The Devil

First I'm wondering where you got this info o_O?

I see Satan as a fallen angel, who may or may not exist. He rebelled against God, and was probably the snake in Eden. I like the portrayal of him in Job though.

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

My observation: I've heard people say things like "don't be greedy and do not give-in to your temptations, and other stuffs like that because it's the devil trying to make you do bad things". So what I'm saying is that if someone believes that in doing something in particular, he/she will be following the devil instead of god, that person will have one very big fat reason for not doing that particular deed...

First I'm wondering where you got this info o_O?

I see Satan as a fallen angel, who may or may not exist. He rebelled against God, and was probably the snake in Eden. I like the portrayal of him in Job though.

123625

If this was for me on the part of the origins of Satan, from various religious books, namely: A History of God, The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong, former Roman Catholic Nun. And other sources as well.

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

felixlynch777

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

Theokhoth

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Why not a woman? I'd much rather do sinful things with a woman than a ... man :?

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

Theokhoth

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Yes true. I also thought that about paintings of Jesus which made him look like a white European man.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

felixlynch777

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Yes true. I also thought that about paintings of Jesus which made him look like a white European man.

Yes, just like paintings that give angels wings.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

SimpJee

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Why not a woman? I'd much rather do sinful things with a woman than a ... man :?

He said 'man' because he likes men. What he is saying I suppose, is that if Satan were real, he would assume a form most likely to encourage you to be sinful. But yeah, I too would much rather do 'sinful' things with a woman. :P

Yes, just like paintings that give angels wings.

Theokhoth

Any arguments dealing with the looks of angels, god, or the devil are pointless. Not saying you two are arguing just saying that it's pointless because none of it has any basis in reality so it's all subjective. It's all in your head.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yes, just like paintings that give angels wings.

SimpJee

Any arguments dealing with the looks of angels, god, or the devil are pointless. Not saying you two are arguing just saying that it's pointless because none of it has any basis in reality so it's all subjective. It's all in your head.

The bolden contradicts.;)

While I agree that arguing about what God/angels/Satan etc look like is pointless, I don't think that leads to the conclusion "it's all in your head."

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

Theokhoth

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Yes true. I also thought that about paintings of Jesus which made him look like a white European man.

Yes, just like paintings that give angels wings.

Actually You've reminded of me an interesting topic I talked about with my priest around 7 years ago. I asked him what did God look like and he said that ,in his opinion, God didn't have a physical form and was more spirit based. I'm not sure about this but when I was Catholic this was the point of view I had.

Yes a little random but interesting all the less.

He's just another man made creation, I see Satan more of a symbol than some deity that should be worshipped, I'll leave that to Theistic Satanist.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yes, just like paintings that give angels wings.

Theokhoth

Any arguments dealing with the looks of angels, god, or the devil are pointless. Not saying you two are arguing just saying that it's pointless because none of it has any basis in reality so it's all subjective. It's all in your head.

The bolden contradicts.;)

While I agree that arguing about what God/angels/Satan etc look like is pointless, I don't think that leads to the conclusion "it's all in your head."

Reality is not subjective. Would love to hear your reasons for thinking it is though, if that's what you meant.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

felixlynch777

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Yes true. I also thought that about paintings of Jesus which made him look like a white European man.

Yes, just like paintings that give angels wings.

Actually You've reminded of me an interesting topic I talked about with my priest around 7 years ago. I asked him what did God look like and he said that ,in his opinion, God didn't have a physical form and was more spirit based. I'm not sure about this but when I was Catholic this was the point of view I had.

Yes a little random but interesting all the less.

I'm against asking the questions of "What does God look like" or "What does God feel". Personally, that line of reasoning has gotten Christianity into a state where most believe in a cosmic Santa Clause, rather than something that is actually worthy of the title of "God".

My own belief is a panentheistic, open theist conception of God; I dislike putting too many connotations or conditions on God; again, bad road to go down in my mind.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yes, just like paintings that give angels wings.

SimpJee

Any arguments dealing with the looks of angels, god, or the devil are pointless. Not saying you two are arguing just saying that it's pointless becausenone of it has any basis in reality so it's all subjective.It's all in your head.

The bolden contradicts.;)

While I agree that arguing about what God/angels/Satan etc look like is pointless, I don't think that leads to the conclusion "it's all in your head."

Reality is not subjective. Would love to hear your reasons for thinking it is though, if that's what you meant.

It isn't? We all have subjective, biased, and person viewpoints of reality. It's the subjectivity which gives life dynamicism; without it, it would be rather dull.

Albert Camus The Stranger is a good discourse on this topic.

Actually You've reminded of me an interesting topic I talked about with my priest around 7 years ago. I asked him what did God look like and he said that ,in his opinion, God didn't have a physical form and was more spirit based. I'm not sure about this but when I was Catholic this was the point of view I had.

