God and Satan

[Jahada]

You just said if you combine rationality and faith you have truth but faith is not and never will be truth.

I'm saying that when you have both the ability for rational thought and the ability to accept that God exists despite the fact that it cannot be 100%, objectively, empirically proven, you open your mind for receiving truth. After all, someone who can be rational but is close-minded cannot accept truth, and someone who will believe anything shoved in front of them cannot accept truth either.

That last sentence was pretty interesting.

[Harata]

Naturally a God wouldn't change His mind because God does not change. He lays down the law and people obey it. This is just one of the many logical flaws with Christianity. If God was going to "kill" Himself, only to rise from the "dead" to save humanity from the sins that He was going to punish them for in the first place, why couldn't he have just done it earlier? Were all the prophets before Jesus wasted??? Is all their work null and void??? Come on.

The whole point of the prophets was to pave the way for Jesus' coming. It prepared the people for that event. Also, saying "why couldn't he have done it earlier" is illogical. He had to do it sometime, right? It could have been earlier or later, but He chose then. Why? I don't know, but he did, and that's the important thing.

[South East Europe]

Excuse me for stating a fact.

Excuse me for remaining skeptical of your assertion until you back it up with actually indisputable facts.

I don't believe i used the word indisputable. If you read the definition of religion and the definition of logical, there's the facts.

[Jahada]

I'm religious. I'm a rationalist.

It's obviously not a fact.

you could say this millions of times, religion and rationalism are incompatible because religion is irrational.

Be rational then and prove it.

[Harata]

I'm saying that when you have both the ability for rational thought and the ability to accept that God exists despite the fact that it cannot be 100%, objectively, empirically proven, you open your mind for receiving truth. After all, someone who can be rational but is close-minded cannot accept truth, and someone who will believe anything shoved in front of them cannot accept truth either.

That last sentence was pretty interesting.

Well, thank you .

[South East Europe]

you could say this millions of times, religion and rationalism are incompatible because religion is irrational.

Be rational then and prove it.

Look up the definitions of both words.

[Jahada]

Naturally a God wouldn't change His mind because God does not change. He lays down the law and people obey it. This is just one of the many logical flaws with Christianity. If God was going to "kill" Himself, only to rise from the "dead" to save humanity from the sins that He was going to punish them for in the first place, why couldn't he have just done it earlier? Were all the prophets before Jesus wasted??? Is all their work null and void??? Come on.

The whole point of the prophets was to pave the way for Jesus' coming. It prepared the people for that event. Also, saying "why couldn't he have done it earlier" is illogical. He had to do it sometime, right? It could have been earlier or later, but He chose then. Why? I don't know, but he did, and that's the important thing.

I honestly don't see how strict law logically "paves the way" toward lawlessness.

[Michilimakinak]

Excuse me for remaining skeptical of your assertion until you back it up with actually indisputable facts.

I don't believe i used the word indisputable.

I don't believe I said you did. Come on, now, I thought all you smart-assed atheists were good at this law-jick thingamajig. Start with a number of premises, name corollaries that logically follow from those premises, and end with the conclusion, "therefore it is irrational to be religious."

[Jahada]

Be rational then and prove it.

Look up the definitions of both words.

Ok, I just did. That only strengthened my argument because I think rationally about my own religion all the time. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Faith is truth to those that have it.

A belief cannot be truth, unless you reject the definition of truth and give truth a completely ludicrous definition.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Truth

Subjective truths are those with which we are most intimately acquainted. That I like broccoli or that I have a pain in my foot are both subjectively true. Metaphysical subjectivism holds that all we have are such truths. That is, that all we can know about are, one way or another, our own subjective experiences. This view does not necessarily reject realism. But at the least it claims that we cannot have direct knowledge of the real world.

[Jahada]

I don't believe i used the word indisputable.

I don't believe I said you did. Come on, now, I thought all you smart-assed atheists were good at this law-jick thingamajig. Start with a number of premises, name corollaries that logically follow from those premises, and end with the conclusion, "therefore it is irrational to be religious."

I second this.

[Michilimakinak]

Look up the definitions of both words.

Ok, I just did. That only strengthened my argument because I think rationally about my own religion all the time. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

Quoted for truth.

