Objective Morality

[Quesi]

The irony is that when christians often cite the story of Job, they often fail to mention that satan has to make a bet with god and god has to give satan permission to do what he's going to do.  As if satan is such a moron to make a bet with an omniscient/omnipotent super being or god is so cruel and vain to require people to be tested by suffering just to prove a point.

Here is a nice re-telling of the story of Job.  Not exactly a diety I would be inspired to worship.  But a good story.   

[Anfauglir]

Now can we conclude that the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world so that I may move on?  Or do I need to provide more rebuttal?

Nope.  Because you've failed to adress numerous problems with that position.

If the world is Satan's, why is it okay for God to take it from him as foretold in the Revelation of St.John?

[velkyn]

Now can we conclude that the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world so that I may move on?  Or do I need to provide more rebuttal?

It's so cute to watch Jst try to end arguments by saying "I'm right, so don't ask any more questions".   Pray harder, jst, it's not working yet. 

[Omen]

Now can we conclude that the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world so that I may move on?  Or do I need to provide more rebuttal?

No, in referencing other commentary that disagrees with your position, I am pointing out that multiple conclusions are derived from the theological context hence there is no conclusive point where it need be singularly understood as Satan being the ruler of the world.  Plus, there are other context where satan has to first have the permission of god to influence consequences in the real world, such as the story of Job.

I also pointed out that the manner you're trying to use the rationalization doesn't necessarily follow in your own logic:

The way you're trying to stretch the meaning is to encompass all governments, past and present.  Just like you arbitrarily inserted the rationale with regards to god giving laws to his chosen people, as if they did not immediately have laws based within those mitzvoh.  It returns to questioning whether or not god is a moron, incapable of seeing the contradictions of his own actions when he should know that satan rules all of the world as you try to rationalize.  This also brings up another kind of theological problem, where christians claim and treat aspects of the bible and theology derived from it differently from those people who originally claimed the old testament their own.  A good example of this is the King of Tyre, where Christians treat it ( and most references to the adversary as 'satan' as one and the same ) when Judaism does not.

There are also other kinds of theological context which you assume as valid which are required in order to reach your conclusion, such as Christian theology being compatible with Judaism.

[Add Homonym]

Here's some good waffle.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html

This is not to say that he rules the world completely; only God does this. But it does mean that God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world (within the boundaries God has set for him) and has allowed Satan to operate with an agenda. When the Bible says Satan has power over the world, it must be made clear that God has given him domain over unbelievers alone.

In order to make the waffle work, Satan is under the control of God. Satan can only blind unbelievers, but we get no indications of who they are, because most of the 'believers', like Catholics, seem to behave the same as Anglicans and JWs.

Satan's agenda includes pushing a false philosophy onto the unbelieving world—a false philosophy that blinds the unbeliever from the truth of the Gospel.

Then you've got believers who really don't believe, because they become atheists.

Pivotal, to make this waffle work, is the notion that God had total control in writing "the Bible", and Satan had no hand in it. It's not the truth of the gospel that atheists don't see; it's the blatant untruth that we do see, that's the problem.

What's written in the gospel should be almost irrelevant, because God should be showing himself more steadily to people who want to believe. The fact that he doesn't, means that it's more about a competition to spot God through the lies, rather than God honestly showing himself. God is participating in lying to people about his existence.

To buy into this explanation, you've got to believe that God is using Satan as a shield, to stop people knowing him. If he's going to go with this, then what better way to hide, than give us a book full of contradictory shit, that only makes sense when you have been brainwashed? If God gave us a book that was true, it would be too easy to believe, wouldn't it?

Make Jesus, and delete all the extra-biblical evidence that he existed. (hope this helps)
Give us a new law of love, and then tell us that all the Hebrew law is still in force. (hope this helps)
Give us a Genesis story that can be disproven by science (hope this helps)

Until Christians can concede that Satan has his hands all over the Bible, this waffle goes nowhere.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Now can we conclude that the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world so that I may move on?  Or do I need to provide more rebuttal?

