Is believing in the Devil different (stranger) than believing in God?

You're trying to explain God as if you're a one dimensional object in a 3 dimensional world. Its fine to not believe in an all knowing and all powerful being, but trying to explain away the concept with your insignificant knowledge of science (in the grand scheme of thing, man knows very little about this universe) is no more ridiculous than those who you mock.

 

No, either God created the Devil when he created himself or there is one supreme power who created both God and the Devil at the same time for mankind.

Like I said, Christian/Jews/Muslims don't like it but the facts are they NEED the Devil otherwise their God is useless.

ELI5, Superman needs Lex Luthor, Batman needs the Joker, Harry Potter needs Voldermort, etc...

-edit-
For the record, I'm not proclaiming my belief or lack of belief in any Diety. I'm merely explaining that if you believe in God you must also believe and be thankful for the Devil.

 

So apparently logic does not apply to religion, then I guess you can say anything you want. God is almighty because he can be not almighty at the same time.

 

bingo

 

I wonder why the Greeks were able to create and worship gods complex enough to be capable of virtue and cruelty, whereas Abrahamic gods had to be all powerful and infallible.

 

The God of the Old Testament was capable of acts of cruelty.

 

The devil is just an allegory for the more base, animal desires our reptilian brain centers confer us.

Nothing more, nothing less.

What is the energy, divinity or God? Well it is whatever the void was that existed before the universe. It did not come from nothing. Nothing doesn't exist.

 

Well the first gods were natural, for example animal worship and mother earth figures. Presumably it evolved from there until monotheism was introduced which is much much younger than polytheism.

 

so when muhammad tripped balls in the desert he was tapping into the 'void'

and since they (and those before him) didnt know jack about science (not their fault)



they simplified complex feelings into heaven and hell

black vs white.. just my take IMO

 

Whenever I talk to religious people all logic flies out the window and I lose respect for them everytime they open their mouths.

 

That isn't the point. Science is based on facts and the concept of God is based on faith. Its like trying to prove someones opinion is wrong and one trying to prove their opinion is a fact.

If the over zealous religious people would stick to their theology of trying to make the world a better place and not condemning the heathen and the agnostic/atheist would stick to their science to make the world a better place instead of trying to disprove something that is impossible, it would be better for all.

 

God may not think like us, or exist in space-time as limited as us, or not even exist in space-time(s),

or at exist at all ... at least an equally valid option

Logic is fallible since we are limited in our senses, tools and scale of perception. So the logical choice is agnosticism, certainly not a belief system constructed without any testable evidence.


“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”
― David Hume

"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason."
Immanuel Kant

 

Please don't say I'm looking at this at a secular level. I consider the Old Testament...Old. I consider it oral history put into writing.

What biblical references? Please point them out, and don't say they all mean the same thing. Because, they don't. It's simply a oral history fact that the serpent in the Garden of Eden is satan. So, how that words drifts into capital letters really has nothing to do with the reality of the Old Testament, imo. But all those teaches can certainly be grounded in real experiences, and many of them are (other than the serpent and apple thing).

I'm no Bible scholar (see, I should have typed "I'm no Biblical scholar"); I really only consider the Gospel. And by that, I just try to know that all I'm supposed to try to know is what Faith means, and not what satan means. The teachings of the Bible are really about Faith. Satan is not really a main player.

What's a "serious Christian." My priest doesn't say things like that.

And I don't think you're correct by saying God doesn't tempt, by many interpretations of the Gospel. Let's discuss Matthew 4:1-11/John 4:1-13...commonly called the Temptation of Christ in the Gospel. The Temptation of Christ, imo, is the perfect example of symbolism, because, afterall, Jesus is God. At least us Catholics believe that.

Surely you agree that Jesus can't be tempted, but the Bible says he was tested. Jesus is God in man form teaching us about temptation in the Gospels. So, don't tell us God doesn't tempt, when the Gospel teaches that Jesus was tested, unless you're going to say that God let satan test himself. Kinda circular, isn't it.

Jesus was "tested" to teach us about temptation. So, temptation and Sin is a God invention, personified in satan.

imo, the Gospel teaches this.

but in the end...it's just understanding what Faith means.

cheers

 

Ok I'm up for a discussion: I'm a Christian, not a scholar but I did go through seminary. I don't focus as much on the theological apologetics as I do the actual application as it pertains to ministry (counseling and pastoral care). I went to a fairly conservative seminary that teaches in a literal interpretation of the Bible as well as it's inerrancy and infallibility.

To answer your original posted question, I think the reason not as many people today believe in Satan is because of the much more prevalent nature of post modern thinking that allows for various interpretations of the Scripture. As a result Satan, I personally think, has tended over the decades to either be overly emphasized and given a far greater role than what he is capable of, or minimized as a non-existent symbolic figure.

I tend to think charismatic Christians tend to err on the former while the mainstream tends to fall on the latter as there just isn't much teaching on Satan, angels, and demons. The Bible is a book written for a human audience about humanity and so by nature doesn't focus as much on the activity of the aforementioned entities.

To quote the great theological Keyzer Soze, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

I do think the core of the discussion is going to rest somewhere in a epistemology, a debate over how we "know" what we know to be true. Much of the debate so far in this thread revolves around a discussion of logic, which is actually more of a "modern" approach to reasoning rather than a "post-modern". For me as a Christian, I have to personally wrestle with whether the Bible is worthy of the belief that it is inerrant and to be understood literally. Once I've come to a conclusion on that and essentially taken a step of Faith on it, then I look to understand questions like this through that framework.

Since the nature of my work focuses on ministering to the felt needs of people in crisis or in pain, I tend not to get into a scholarly discussion with people about it but start with a stand point that most people can understand and relate to (relationships).

I believe in the existence of Satan 1) because the Scriptures teach his existence 2) evil exists not because God intended it or "needs" to have it, but because the capacity to rebel against Him does exist. True love mandates the ability to choose to be in relationship with a person and therefore necessitates the ability to not choose to be in that relationship and therefore "rebel". Most everyone can relate to this concept as most everyone has been in a family where reconciliation and love are most clearly understood.

Obviously I disagree with this both in the premise and in the conclusion. Though the Bible has parables and symbolism, that doesn't mean it's full of it and should be interpreted like that in it's entirety. It's not uncommon for books to use analogies, parables, etc to explain complex concepts. That doesn't mean everything is allegorical, it just means you have to understand the book in it's entirety to be able to distinguish literal from symbolic. We run into this problem all the time on this board. Sometimes a news article, quote, or post is taken out of context from the entirety of the authors thought in order to convey a "truth" for the quoter that has deviated from the authors original intent. If people make this mistake with Scripture than I can see why you end up with the conclusion you do, the misinterpretations should have no relevance for not only us today, but for the original audience as well. Hence the post-modern tendency to look at things with multiple interpretations since the original intent is no longer understood or really valuable to understand.

 

I approve of this message. Live long and prosper. Without some understanding of the "angelic conflict" the script for Star Wars would never have been written.

 

To give his children free will?

With good and bad, we have a choice. Not a hard concept.

 

So whats the Jews version of the Devil being that the christians version is mentally made up (is there a story in the bible talking about lucipher taking 1/3 of heaven)