[Harata]

The whole point of the prophets was to pave the way for Jesus' coming. It prepared the people for that event. Also, saying "why couldn't he have done it earlier" is illogical. He had to do it sometime, right? It could have been earlier or later, but He chose then. Why? I don't know, but he did, and that's the important thing.

I honestly don't see how strict law logically "paves the way" toward lawlessness.

Jesus wasn't preaching lawlessness, in fact he was the legacy, so to speak, of the prophets. The prophets weren't perfect and may have believed slightly different things, but in the end they announced Jesus' coming decades or centuries before the event. One thing I've noticed is that Jewish religious law of the time often was more based on tradition and ceremony than faith or the prophets, which may have been why Jesus sought to change so many things.

[Jahada]

Ok, I just did. That only strengthened my argument because I think rationally about my own religion all the time. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

Quoted for truth.

[Jahada]

I honestly don't see how strict law logically "paves the way" toward lawlessness.

Jesus wasn't preaching lawlessness, in fact he was the legacy, so to speak, of the prophets. The prophets weren't perfect and may have believed slightly different things, but in the end they announced Jesus' coming decades or centuries before the event. One thing I've noticed is that Jewish religious law of the time often was more based on tradition and ceremony than faith or the prophets, which may have been why Jesus sought to change so many things.

I understand that Jesus himself did not preach lawlessness, but the fact is, the Bible says in multiple places that salvation is by faith alone. So there might as well not be any law.

[Baluris]

Christianity, Judaism and Islam, monotheistic religions wouldn't allow such. But by polytheistic reasoning then yes, satan would be a god(lowercase "g"). But over rationalize and every cult leader and priest would also be a god. The difference: mono- god is a proper noun, poly- god is an adjective.

[Harata]

Jesus wasn't preaching lawlessness, in fact he was the legacy, so to speak, of the prophets. The prophets weren't perfect and may have believed slightly different things, but in the end they announced Jesus' coming decades or centuries before the event. One thing I've noticed is that Jewish religious law of the time often was more based on tradition and ceremony than faith or the prophets, which may have been why Jesus sought to change so many things.

I understand that Jesus himself did not preach lawlessness, but the fact is, the Bible says in multiple places that salvation is by faith alone. So there might as well not be any law.

True, the law really isn't necessary for salvation. You don't need to fast or abstain from pork or whatever. God is compassionate and merciful, and, as it says in the bible, it's not what goes into you that determines how spiritually clean you are. It's what comes out.

[Jahada]

I understand that Jesus himself did not preach lawlessness, but the fact is, the Bible says in multiple places that salvation is by faith alone. So there might as well not be any law.

True, the law really isn't necessary for salvation. You don't need to fast or abstain from pork or whatever. God is compassionate and merciful, and, as it says in the bible, it's not what goes into you that determines how spiritually clean you are. It's what comes out.

Still, I ready don't like the salvation-by-faith-alone idea because it means heaven isn't a place for good people, and hell isn't a place for bad people. They are places for Christians and non-Christians, respectively. According to Christianity, I am definitely 100% going to burn in hell for my beliefs, no questions asked. -_-

[Religiousisting]

If satan was enemies with God, wouldn't he want to spite him by instead of punishing people in hell, he makes it better then heaven? I mean if god wants them to be punished, Satan would want opposite in theory, right?

BTW I don't believe in any of this shit

Completely and utterly wrong. God doesn't want people to be punished, he wants them to be in Heaven with Him. That's why he sent Jesus (or Muhammad or whoever you want to believe in), so that humanity could be saved from their sins and go to Heaven. Hell is not a "lake of burning fire" in the literal sense - it is merely a place completely devoid of God (and, therefore, completely devoid of joy, happiness, goodness, and life). Although I'd rather be in a lake of burning fire for all eternity than in such a place as Hell!

People go to Hell because Hell is where sin belongs. Satan is imprisoned in Hell because he sinned against God. You too could be imprisoned in Hell if you sin against God. This is because, when you sin, you disobey God. You express hatred of God when you sin. You also express a desire to be without God when you sin. Finally, you express a desire to be with the Prince of Darkness, Satan, when you sin.

