Yes, the problem of evil has troubled a great many people and for good reason.
[/COLOR]


Let's hope they continue that shift.



Having a power is not the same as exercising that power. Which, I think, is the key to unlocking Satan's ability to resist God, as well as key when we talk about the problem of evil.

God allows Satan to rebel, to chose his own fate; of course, Satan must be unable to overthrow God, thus his fall. Similarly, God allows Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, allows man to sin and thereby produce evil in the world.

Yet people speculate about God's motivation - as if that could be discerned. And trying misses the point of the God-concept and the rest of the myth. Who cares why God allows man free will, we are still here and we still appear to have free will of some kind, and that's what we must come to terms with. We need to come to terms with our motivations, not God's.

So while some people moan that God allows evil, they simultaneously neglect the fact that, in the context of the myth, God is what allows salvation - that through God, evil can be shed. Sin in abeyance is evil in abeyance, and God's light shows man the way to eschew sin.

Still people object, 'oh, that's all wrong'. It's like objecting to a novel saying 'oh, it's all wrong'. If you don't like the novel, find another one that you do enjoy, one that does resonate with you. If you don't like the myth, find another one. No big deal. And approaching the issue with that sort of objection leaves little room for real discussion, too. These myths should be taken for what they are rather than criticized according to a person's as yet written ideal myth, or a person's distaste for myth in the first place.

So it comes down to the fact , we have no idea why we are allowed this free will or why evil is allowed to persue its weary way. Ours is not reason why, ours is just to live and die. Oh if the gods could speak ,this mortal charade would become so sweet.

Why we have free will? No, we lack a definite answer, although we can make some significant speculations. Why we have evil? I think I already answered that - because we have free will, and this free will allows humans to sin, ie, allows humans to act selfishly and coldly without concern for others.

Constructing an alter with the statue of a flying pink elephant and worshiping his pinkness, is a sin in what way? How is it selfish? Is it evil to construct this statue?

To construct a statue is no sin, but to worship as divine something material is idolatry.

Idolatry is selfish because the practice provides man with a shallow sense of spiritual gratification without the chance of real spiritual progress. It is to confuse an object with the divine. It's the easy way out.

I don't know DT, you usually have some pretty decent definitions but this one seems a bit wishy-washy. (Ha ha, I finally had a chance to say that)

Seriously though, Idolatry is selfish? Because the practice leads to a shallow sense of spiritual gratification? WHAT? Where is the selfishness again?

Then there is the definition of the divine. How do you know a statue can't express the divine? So where is the basis for this?

Sorry DT, but you have to explain a LOT more than what you have here because most of what you have said is sort of a matter-of-fact reply, but I do not hold to your definitions here. You'll need to supply more for me to accept what you have stated.

Sure.

As I said, idolatry is the easy way out, a substitution for real spiritual practice. This is selfish because it gives the appearance of serious devotion to spiritual practice, but this is only appearance. It is selfish because it allows a person to claim spiritual accomplishment and right without having any spiritual progress. It's selfish for the same reason it is selfish for a person to walk around claiming to be wealthy when in reality the person is not. It's a game, it's a fancy mask concealing an ugly face.

As for idols, they can express the divine - that's fine. The mistake occurs when the idol is mistaken for the divine itself. It's okay to have a cross, or a statue, or an icon; the problem begins when we mistake the thing for what the thing represents. You are a fan of Buddhism - recall the finger and the moon. Idolatry is mistaking the finger for the moon - that's the definition of idolatry I would advance.

Who cares? I don't care if someone walks around calling themselves rich or wealthy. I don't care if they dressed like a bum but made comments about their financial status. I don't even care if someone says they have had spiritual experiences. If they have, that's great for them, but it doesn't effect anything for me. Should I take everything anyone says as literal truth for myself? No, that is not being rational.

Why would spiritual accomplishments mean anything to anyone else? That is ridiculous. If someone has a spiritual experience, it is only their experience. What difference does it make what they say to others about their experience?

