Nope, needs to be a charismatic embodiment to be relatable. People don't respond strongly to intellectual ideas. Same as with FAUX.
So your saying God created Satan so we could all relate to what evil is? That begins to sound metaphorically Biblical, as opposed to literally Biblical.
If God is personified it would make sense that the anti-God would also be personified. If God is a being that we can have a relationship with then the opposition to who tries to undermine God's work through temptation should also being we can have a relationship with.
this is so not true. that's not true, either. In fact, it's an insult to the belief system of Catholics. What the Pope is meant to be is a living successor of the apostles. So, he is on that plane -- an apostle. Apostles were never considered to be speaking directly from God, nor is the Pope. It's one thing to be against Religion, which I have no problem with. But don't be ignorant and claim the Catholics claim something that isn't true, just to make your point.
Would you be so kind as to quote book and verse where the bible provides details about the history of Satan, or Lucifer, or Beelzebub please? TIA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_supremacy OK, granted, its what he says when he is operating in the office of Pope. I apologize for not writing a 5 page essay on when the pope is technically exercising his infallibility or not. I thought it would be reasonably understood that I wasn't talking about when he was discussing soccer games with cardinals, or any other non-Papal exclamations. But the pope sure as hell can made doctrinal declarations, and sure as hell are as beyond reproach as direct revelations from God when he does, at least according to the Vatican. This has more or less been true since the Council of Nicea in 325, when the Pope was elevated from being just another bishop. In the context of the point I was trying to make, if a Pope or a council of Bishops like the Council of Nicea or Coundil of Trent wanted to create new doctrine, maybe declare the entire history of Satan, they can do so in a way that is not possible for strict Biblical-literalist evangelicals. For Biblical literalist evangelicals, if it isn't in the book, it is in doubt, though in practice they seem to hold onto all sorts of Catholic ideas from before the Reformation. For instance, the Nicean Creed[/ulr] sticks around, even though it isn't anywhere in the bible and was created at the same time the Pope was invented, a few hundred years after Jesus. But after the Second Vatican Council, for instance, what was true for Catholics was suddenly something other than it was before the Second Council, because the Council agreed on it. Before, all individuals who didn't submit to the primacy of the Vatican were going to burn in hell. Afterwords, not a lock. Before, Jews collectively bore guilt for the death of Jesus. After, that wasn't true anymore. And that change is doctrinally part of Catholicism, where Popes, or Councils of Bishop are empowered to change doctrine beyond what the Bible directly states.
"Good" is just what you call godliness or divinity. You don't need evil to be a contrast, just the lack of godliness. Unless you consider anyone who is without God to be a heathen and evil, but that's just silly.
Much of the Old Testament is written from Oral History. So, now you are saying the Bible has to have a chapter devoted to the history of Satan. Dude, the concept of a devil is all over the bible...don't be so ignorant. You don't understand the way the Catholic Church works. It has nothing to do with the Pope being the voice of God providing revelations. The papacy is supposed to provide a written definition of moral compass and faith, that gets passed down. What is so wrong with that? Let me give you another example of what the Pope does. Back in Martin Luther's day, the Vatican was trying to raise money to build the Sistine Chapel. The Pope at that time and the Bishops all voted to add Deuterocanon letters to the bible, that were written long ago, but not accepted with the original New Testament. Those writings mentioned the idea of a limbo period between death and the Pearl Gates, where you had to wait based on your sins. The Vatican voted those in to raise money for the Sistine Chapel, by saying there is a Limbo, but we will pray for your dead if you give us money. That was wrong, and Martin Luther broke away from the Church because of that. Fast forward through many attempts to right that wrong, Pope Benedict brought it back to the table as his main platform issue... to rejoin the Lutherans with the Roman Catholics. And Francis finalized that. So, they aren't just sitting on that chair talking about current events trying to recruit and pursuade others. That's not what they are doing. They are organizing a Church and maintaining a doctrine of faith and morals for those in the church... I think you are confusing Catholics with unfettered evangelists. You sound jaded and going out of your way to single out Catholics as evil. You don't know anything John Snow.
Seriously? Why doesn't God man-up and show itself already. And Satan too. These guys need to step up soon or people are going to switch over to Islam. Then again, Muhammed isn't anywhere to be seen either. WTF. Are all our gods and anti-gods such scaredy cats?