Yes a little random but interesting all the less.

felixlynch777

That's the mainstream view, actually. Ever hear the phrase, "God is Good?" It's not just talking about God's character.;)

It isn't? We all have subjective, biased, and person viewpoints of reality. It's the subjectivity which gives life dynamicism; without it, it would be rather dull.

Albert Camus The Stranger is a good discourse on this topic.

STWELCH

Bias and personal viewpoints towards what exactly? Reality is defined as things that no matter what a person says or does will not change, such as gravity, and other observations made about our universe. I could say I have a bias that the world is flat, but that doesn't change reality.

[QUOTE="STWELCH"]

It isn't? We all have subjective, biased, and person viewpoints of reality. It's the subjectivity which gives life dynamicism; without it, it would be rather dull.

Albert Camus The Stranger is a good discourse on this topic.

SimpJee

Bias and personal viewpoints towards what exactly? Reality is defined as things that no matter what a person says or does will not change, such as gravity, and other observations made about our universe. I could say I have a bias that the world is flat, but that doesn't change reality.

I'm talking reality as it relates to the individual human, not so much the object itself. It's the subject-object type relationship, and such a relationship has to be subjective, as it varies among each person and how they percieve reality.

I'm talking reality as it relates to the individual human, not so much the object itself. It's the subject-object type relationship, and such a relationship has to be subjective, as it varies among each person and how they percieve reality.

STWELCH

Can you give an example?

I think what you're saying is that their personal perception of reality is subjective, but that still doesn't make reality itself subjective.

Anyways, I see the Devil/Satan/Lucifer as a fictional character. I very much like his portrayal in Paradise Lost.

Actually You've reminded of me an interesting topic I talked about with my priest around 7 years ago. I asked him what did God look like and he said that ,in his opinion, God didn't have a physical form and was more spirit based. I'm not sure about this but when I was Catholic this was the point of view I had. felixlynch777

If God made us in his image, I'd think he'd look more human rather than spirit-based.

Strategist1117

One could say that this has a more figurative meaning, making our character and role in the image of God's, rather than our literal appearence.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

Forerunner-117

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Why not a woman? I'd much rather do sinful things with a woman than a ... man :?

He said 'man' because he likes men. What he is saying I suppose, is that if Satan were real, he would assume a form most likely to encourage you to be sinful. But yeah, I too would much rather do 'sinful' things with a woman. :P

Those things aren't sinful... unless you plan on raping and killing her.

EDIT: That's a little too explicit.

[QUOTE="Forerunner-117"][QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

JLCrogue

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Why not a woman? I'd much rather do sinful things with a woman than a ... man :?

He said 'man' because he likes men. What he is saying I suppose, is that if Satan were real, he would assume a form most likely to encourage you to be sinful. But yeah, I too would much rather do 'sinful' things with a woman. :P

Those things aren't sinful... unless you plan on raping and killing her.

Lust simply isn't a sin in my mind, so I'm not doing anything wrong when I have sex before marriage, **** a girl in the arse, mouth, or **** a hooker. God, I love being guilt free.

O_0

Do you have biblical support for those claims?

In the past concepts like the Devil (Satan) and the like have been used to justify the natural negativities within our world mankind didn't understand yet, or the polar opposite of God, a religion tends to be far more effective in 'conversion' if there's some threat (or reward) behind it. For example, a priest will often tell a would-be convert that he is attempting to rescue him from "damnation" or "the devil's evil". The Inquisition is a great example. Nowadays the Devil is utilized by churchs, mosques, etc., to get what they want, provide an opposite motivation to "blasphemers or heretics" in order to justify any opposition to these "non-believers". More unorthodox uses for Satan (Excorcism, Possession, Torture) are an entirely different brand of religious insanity altogether.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

SimpJee

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Why not a woman? I'd much rather do sinful things with a woman than a ... man :?

Because the bible is quite misogynistic and all angels are male. I am not sure what the purpose of being male when there is no female equivalent, but they weren't selling logic.

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"][QUOTE="Forerunner-117"][QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I think that the Satan rebelling story may be telling people to not go against God. Satan does share a similar look to the Greek God, Pan interestingly.

domatron23

Only in artists' interpretations. Lucifer, I would imagine, would look like a gorgeous man, rather than an animal or a satyr.

Why not a woman? I'd much rather do sinful things with a woman than a ... man :?

He said 'man' because he likes men. What he is saying I suppose, is that if Satan were real, he would assume a form most likely to encourage you to be sinful. But yeah, I too would much rather do 'sinful' things with a woman. :P

Those things aren't sinful... unless you plan on raping and killing her.