I'm sorry but this is a pretty weak definition and I still can not see any selfishness with it.



Well in the case you present here, no one mistakes the statue for the Buddha. The statue is a representation of the enlightened awareness. Originally in Buddhism there weren't any statues, they came far later. Some even question their importance. The only real importance I can even see for having a Buddha statue is one for remembrance. If you have a goal in mind, helping to maintain it is not always easy. One really good method of keeping on track is to have things that remind you of your goal. This is what the function of statues do in my opinion.

EDIT: I wanted to add the comment that I am not a Buddhist. I have studied it, and I respect it, but I am not a Buddhist.

For the record I am an Elephas Maximusist.

"If you can not grasp it with your mind, grasp it with your nose."

[QUOTE=Didymos Thomas;93267] Yes, the problem of evil has troubled a great many people and for good reason. [/QUOTE]
I would say the problem of evil is the major cause for disbelief. The failure of traditional religion to give an account of the problem of evil compatible with a modern world view is a continuing problem.

[QUOTE=Didymos Thomas;93267] Let's hope they continue that shift. [/QUOTE]
I think there has been a profound shift from a view of divine transcendence (god separate from the world) to divine immanence (god within the world). A good trend which is also ecology friendly. Everything is a manifestation of spirit, an emanation of the divine. Nature is part of the divine. What is known as panentheism not pantheism.

[QUOTE=Didymos Thomas;93267] Having a power is not the same as exercising that power. Which, I think, is the key to unlocking Satan's ability to resist God, as well as key when we talk about the problem of evil. [/QUOTE] Well, I do not accept the view of satan except as the personification of evil. I also do not accept the notion that god has the power to prevent evil but chooses not to do so. I prefer to abandon the notion of divine omnipotence to deal with the problem of evil. Ominpotence is a Greek philosophical Platonic notion not a scriptural notion.

[QUOTE=Didymos Thomas;93267] God allows Satan to rebel, to chose his own fate; of course, Satan must be unable to overthrow God, thus his fall. Similarly, God allows Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, allows man to sin and thereby produce evil in the world. [/QUOTE] My interpretation of the Eden story is one of alienation and separation of man from nature and from god. The choosing of the material knowledge over spiritual knowledge. Man has real and meaningful freedom but that includes the possibility of doing evil. The state of nature without god is primordial chaos (not creation ex nihilo).

[QUOTE=Didymos Thomas;93267] Yet people speculate about God's motivation - as if that could be discerned. And trying misses the point of the God-concept and the rest of the myth. Who cares why God allows man free will, we are still here and we still appear to have free will of some kind, and that's what we must come to terms with. We need to come to terms with our motivations, not God's. [/QUOTE] Religon is a metaphysical speculation. Religious belief are subjective truth. We all have a worldview some basic notion of how the world works. Fundamenally what divides theists from atheists is the notion of purpose in the universe and of the "reality" of transcendent values (moral and aesthetic).

[QUOTE=Didymos Thomas;93267] So while some people moan that God allows evil, they simultaneously neglect the fact that, in the context of the myth, God is what allows salvation - that through God, evil can be shed. Sin in abeyance is evil in abeyance, and God's light shows man the way to eschew sin. [/QUOTE] I am not sure how to respond to this. For me evil is the breaking through of the primordial chaos. For me god struggle and suffers for the sake of creation for order, complexity, life, mind, experience and value. God is powerful but not all powerful. The only meaningful world is one in which risk, novelty, creativity and freedom are real and in such a world evil is possible.