Nope.  Because you've failed to adress numerous problems with that position.

If the world is Satan's, why is it okay for God to take it from him as foretold in the Revelation of St.John?

I am not exactly sure what part of Revelation you are referring to but if God takes it away from Satan then does that not mean that up to that point it was Satan's?

I find "Satan" difficult to fathom, as the explanation of where he came from, seems to be as left out of the Bible as the explanation of where expectations of afterlife/resurrection/hell came from.  It seems to enter into Christianity, slowly, as a form of creeping Gnosticism that John and Paul are noted for.

A seperate discussion would be required to define who Satan is and how he came to be.  This discussion begins within what is theologically accepted and that is that Satan exists.  If you want to discuss this then I will try to do so if you create a seperate thread.

The same goes for Omen concerning his first post.

It's so cute to watch Jst try to end arguments by saying "I'm right, so don't ask any more questions".   Pray harder, jst, it's not working yet. 

This is a condescending, trolling post.  There is no counter argument whatsoever.

No, in referencing other commentary that disagrees with your position, I am pointing out that multiple conclusions are derived from the theological context hence there is no conclusive point where it need be singularly understood as Satan being the ruler of the world.

You did so with one scripture.  Please do so with the others.  This does not adequately address my argument.

Plus, there are other context where satan has to first have the permission of god to influence consequences in the real world, such as the story of Job.

The story of Job is the story of one individual that was a servant of Jehovah.  There are other instances in the Bible that Jehovah is shown to protect his servants, but nowhere does is it show that Jehovah protects the world as a whole.  However, as is shown in the case of Job, even this protection is in no way absolute.  If I am wrong then please show me.

The way you're trying to stretch the meaning is to encompass all governments, past and present.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.  For example:

"Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." (John 12:31)

While the "casting out" is understood to the future, it seems to me that he is speaking of the current ruler and not a future ruler of the earth.

And again:

"We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." (1 John 5:19)

It says the whole world "is" and not "will be" lying in the power of the wicked one.

All the scriptures in reference to the ruling of the earth are in present tense "is".

Just like you arbitrarily inserted the rationale with regards to god giving laws to his chosen people, as if they did not immediately have laws based within those mitzvoh.

I understand the jews had laws before they were all put together into one place.  My reference to this was a reference to the covenant God had made with the jews in which the Jews were required to follow his law to see the fullfilment of his promised toward them.  My argument was that he only did this with one nation and that was the Jews.

This also brings up another kind of theological problem, where christians claim and treat aspects of the bible and theology derived from it differently from those people who originally claimed the old testament their own.

By this then I cannot use the Greek scriptures at all.  My intent is not to argue about Judaism.  My intent is to show the Christian outlook from a Biblical perspective and then to try and show it's truthfulness looking outside the Bible.

There are also other kinds of theological context which you assume as valid which are required in order to reach your conclusion, such as Christian theology being compatible with Judaism.

Yes, I am trying to present the Christian outlook and to try to let it stand on it's own merits.  If I can show evidence that Satan is the ruler of this world, apart from the Bible, then to me this will support the Christian outlook.  However, the jews believed, rightly, that God ruled their nation.  Who did they think ruled the rest of the nations?  It is my belief today that God rules the "Christian Nation" but not the rest of the nations.

Add Homonym

I agree the Bible shows that Satan must operate within certain boundaries.  Yes the Bible shows that God "allows" Satan to take certain liberties.  Why he does this is not the import of my argument.  My argument is that God has allowed Satan to rule the earth for a time for whatever reason.  Why?  This is different.  I am simply trying to show that he has, at least biblically speaking.

I am willing to discuss the "why", but I would rather do so in a different thread.

Anyone

If you think I have not answered any counter arguments then please give me the benefit of the doubt that I have not done so willfully and militiously.  If you think I have left out anything then please draw my attention to what and I will attempt to clarify or expand.

[Omen]

No, in referencing other commentary that disagrees with your position, I am pointing out that multiple conclusions are derived from the theological context hence there is no conclusive point where it need be singularly understood as Satan being the ruler of the world.

