would say my views are not new.
Apparently Jesus believed in Satan (i.e. believed he was a real being). Isn't that what's in dispute here?
What you know about Jesus is what other men wrote about Jesus. LAstly, men of that era had no other way to describe evil. Secondly Satan is great as a preaching tool.
Thankfully nowadays the more enlightened churches hardly even mention Satan. In my parish the homilies are about how to be a good Christian. Modern priests do not instill fear into the parishioners with the concept of Satan anymore.
This is an allegory to convey a message and a teaching. You know quite well the Bible is full of stories and parables like this. However, like many you take this literally.
Well, yes, there is much in the Bible that is to be interpreted metaphorically and much which is to be understood literally. I'm curious as to what you see this particular incident to be a parable of.
Quote:
The only things in the bible that are not allegoric are the teachings of Jesus.
I see. Okay, well, I've got to say that I disagree. I believe Satan is real.
Quote:
What is really important is to live like a Christian and emulate Jesus. Follow Jesus advise on how to treat your neighbors and you will be fine. Don't sweat the devil anymore. It gets boring to see how much important folks give to Satan which is really a non-entity.
Trust me, I don't "sweat the devil." But I don't go out inviting him to come into my life either. I agree with you that the most important thing we can learn from the Bible is how Jesus wanted us to treat our fellow human beings. Unlike you, though, I don't dismiss everything except Jesus' teachings as mere allegory. The trouble with saying that everything else is allegorical, figurative or symbolic is that it's hard to pin down what it really means to say. Everybody in the world could see the same story as representing something entirely different from everybody else. If a story is told in the Bible about something Jesus supposedly said or did, I'm likely to believe the event took place as it was related.
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson published a Bible without all the Satanic allegoric stuff. He mainly concentrated on the teachings of Jesus. So I would say my views are not new.
I wasn't implying that you just pulled your viewpoint out of thin air. I just don't see Thomas Jefferson as being in any better a position than anybody else to say what's allegory and what's not.
This is an allegory to convey a message and a teaching. You know quite well the Bible is full of stories and parables like this. However, like many you take this literally.
The only things in the bible that are not allegoric are the teachings of Jesus. What is really important is to live like a Christian and emulate Jesus. Follow Jesus advise on how to treat your neighbors and you will be fine. Don't sweat the devil anymore. It gets boring to see how much important folks give to Satan which is really a non-entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Well, yes, there is much in the Bible that is to be interpreted metaphorically and much which is to be understood literally. I'm curious as to what you see this particular incident to be a parable of.
Being led into the wilderness by the Spirit should reveal the truth to you, Katz. This all occurred within His mind (Spirit). It is His animal nature (adversary/Serpent) making demands upon Him that His Spirit had to counter. It is a parable of self-talk revealing the conflicting aims of the Serpent and our Spirit.
Being led into the wilderness by the Spirit should reveal the truth to you, Katz. this all occurred within His mind (Spirit). It is His animal nature (adversary/Serpent) making demands upon Him that His Spirit had to counter. It is a parable of self-talk revealing the conflicting aims of the Serpent and our Spirit.
Whatever. I believe the incident took place as was described in the Bible. Feel free to differ.
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.
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.