[QUOTE=Didymos Thomas;93267] Still people object, 'oh, that's all wrong'. It's like objecting to a novel saying 'oh, it's all wrong'. If you don't like the novel, find another one that you do enjoy, one that does resonate with you. If you don't like the myth, find another one. No big deal. And approaching the issue with that sort of objection leaves little room for real discussion, too. These myths should be taken for what they are rather than criticized according to a person's as yet written ideal myth, or a person's distaste for myth in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Religion is a form of speculative philosophy. As such it includes notions or elements which can not be objectively confirmed. I am not able to formulate a religious world view which does not include our current scientific notions and understandings. I do not think science is incompatible with religion. There are some traditional religions doctrines which are incompatible with modern science. I follow the ancient religious rationalists in that if a religious doctrine is not compatible with reason or with experience (science is a form of experience) then that interpretation is wrong. Young earth creationism is wrong, in fact all traditional forms of creationism are wrong. There are many possible religious conceptions which are rational and not in conflict with science.

Hope I'm doing this right -- relative newbie, first multiquote reply.... Hi, everyone. I've been reading this forum for the first time tonight. Guess I'll just dive right in, since I can't read and post as often as I'd like because I'm currently engaged in a war of attrition with Satan (I have met Satan face to face, and he is a carpenter ant. Living in my wall voids. With millions of his minions. He must die.) :devilish:

I vote for the tempter in the desert.

The serpent is out for me, since most of Genesis 1-11, I believe, was probably borrowed from Mesopotamian mythos during the Hebrews' Babylonian captivity, and edited to reflect henotheism (the very early Hebrews were not monotheistic -- at least per my understanding -- they were henotheistic, belief in many gods but worship only one).

And Revelations -- whew! Never touch the stuff.

But the tempter in the desert did apparently have the authority to offer Jesus "the kingdoms of this world", otherwise there was no temptation -- Jesus's reply indicates no doubt that the offer was a plausible one.

Then there are the New Testament scriptures that cite Satan and/or the Prince of the Power of the Air as the ruler of this world, and teach that followers of Christ will be persecuted by the ruler of this world. That would make absolutely no sense if the God of the New Testament was ruler of this world, would it?



I personally don't think Lucifer is Satan. The "Lucifer" of Isaiah (Ch 14) was apparently a translation error. In the Latin of The Vulgate, which provided the source for the King James translation into English, "lucifer" meant "light bearer" or "daystar"; it should not have been capitalized and turned into a proper name. If I'm wrong on this, some Latin scholar please correct me.

Admittedly an argument can be made that the passage is so overstated, it must represent some kind of divine being. But I don't agree with that -- when one reads it in context, this "light bearer", the king of Babylon, is being compared with other mortal kings.



I think Satan, some kind of dualism, is necessary for the problem of evil. As noted above, I believe scriptures do present a dualistic view in THIS world.

For me, the "offer of salvation" reads more like a rescue-op. We're already in a big mess, damned by the ruler of THIS world, and Christ/God of the New Testament is offering a way out, a hand up, as it were -- but it's not possible for him to reach someone who's too attached to "the world".

I'm no Greek language scholar, but I've read that the term "the world" in the New Testament has several possible interpretations by its original intended audience, which would have been understood by them by the term's context. IMO, the particular Greek term translated as "the world" at least deserves some attention by anyone trying to understand what sort of "sticky tape" might bind one to this world and death. (I've only done a cursory study on "afterlife-hell", enough to convince me that I'm not capable of understanding what the concept means -- I lean toward simple mortality).

Nor do I believe Jesus of Nazareth could be the only possible way. Overall, New Testament scripture seems pretty clear, at least to me, that one's actions are the litmus test of one's faith (Check out Matthew 25, when Jesus is asked about dividing sheep/goats -- simply crying "Lord Lord" to Jesus doesn't cut it -- taking care of others, "the least of these", cuts it.)

If Christ equals God equals Eternal Spirit equals Love, the idea that this is limited to one incarnation in Palestine 2000 years ago seems nonsensical, IMO. And Christ himself says it's OK to blaspheme the Father or the Son, just not "The Spirit". I personally think "The Spirit" is Love, as stated in the 1st Epistle of John, "God is Love.". Love is expressed by loving actions, loving each other as ourselves, the golden rule.

Please understand, I'm not trying to start a "scripture war" or preach in this forum. Of course there are obscure and outright contradictory scriptures in the New Testament. Because of that, one has to read the whole work, cover to cover, with an open mind and glean the "core tenets" of the thing. At least, that's the only way I could make sense of it -- how can outright contradictory statements both be infallible?