You did so with one scripture.  Please do so with the others.  This does not adequately address my argument.

As already pointed out to you, the other scripture references are not that much different.  Other people beyond myself responded as well, without proper answer from you.

Plus, there are other context where satan has to first have the permission of god to influence consequences in the real world, such as the story of Job.

The story of Job is the story of one individual that was a servant of Jehovah.

Again, the story demonstrates that Satan had to ask god for permission for doing anything that effected Job; including taking his possessions, killing his family members, and giving him boils.

The way you're trying to stretch the meaning is to encompass all governments, past and present.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. 

Earlier, you were using this pleading qualification to dismiss governments that have health social environments but less religiosity.  You also dismissed out of hand old testament Judaic empires, both for the circular reasoning of being 'ruled by satan'.  However, you haven't fairly established that satan rules the world either through evidence or even internally consistent biblical reasoning.

Just like you arbitrarily inserted the rationale with regards to god giving laws to his chosen people, as if they did not immediately have laws based within those mitzvoh.

I understand the jews had laws before they were all put together into one place.  My reference to this was a reference to the covenant God had made with the jews in which the Jews were required to follow his law to see the fullfilment of his promised toward them.  My argument was that he only did this with one nation and that was the Jews.

And they had slavery, which was dictated by god and the exact kind of slavery was used to justify american slavery as I pointed out in excruciating detail, which you should be familiar iwth.

This also brings up another kind of theological problem, where christians claim and treat aspects of the bible and theology derived from it differently from those people who originally claimed the old testament their own.

By this then I cannot use the Greek scriptures at all.  My intent is not to argue about Judaism.  My intent is to show the Christian outlook from a Biblical perspective and then to try and show it's truthfulness looking outside the Bible.

You can't establish your perspective as true, since your entire perspective requires subjective rationale that need not be assumed.

This is the primary problem of theological reasoning, it uses circular fallacies to confirm a presupposed theological context.  Not one arrived to after the consideration of evidence, but one that evidence is used to arrive to a preconceived conclusion.  Hence, you'll never be able to establish the bible means anything absolutely 'true', and will always be required to support any claim you make regarding biblical claims with evidence that those claims are true in reality.

There are also other kinds of theological context which you assume as valid which are required in order to reach your conclusion, such as Christian theology being compatible with Judaism.

Yes, I am trying to present the Christian outlook and to try to let it stand on it's own merits.

And it doesn't, the fact that you can't even get concensus here is factual enough for that.

We've already pointed out theological apologetics that conclude differently from yourself, you don't present any condition to be authoritative over them and vice versa.  Also, as I have to point out again, Christianity is not compatible with Judaism.

  If I can show evidence that Satan is the ruler of this world, apart from the Bible,

This is the only thing that matters.  You won't be able to show the bible is internally consistent because it blatantly is not.

[velkyn]

It's so cute to watch Jst try to end arguments by saying "I'm right, so don't ask any more questions".   Pray harder, jst, it's not working yet. 

This is a condescending, trolling post.  There is no counter argument whatsoever.

ah, but it is a demosntration that your claims are just as baseless as ever.  You want to first claim that your god and satan exist.  You have *yet* to show evidence of it, which makes all of your other claims moot.  You then want to claim that your particular mythos attributed to these to characters is the only true one.  Again, we see no evidence.  But you think you can unilaterally claim that we should stop asking questions and agree with you.  And there's the problem, jst.  A discussion is built out of sucessive claims, facts, counterclaims etc.  It is not one person declaring that his theology is right with no evidence. 