I get that you don't think it would be natural to include that in the Bible and I agree with you. All I said it wasn't in the Bible, but many people subscribe 100% to the story that he was a fallen angel who rejected God, etc. None of that is in the Bible, though. The fact that you and I don't think it would be natural to have that story in the Bible is irrelevant. Its not there is all I was saying. Satan means "adversary" translated from Hebrew. In Job he actually appears to be working for God, almost as his chief prosecutor. Its the only place in the Bible where Satan speaks, and he has a congenial back and forth with God. Satan mostly appears as the modern evil Satan in the various Letters of the Apostles. He appears 14 times in the Old Testament, almost exclusively in Job (once in 1st Chronicles, once in Zachariah), where as previously stated he appears to be working for God. In the synoptic gospels, he appears much more often in the Luke, the newest of the synoptic gospels, a whole lot less in Matthew. Lucifer is mentioned all of once, in the King James Bible, in Isaiah, The name has been totally eliminated from modern translations, like the New International that I have The name is apparently Latin for Morning Star and newer translations just use that. There is no direct evidence that Lucifer and Satan are the same person in the Bible, the one mention is in passing. Beezalbub is a poor translation of the name of a Babylonian god. The name basically means, "Lord of Flying Things", but an older translation is "Lord of the Flies" which is where the book name comes from. Beezalbub as a name only appears in 2 Kings - not in any other book. Certainly nothing links the name to Satan. Satan mostly appears as the modern evil Satan in the various Letters of the Apostles. He appears 14 times in the Old Testament, almost exclusively in Job (once in 1st Chronicles, once in Zachariah), where as previously stated he appears to be working for God. In the synoptic gospels, he appears much more often in the Luke, the newest of the synoptic gospels, a whole lot less in Matthew. By the time Luke was written, as well as the letters to various churches written well after Jesus' death, I grant you he is the closer to the traditional "Satan". He possesses people and makes them do evil stuff. But Legion for instance did the same in those synoptic gospels, but nobody has appointed Legion King of Hell. Nowhere does it describe him as the source of evil, or as being in charge of evil. Nowhere is he described as a fallen angel. Nowhere does it say he runs hell. In fact, one quote crosses the synoptic gospels, when Jesus says, "“Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Conjecture, but the Prince of Darkness in Hell as commonly understood iis more or less obsessed with "the Concerns of God" and how to block them. In any case, he could be all these things, but my only point is you can't get that information from the Bible. He appears a ton in Revelations - 7 times. Second most to Job's 11 mentions and easily the most in the New Testament. Just for the record, Martin Luther thought Revelations should be stricken from the Bible. My understanding is that there were a ton of different "How the world will end" gospels going around at the time the Bible was finalized, and Revelations was chosen from these. So anyway, if you think Satan is the evil fallen angel, running all the evil on Earth from his throne in hell, I have no problem. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that when Evangelicals trot out the full story of his existence and how he got where he is, they aren't getting that from the Bible, despite claiming they only get stuff from the Bible. As far as "singling out" Catholics, that is weird. I specifically brought them up because their belief system could logically generate stuff like the backstory for Satan within the rules that they say they work by. That's "singling them out"? If anything, I went out of my may to not single them out. I mentioned the Pope and Catholics all of once passing before you jumped all over me. I was "singling out" Evangelicals on their inconsistency, and dropped in a rider for Catholics that specifically made sure that they were excluded them from that accusation. You seem to be reading all sorts of value judgements on Catholicism into my words that aren't there, and you seem to be trying to defend Papal infallibility from nonexistent accusations and attacks. The position of the Vatican is that the Pope is infallible on matters of doctrine. Period. Full stop. That is what allows a Pope to create indulgences, and that same power allows the another pope to declare them wrong. This power is neither good or bad. The value judgement comes into play when discussing how they exercised that power in each individual case. Again, before you took this up, I mentioned Catholics all of once, and did so then to specifically exclude me from the thing I was taking issue with. I'm sorry I even brought them up. Next time I'll just lump them in with everybody else that I'm talking about, I guess.
The true nature of the Devil <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0SLifea3NHQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What are you looking for? There are verses in Ezekial and Isaiah. Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert.
I'm looking for the story commonly told where Satan is an angel who rebelled from God, was cast out of heaven and rules Un hell and basically takes up the job of being head honcho of all evil. I'm saying none of that is in the Bible. The Bible talks a lot about what Satan does, but doesn't contain anything about who he is and where he came from and ultimately that is irrelevant, but I am bothered by the fact that pretty much everybody thinks they know, and I think people use Satan to avoid responsibility for the evil in their own hearts. My guess is the story exists because people become unsettled when authority figures answer "I done know" or "It doesn't say." In the end, it's pretty harmless, but it's not in there. And my point is really only directed at Bible-only literalists, who believe the Earth is 5000 years old and who think they can find Eden is they search hard enough, and if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't true.
In case you didn't notice I was a little busy. But go ahead and be a snooty ass and assume whatever you want. These are definitely my views, not endorsed by anybody else and I wouldn't repeat them in Church as I'm not looking to disrupt anybody else's worship. I am an intense natural contrarian by nature so maybe i 'm just deluded.
Umm relax... I wasn't meaning to be offensive. Geez, this part of the forum is a little intense. I was genuinely curious what your beliefs were.
The devil ruins everything <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/puOsH_5Ep_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not sure I qualify to answer your question since it is only directed at Bible "literalists", but you can try reading Isaiah 14.
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Luke 10:18 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isaiah 14: 12-15