Lust simply isn't a sin in my mind, so I'm not doing anything wrong when I have sex before marriage, **** a girl in the arse, mouth, or **** a hooker. God, I love being guilt free.

O_0

Do you have biblical support for those claims?

I don't need any, because the Bible is mostly wrong. It's full of ridiculous mythology.

I don't need any, because the Bible is mostly wrong. It's full of ridiculous mythology.

JLCrogue

If the Bible is mostly wrong then you should be easily able to provide Biblical support.

Then again, I don't think you were making those claims from the Bible.

I don't need any, because the Bible is mostly wrong. It's full of ridiculous mythology.

JLCrogue

I agree. Nevertheless sin refers to something that is against God's word and one of the sources of God's word is the Bible. So basically sin is defined by the contents of the Bible hence if you're saying that something is not sinful you are saying that the Bible is cool with it. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't cool with sodomy.

I agree. Nevertheless sin refers to something that is against God's word and one of the sources of God's word is the Bible. So basically sin is defined by the contents of the Bible hence if you're saying that something is not sinful you are saying that the Bible is cool with it. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't cool with sodomy.

domatron23

The Bible isn't God's word, it was written by primitive men.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

I agree. Nevertheless sin refers to something that is against God's word and one of the sources of God's word is the Bible. So basically sin is defined by the contents of the Bible hence if you're saying that something is not sinful you are saying that the Bible is cool with it. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't cool with sodomy.

JLCrogue

The Bible isn't God's word, it was written by primitive men.

Given that we are on the atheist union I think it's safe to say that when we talk about God, religion and the Bible we are talking with an agreed understanding that all are false.

Sin however is a largely Biblical and religious term so it's difficult to use it without directly referring to what's in the Bible. That is unless you were just using sin as meaning "morally wrong" in which case I agree with your original statement.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

I agree. Nevertheless sin refers to something that is against God's word and one of the sources of God's word is the Bible. So basically sin is defined by the contents of the Bible hence if you're saying that something is not sinful you are saying that the Bible is cool with it. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't cool with sodomy.

JLCrogue

The Bible isn't God's word, it was written by primitive men.

Oh? So the 60,000 cross references between the 66 books of the Bible written by more than 40 authors over a period of 1500 years all just happen to be in complete harmony with each other? Sure. :roll:

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

I agree. Nevertheless sin refers to something that is against God's word and one of the sources of God's word is the Bible. So basically sin is defined by the contents of the Bible hence if you're saying that something is not sinful you are saying that the Bible is cool with it. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't cool with sodomy.

Lansdowne5

The Bible isn't God's word, it was written by primitive men.

Oh? So the 60,000 cross references between the 66 books of the Bible written by more than 40 authors over a period of 1500 years all just happen to be in complete harmony with each other? Sure. :roll:

Meh. That argument's a bit of a non-sequiter, it doesn't follow at all that the Bible is the word of God just because of cross referencing (and yes I have seen the pretty illustration of it). I bet you could make the same claim about the Quran or many other holy texts. You could probably make that claim about many books of a suitable length.

Anyways I don't see the harmony that you do. I see a lot of messy and borrowed ideas formed together into a long, convoluted book.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="JLCrogue"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

I agree. Nevertheless sin refers to something that is against God's word and one of the sources of God's word is the Bible. So basically sin is defined by the contents of the Bible hence if you're saying that something is not sinful you are saying that the Bible is cool with it. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't cool with sodomy.

domatron23

The Bible isn't God's word, it was written by primitive men.

Oh? So the 60,000 cross references between the 66 books of the Bible written by more than 40 authors over a period of 1500 years all just happen to be in complete harmony with each other? Sure. :roll:

Meh. That argument's a bit of a non-sequiter, it doesn't follow at all that the Bible is the word of God just because of cross referencing (and yes I have seen the pretty illustration of it). I bet you could make the same claim about the Quran or many other holy texts. You could probably make that claim about many books of a suitable length.

Anyways I don't see the harmony that you do. I see a lot of messy and borrowed ideas formed together into a long, convoluted book.

There is no other book that even comes close to what the Bible achieves in that respect. The Qur'an was authored by one person over a period of merely 23 years. So no, in actual fact the ONLY possible book I could make that claim about is the Bible.

I'll give an example of just the harmony I mean. But first, could you elaborate on what you mean by 'messy and borrowed ideas'? 

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="JLCrogue"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

I agree. Nevertheless sin refers to something that is against God's word and one of the sources of God's word is the Bible. So basically sin is defined by the contents of the Bible hence if you're saying that something is not sinful you are saying that the Bible is cool with it. And last time I checked the Bible wasn't cool with sodomy.

Lansdowne5

The Bible isn't God's word, it was written by primitive men.