The story of Job is the story of one individual that was a servant of Jehovah.  There are other instances in the Bible that Jehovah is shown to protect his servants, but nowhere does is it show that Jehovah protects the world as a whole.  However, as is shown in the case of Job, even this protection is in no way absolute.  If I am wrong then please show me.

then your god is not the omnigood, omnipotent being that the bible claims.  Jesus said that one should trust that this god will protect and support you like the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, and even more since humanity is so important to it.  But we do not see this to be true at all.  The gnostic claim that there is some other god "kinda sorta" in charge is an excuse to explain why the world is as it is, with all of the pain and suffering in it.  As for the story of Job, this god intentionally allows this satan to kill innocents for a bet, and then realizes what its done adn tries to make up for it by making Job a "new" family and giving even more worldly goods.  For a man to accept that his god allowed his family to be killed and to accept a replacement, speaks of fear and greed, not love at all. 

The bible is full of various claims. That this god is omnipotent, that there is some "ruler" of the world that this god is either impotent to or works with,  that worldly goods are fine and that they should all be given away.  There is no one story.
 We see no one objective morality or any evidence of a source for such a thing.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

As already pointed out to you, the other scripture references are not that much different.  Other people beyond myself responded as well, without proper answer from you.

You showed one scripture John 14:30.  The other scripture I posted commentaries for did not show anyone as considering the roman ruler to be the reference.  They were all in agreement that Satan is the reference.

Again, the story demonstrates that Satan had to ask god for permission for doing anything that effected Job; including taking his possessions, killing his family members, and giving him boils.

Okay.  I am trying to show that God has given Satan permission to rule the earth.  Certainly I don't think he is doing so apart from that.  I do believe there are limitations set on Satan or else I think humankind would all be dead, but that's just opinion.  The point I am trying to make is that Jehovah HAS given Satan permission to rule the world.

Earlier, you were using this pleading qualification to dismiss governments that have health social environments but less religiosity.

My argument was trying to show that God has not acted with the Gentiles as he did the Jews and nowhere in the Bible can I find that he did or has.

And they had slavery, which was dictated by god and the exact kind of slavery was used to justify american slavery as I pointed out in excruciating detail, which you should be familiar iwth.

I was trying to show that even though they adapted things from the Bible that does not mean that the US government is wholly taken from the Bible or that the US government had Jehovah's blessing.

This is the primary problem of theological reasoning, it uses circular fallacies to confirm a presupposed theological context.  Not one arrived to after the consideration of evidence, but one that evidence is used to arrive to a preconceived conclusion.  Hence, you'll never be able to establish the bible means anything absolutely 'true', and will always be required to support any claim you make regarding biblical claims with evidence that those claims are true in reality.

I do not with to revert all the way back to "In the beginning....".  Is this what is required?

And it doesn't, the fact that you can't even get concensus here is factual enough for that.

We've already pointed out theological apologetics that conclude differently from yourself, you don't present any condition to be authoritative over them and vice versa.  Also, as I have to point out again, Christianity is not compatible with Judaism.

Even if I leave out John 14:30 there are still other scriptures that are not contested, at least to the best of my knowledge.  You may say they are all similar but scholars do not agree with you.

This is the only thing that matters.  You won't be able to show the bible is internally consistent because it blatantly is not.

Then would you like me to provide evidence apart from the Bible that this interpretation is correct?

[Omen]

The other scripture I posted commentaries..

We already know the bible says contradictory things or is vague enough to reach multiple conclusions.

I do believe..

What you believe isn't relevant, you're trying to establish a very narrow minded piece of theological context as if it is the only available conclusion from which to draw from the text.  We've already gone straight to apologetic commentary that disagrees and interprets it differently.  Other people have also referenced commentary, from multiple sources.  Look at Add Hom's post for example.

Earlier, you were using this pleading qualification to dismiss governments that have health social environments but less religiosity.

My argument was trying to show that God has not acted with the Gentiles as he did the Jews and nowhere in the Bible can I find that he did or has.

Actually, you said that satan made countries with poor societal health and high religiosity bad, which also means the inverse.

I was trying to show that even though they adapted things from the Bible that does not mean that the US government is wholly taken from the Bible or that the US government had Jehovah's blessing.

Again, you already claimed that the US government was formed out of the bible.  I then asked you to support this claim, you then abandoned the claim.  You're moving the goal post, which means you're changing the constraints of the conversation to fit a new conclusion rather than the original one you claimed.