Satan wants you to go to Hell, not because he desires company, but because he wants to spite God. Every time a person sends themselves to Hell (yes, you read that right, sends themselves), God is sad because He has lost one of His children to Satan. This is, of course, delightful to Satan, who loves to spite God and hurt humanity.

And to reiterate, God doesn't send people to Hell, people send themselves to Hell. You make a choice to sin, you make a choice not to repent. A person who makes these choices is making a choice not to be with God, and thus is damning him/herself to Hell. God isn't a legalistic judge/executioner, He's a compassionate and loving being who just wants us to love Him back.

[Minotzia]

If Satan, who, as I understand, rules, create, and controls all that is evil and is said to be worshiped by various heathen groups and witches, doesn't that make him, more or less, a god himself?

Merriam-Webster's Definition of god-
"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality "

Satan does not rule, create, or control all that is evil. His role is more that of a prisoner/temptor/warden.

I thought Satan represented more of a moral prosecutor and was more or less on good terms with God. Course us Catholics don't see Hell in the fire-y death pit way most Protestants do.

[New Korongo]

are both bull

[Harata]

True, the law really isn't necessary for salvation. You don't need to fast or abstain from pork or whatever. God is compassionate and merciful, and, as it says in the bible, it's not what goes into you that determines how spiritually clean you are. It's what comes out.

Still, I ready don't like the salvation-by-faith-alone idea because it means heaven isn't a place for good people, and hell isn't a place for bad people. They are places for Christians and non-Christians, respectively. According to Christianity, I am definitely 100% going to burn in hell for my beliefs, no questions asked. -_-

I don't know 100% how God works, and for all I know perhaps he would accept non-Christians, but I don't believe so. And God may have a different standard than us over who is good or bad. At the very least, I would recommend reading the Gospels of the bible. They're not long, and they establish the salvation by faith alone idea, so you could read the idea from the source. Ultimately, being a Christian isn't hard, which may be why so many people like it .

[Harata]

Satan does not rule, create, or control all that is evil. His role is more that of a prisoner/temptor/warden.

I thought Satan represented more of a moral prosecutor and was more or less on good terms with God. Course us Catholics don't see Hell in the fire-y death pit way most Protestants do.

I'm not sure where you got that idea, but from what I could tell from the bible God and Satan weren't exactly buddies.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

You clearly did not read what I said.

Philosophy is the study of things we cannot study empirically. Science is a branch of philosophy devoted to the study of things we know, which means it is constantly expanding. Prior to Newton Science was a branch of Philosophy.

And the Church was among the few people who pushed the idea that the Earth was round.

Ah, I see. I read it, but failed at comprehension. Hard to focus when you have a drunk stumbling around the house breaking things. My bad.



Needless to say, you stated:

Science is atheistic "Whoops, I meant agnostic" and you should be too if you are majoring in it brah.

then turned around and said:

Science is the study of all things empirical, until god and his workings can be examined Science can neither approve nor disprove the existance of god, regardless of the belief of the scientist.

Are you not contradicting yourself, or have I missed something here, too? You have yet to explain to me why you feel that a person must be agnostic to study science. Got me all confuzzled now!

[Religiousisting]

Just to expand on my earlier post (sorry to double-post, by the way):

You're not going to Hell because you're a non-Christian. You're going to Hell because you've made a choice to go to Hell (*if* you *are* "going to Hell"). If you're religious in any way, it's entirely possible you will go to Heaven because I know for a fact that salvation is based around repentance of sins, not around which church you attend. God can see into your heart. If God sees that you are repentant, that you want to be with Him, that you love Him, and that you want to obey His laws, I see no reason why you wouldn't go to Heaven.

If you're a Muslim or a Jew - well, I might offend some Christians here, but I have no doubt you would go to Heaven, because we all worship the same God! Allah, YHWH and God are all the same God - that is, the God of Abraham/Ibrahim - so I don't see why there's so much fuss over the difference between us. Really, we're all just different sects of "Abrahamism" or whatever you'd like to call it.

If you're a Buddhist, well, I'm not sure. If you're a Hindu, I think (if the Christian God is real) that you've probably gotten on the wrong boat, so to speak.

If you're an agnostic, then make a choice.

If you're an atheist, then why are you complaining?