Oh? So the 60,000 cross references between the 66 books of the Bible written by more than 40 authors over a period of 1500 years all just happen to be in complete harmony with each other? Sure. :roll:

Meh. That argument's a bit of a non-sequiter, it doesn't follow at all that the Bible is the word of God just because of cross referencing (and yes I have seen the pretty illustration of it). I bet you could make the same claim about the Quran or many other holy texts. You could probably make that claim about many books of a suitable length.

Anyways I don't see the harmony that you do. I see a lot of messy and borrowed ideas formed together into a long, convoluted book.

There is no other book that even comes close to what the Bible achieves in that respect. The Qur'an was authored by one person over a period of merely 23 years. So no, in actual fact the ONLY possible book I could make that claim about is the Bible.

I'll give an example of just the harmony I mean. But first, could you elaborate on what you mean by 'messy and borrowed ideas'?

Oh actually I was just talking about cross referencing in regards to the Quran. I know that its authorship wasn't quite as extended as the Bible's.

When I said that the Bible was full of messy and borrowed ideas I just meant that it was not in harmony and that many elements, events and themes are shared with pre-existing works. Eve for example is a big rip off of Pandora.

Oh actually I was just talking about cross referencing in regards to the Quran. I know that its authorship wasn't quite as extended as the Bible's.

When I said that the Bible was full of messy and borrowed ideas I just meant that it was not in harmony and that many elements, events and themes are shared with pre-existing works. Eve for example is a big rip off of Pandora.

domatron23

Just out of curiousity how percent of the bible to you think has been borrowed?

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh actually I was just talking about cross referencing in regards to the Quran. I know that its authorship wasn't quite as extended as the Bible's.

When I said that the Bible was full of messy and borrowed ideas I just meant that it was not in harmony and that many elements, events and themes are shared with pre-existing works. Eve for example is a big rip off of Pandora.

123625

Just out of curiousity how percent of the bible to you think has been borrowed?

I dunno probably a rather minor percentage... 2-5% maybe.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh actually I was just talking about cross referencing in regards to the Quran. I know that its authorship wasn't quite as extended as the Bible's.

When I said that the Bible was full of messy and borrowed ideas I just meant that it was not in harmony and that many elements, events and themes are shared with pre-existing works. Eve for example is a big rip off of Pandora.

domatron23

Just out of curiousity how percent of the bible to you think has been borrowed?

I dunno probably a rather minor percentage... 2-5% maybe.

Does that include Jesus being a carbon copy of Horus, as Diz is always trying to make out? :P 

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh actually I was just talking about cross referencing in regards to the Quran. I know that its authorship wasn't quite as extended as the Bible's.

When I said that the Bible was full of messy and borrowed ideas I just meant that it was not in harmony and that many elements, events and themes are shared with pre-existing works. Eve for example is a big rip off of Pandora.

Lansdowne5

Just out of curiousity how percent of the bible to you think has been borrowed?

I dunno probably a rather minor percentage... 2-5% maybe.

Does that include Jesus being a carbon copy of Horus, as Diz is always trying to make out? :P 

I haven't really looked into that one too much but it strikes me as not quite right. There's some interesting stuff when you compare messiahs but I wouldn't say that Jesus was just made up.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh actually I was just talking about cross referencing in regards to the Quran. I know that its authorship wasn't quite as extended as the Bible's.

When I said that the Bible was full of messy and borrowed ideas I just meant that it was not in harmony and that many elements, events and themes are shared with pre-existing works. Eve for example is a big rip off of Pandora.

domatron23

Just out of curiousity how percent of the bible to you think has been borrowed?

I dunno probably a rather minor percentage... 2-5% maybe.

Does that include Jesus being a carbon copy of Horus, as Diz is always trying to make out? :P 

I haven't really looked into that one too much but it strikes me as not quite right. There's some interesting stuff when you compare messiahs but I wouldn't say that Jesus was just made up.

That's a start then. :D What about the amazing medical accuracy with which it describes Jesus being stabbed by the spear? 

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Does that include Jesus being a carbon copy of Horus, as Diz is always trying to make out? :P 

Lansdowne5

I haven't really looked into that one too much but it strikes me as not quite right. There's some interesting stuff when you compare messiahs but I wouldn't say that Jesus was just made up.

That's a start then. :D What about the amazing medical accuracy with which it describes Jesus being stabbed by the spear? 

I haven't read that. What are the passages?

I haven't read that. What are the passages?

domatron23

It's according to John. The first appearance of the spear of longinus apparently.

Verse John 19:34: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. KJV

ki [QUOTE="domatron23"]I haven't read that. What are the passages?

123625

It's according to John. The first appearance of the spear of longinus apparently.

Verse John 19:34: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. KJV

Okay I just had a looksie at that bit of John and it didn't scream out "amazing medical accuracy" to me at all.