This is the primary problem of theological reasoning, it uses circular fallacies to confirm a presupposed theological context.  Not one arrived to after the consideration of evidence, but one that evidence is used to arrive to a preconceived conclusion.  Hence, you'll never be able to establish the bible means anything absolutely 'true', and will always be required to support any claim you make regarding biblical claims with evidence that those claims are true in reality.

I do not with to revert all the way back to "In the beginning....".  Is this what is required?

If you could demonstrate a rational reason it should believed and then interpreted in the manner you claim, then yes.  However, last time you couldn't be bothered to do so.. remember?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22596.msg505068.html#msg505068

You're not going to be able to pigeon hole many people here into a mentality where you think the bible can only be interpreted into a singular light, because that simply doesn't reasonably fly with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of contradictory religious denominations/affiliations that extend from various books of the bible both old and new testament.

[Azdgari]

...If the world is Satan's, why is it okay for God to take it from him as foretold in the Revelation of St.John?

I am not exactly sure what part of Revelation you are referring to but if God takes it away from Satan then does that not mean that up to that point it was Satan's?

Jst, just a heads up:  The question you answered is not the one that Anfauglir actually asked.  See the bolded text above.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

We already know the bible says contradictory things or is vague enough to reach multiple conclusions.

And I am asking you to show me where there is dispute about the other scriptures I posted other than in your opinion.  There are multiple conclusions about one scripture, but you've not SUPPORTED your claim that the other scriptures have multiple conclusions.  What I get about that one scriptures is that MAYBE in that once instance it may have referred to a Roman ruler.  You're basing your entire argument on one scripture.  Just becuse in one instance it MIGHT have referred to the Roman ruler in no way proves all the others were.

Add Homonym's post describes in his opinion what must be true for the Bible to be true.  It in no way disputes the scripures at hand.  What he is showing the Bible says is this:

This is not to say that he rules the world completely; only God does this. But it does mean that God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world (within the boundaries God has set for him) and has allowed Satan to operate with an agenda. When the Bible says Satan has power over the world, it must be made clear that God has given him domain over unbelievers alone.

Again, you already claimed that the US government was formed out of the bible.

No, I claimed that only PART of the US government and it's laws were derived from the Bible.

If you could demonstrate a rational reason it should believed and then interpreted in the manner you claim, then yes.  However, last time you couldn't be bothered to do so.. remember?

Ugh.  I may attempt to do this.  This will require a monumental amount of time.

You're not going to be able to pigeon hole many people here into a mentality where you think the bible can only be interpreted into a singular light, because that simply doesn't reasonably fly with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of contradictory religious denominations/affiliations that extend from various books of the bible both old and new testament.

You still have failed to show these other scriptures have been interpreted differently except your mention of Judaism.  You have not shows that Christian interpreters are not in agreement.

[Omen]

And I am asking you to show me where there is dispute about the other scriptures I posted other than in your opinion.  There are multiple conclusions about one scripture, but you've not SUPPORTED your claim that the other scriptures have multiple conclusions.  What I get about that one scriptures is that MAYBE in that once instance it may have referred to a Roman ruler.  You're basing your entire argument on one scripture.  Just becuse in one instance it MIGHT have referred to the Roman ruler in no way proves all the others were.

No, I am not.

The other scriptures were all related, delivered in a similar context about a very narrowed christian narrative.  We don't even need to entertain the christian narrative singularly.

Add Homonym's post describes in his opinion what must be true for the Bible to be true.  It in no way disputes the scripures at hand.

It demonstrates apologetic equivocating over the meaning of biblical text.

Again, you already claimed that the US government was formed out of the bible.

No, I claimed that only PART of the US government and it's laws were derived from the Bible.

Again, no more true than if you had said 'whole' assuming you said 'part'.   You're still arguing over statements that are in their totality non-sequiturs to whatever bizarre conclusion you're trying to box people into .

