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.
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted there by the devil. 2 For forty days and forty nights he fasted and became very hungry.
3 During that time the devil[a] came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”
4 But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say,
‘People do not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, 6 and said, “If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say,
‘He will order his angels to protect you.
And they will hold you up with their hands
so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’[d]”
8 Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 “I will give it all to you,” he said, “if you will kneel down and worship me.”
10 “Get out of here, Satan,” Jesus told him. “For the Scriptures say,
‘You must worship the Lord your God
and serve only him.’[e]” 11 Then the devil went away, and angels came and took care of Jesus.
Matthew 4:1-11
~l~
That isn't proof. That account was written by someone who wasn't even on the mount with Jesus. And the bible has been edited and reedited and is not the word of God. Show me one place in the bible where Jesus actually says He was talking to satan. It doesn't.
Lucifer and his cohorts were admonished in the mid 80's. They are no more. Anyone who says they exist is full of it.
I know..... Thanks for at least having a sense of humor about it... it was misleading on my part, though it's technically a philosophical issue, discussing what's real or not, and "evidence" and "proof", so it does fit in this forum. I wanted to show how people do think of this forum as a "religion" forum, not "philosophy" - when I made the OP, there was no talk about religion except for 3 terms based in religious/belief but having real applications in many non-religious ways. I think it's interesing that people went the religious route - understandable and logical but also interesting.
Actually, millions of people have seen Satan "in the flesh". But yes, there are actual photos, video footage (non-doctored), and reports in respected newspapers (e.g. L.A. and NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.) of Satan, not to mention devils, angels, etc.
I've been on this planet for 42 years also and I don't hide from the facts the way so many apparently do. Just pick up a newspaper once in a while, or watch a little TV and you'll start seeing the reports and evidence I'm talking about.
I think the reason people want to bury their heads in the sand is because they want to believe a place like Hell doesn't exist - but it does. Hiding from FACT won't change that.
It already IS that public - that's why I don't know how you can deny their existence.
Wrong. Satan is a REAL BEING, he is an adversary (except to those who choose to support or side with him) and he even today seeks to defeat people. You want to deny that, then you will look foolish for doing so because it's all easily proven.
The only ones throwing logic and reason out the window are you and the others who deny well-documented FACTS and PROOF.
Parody it might be but funny or clever not really. There is no other way to go but the religious route when talking about Satan as Satan is not a Philosophical concept but a religious construct. And there are enough people on this forum who believe in Satan and God to make the jump to certain conclusions with the OT.
Last edited by Mooseketeer; 03-04-2010 at 11:44 AM..
I have no idea. All I know is, is that was when the spiritual trial was over and Lucifer and his gang chose to not side with God and do His will. They are as if they didn't exist and their energy has been absorbed by the Creator of all that is.
At that time, we entered the correcting time and we are now being brought back to God with full force by all angels and all beings who have reached light and life on their planets. We have millions of beings here on earth to guide us all. The only evil that now exists is in the dark souls that still exists either here or the spirit world.
What is interesting is that if Berger had presented the evidence asked for early in the thread, the joke would have been quickly revealed. He had to rely on ever greater misdirection in order to carry the joke on.
So everyone who asked for evidence at the beginning instead of engaging philosophy was on the right track.
What is interesting is that if Berger had presented the evidence asked for early in the thread, the joke would have been quickly revealed. He had to rely on ever greater misdirection in order to carry the joke on.
So everyone who asked for evidence at the beginning instead of engaging philosophy was on the right track.
There is nothing that I said that could be construed only in a religious sense and not in a philosophical sense without at least a little presumption. That may have been misleading to people but the fact remains, everything I said is actually true and has proof behind it.
The point is also that "proof" and "evidence" are philosophical constructs, not merely scientific ones. Science, being rooted in (naturalist) philosophy, uses a naturalistically customized format for determining what constitutes "proof" or "evidence". The problem nowadays is that most people lose sight of the fact that "proof" need not be scientific in order to be valid; it only needs to be philosophically valid.
In other words, since science is a subset of philosophy, all scientific proof must be philosophically valid, but not all philosophical proof need be scientifically valid. Despite the light-hearted nature of how I framed my OP to start this thread, the fact remains that people have forsaken general philosophical "proof" and cling only to scientific "proof", thereby making science their worldview either expressly or de facto (mostly the latter).
Because there is no evidence for Satan, demons, angels etc. Your argument is predicated on the belief that someone else's say so makes it so. This is not true, evidence comes from empirical testing.
Well philosophical proof is subject to interpretation. For example I can say I saw Satan too. He came to my door on Halloween. He also wen't away when I gave him some candy!
I can say I saw Satan or a child dressed as Satan or any number of interpretations, based on my cultural, worldly view.
Science on the other hand is the same. Heart surgery in the U.S is the same as heart surgery done in the middle east. The concepts are same and it is not subjective.
On the philosophical side, you also have a ton of people who specialize in making a living by interpreting things. When you have no proof and demand money to cast out demons or whatever-well people will start to doubt the whole thing.
There is nothing that I said that could be construed only in a religious sense and not in a philosophical sense without at least a little presumption. That may have been misleading to people but the fact remains, everything I said is actually true and has proof behind it.
The point is also that "proof" and "evidence" are philosophical constructs, not merely scientific ones. Science, being rooted in (naturalist) philosophy, uses a naturalistically customized format for determining what constitutes "proof" or "evidence". The problem nowadays is that most people lose sight of the fact that "proof" need not be scientific in order to be valid; it only needs to be philosophically valid.
In other words, since science is a subset of philosophy, all scientific proof must be philosophically valid, but not all philosophical proof need be scientifically valid. Despite the light-hearted nature of how I framed my OP to start this thread, the fact remains that people have forsaken general philosophical "proof" and cling only to scientific "proof", thereby making science their worldview either expressly or de facto (mostly the latter).
It also demonstrates that carring on a claim while avoiding empirical evidence requires meditated misdirection on the part of the claimant.
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.
I know..... Thanks for at least having a sense of humor about it... it was misleading on my part, though it's technically a philosophical issue, discussing what's real or not, and "evidence" and "proof", so it does fit in this forum. I wanted to show how people do think of this forum as a "religion" forum, not "philosophy" - when I made the OP, there was no talk about religion except for 3 terms based in religious/belief but having real applications in many non-religious ways. I think it's interesing that people went the religious route - understandable and logical but also interesting.