Maybe someone else reads the New Testament and comes away with a different set of "core tenets" than my own and/or does not find his/her spiritual path via Christianity. My husband of many years is "technically" non-Christian (but he's such a good person, I'm convinced he has a better chance of making "the cut" than I do).

Again, greetings to all. Hello. Hope I didn't go overboard in my first post in this forum. I was going to post one or two more before I went "zealot", but, you know, when one is busy battling the powers of hell (I hate ants), one has to make the best of one's free time.

Yowsa! Hubby just reminded me that I can't end my first post on Satan without linking to my favorite "Satan" music video. Enjoy.

WARNING: Mature audiences, little bit of foul language, one "iffy" line in the first verse, but overall I find it very clever and very, very funny! (If it's "over the top", someone please let me know and I'll kill it. I'm a soft fluffy sheep at heart, though sometimes I behave like a rowdy ram -- actually I'm female, so I couldn't be a ram, but you get the idea.)

YouTube - "Beelz" by Stephen Lynch

rebecca

Dude, Idolatry is selfish even if it doesn't mean anything to you. Idolatry is people worshiping their work of their own hands - they worship what they create. It's, "Oh, look at me and how awesome I am."

If it doesn't bother you, that's fine, but that's also a different matter altogether.

Lucifer was an angel in Heaven, how can he suddenly "un-exist" ?

If there are no Hell, there are no Heaven, if there are no heaven ..there are no God, to defy Satan is the defyance of God!

So if I believe in heaven I have to believe in god ,hell and the devil? WHY?

If you belive in God, you belive in Heaven? In haven resides angels, you belive in them? Lucifer was a fallen angel?
..it's part of the same thing, you can't just defy the 1 over the other.


Simple.

I asked why cant I believe just in heaven and none of the others? WHY?

Imo it comes in 1 package? Well ofcause very modern christianity are selective and defy the existance of Satan and Hell, which seems to whipe the entire history of christianity, and the concept of sinners. One must ask why all the heretics were burned back in the days?

Maybe it's because christianity wants to lure more people to their religion? ..by making it more appealing for the masses, who wants to be judged these days, we only wants forgiveness.

Im not sure if you are talking from a personal perspective or you are making an observation?

Lemme repharse my statemen, it was meant as a rethorical question.

Most christians these days live by this belive that just the mere faith in god will cause forgiveness, thereby nullifying the existance of Hell and Satan.

Most modern humans no matter if they'r religious or atheist does not want to be judged by anyone, and take an objective judgement as a great insult and as an intrusion of their private sphere.

Basically, yes- there is no good without evil.

Also, you captured one of the many Christian paradoxes that theology hasn't- and because they stand at the very core of Christianity- can't ever explain.

Firstly, if god is omni- potent and scient, then why not just get rid of Satan? Of course, one could say it's god's test of our faith.

Satan is obviously a supernatural being, and the whole point of Jesus and etc. was to guide us away from satan and sins and all of that- i.e. you cannot practically believe in god without believiung in satan. Also, if you did it would mean that god is rather evil than good (because of all the evil in the world). If you believe that satan exists, then it either means that god is not omnipotent as he can't get rid of him, or Christians aren't monotheists because they believe in the existence of a being that is the opposite of god, yet has godlike powers.

i know this is confusing, its just hard to explain it in a nonconfusing way :S

please don't make stories or possibilities...

Just ask the church about anything

maybe they can tell you the nature of Satan

please don't tell things unconfirmed...

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 10:20 AM ----------


It seems you do not have a knowledge on Cristianity
Satan is not equal to God and right now he is tormented in hell.

Evil is the absence of good
Evil is the same as nothingness
Satan have taken out his goodness against God
Because Satan have taken out his goodness against God
God left him to nothingness
and now Satan is taking his revenge to God by bringing humans to nothingness