Nothing about your arbitrary theological context need necessarily be true for anyone else.

You're not going to be able to pigeon hole many people here into a mentality where you think the bible can only be interpreted into a singular light, because that simply doesn't reasonably fly with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of contradictory religious denominations/affiliations that extend from various books of the bible both old and new testament.

You still have failed to show these other scriptures have been interpreted differently except your mention of Judaism.  You have not shows that Christian interpreters are not in agreement.

They are similarly related and other people responded to you, I have repeatedly pointed out that we don't even have to assume the rest of the theological context as internally consistent.. which would be required for your claim to be true anyway.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

...If the world is Satan's, why is it okay for God to take it from him as foretold in the Revelation of St.John?

I am not exactly sure what part of Revelation you are referring to but if God takes it away from Satan then does that not mean that up to that point it was Satan's?

Jst, just a heads up:  The question you answered is not the one that Anfauglir actually asked.  See the bolded text above.

Okay sorry.  To me it seems the question of "why" did, or will, God do certain things is seperate from "what" has God done.    But I think the simplest answer is that if it is understood that God has granted Satan permission to rule the world the God also has the authority to withdraw his permission.  Why does God at that time withdraw his permission?  That is a different discussion.  I am simply trying to show that biblically "God has" and not "why God has".

If anyone would like to discuss "why" then feel free to open a new thread and I will attempt to answer "why".

Is this answer suitable?

[velkyn]

Ugh.  I may attempt to do this.  This will require a monumental amount of time.

it may.  However, is it not important to you to do this?  I have been promised a similar thing from a Roman Catholic, who was sure that he had the answer and now he says it will take a long time.  it is striking on how you both make similar comments.

You still have failed to show these other scriptures have been interpreted differently except your mention of Judaism.  You have not shows that Christian interpreters are not in agreement.

jst, Christians cannot agree on many things.  How one is saved, how much and what of the bible is literal and is metaphor, if one is predestined or not, when the "sabbath" is, the nature of what Jesus supposed was, if prophecies have been fulfilled or not. 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Omen

It seems you are the only one sticking to the argument that the Bible does not teach that Satan is the ruler.  I'm even being asked above "why God takes the rulership away."

I will wait for others to have time to post before I continue.

it may.  However, is it not important to you to do this?  I have been promised a similar thing from a Roman Catholic, who was sure that he had the answer and now he says it will take a long time.  it is striking on how you both make similar comments.

Yes it is important.  But I have made no promises.  Maybe my mistake is not starting "in the beginning."

jst, Christians cannot agree on many things.  How one is saved, how much and what of the bible is literal and is metaphor, if one is predestined or not, when the "sabbath" is, the nature of what Jesus supposed was, if prophecies have been fulfilled or not.

Yes I understand this.  Many people do not agree about interpretations of Romeo and Juliet but this in no way means that the author didn't actually write it or that the author was a moron.

[GodlessHeathen]

Omen

It seems you are the only one sticking to the argument that the Bible does not teach that Satan is the ruler.  I'm even being asked above "why God takes the rulership away."

There is also some basis for the interpretation that the "rulers" and "powers" that some have attributed to Satan and some have attributed to human rulers and governments were actually general "spirit forces" in the lowest level of the heavenly realm, the one that was believed to be closest to earth:

A great amount of scholarly ink has been spilled over the meaning of "the rulers of this age" (ton archonton tou aionos toutou, verses 6 and 8 ). In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals. That invisible powers, mostly evil, were at work behind earthly phenomena was a widely held belief in Hellenistic times, including among Jews, and it was shared by Christianity. J. H. Charlesworth (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p.66) puts it this way:

"Earth is full of demons. Humanity is plagued by them. Almost all misfortunes are because of demons: sickness, drought, death and especially humanity's weaknesses about remaining faithful to the covenant (with God). The region between heaven and earth seems to be almost cluttered by demons and angels; humanity is often seen as a pawn, helpless in the face of such cosmic forces."

Source: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp03.htm

[nogodsforme]

Jst:
Things are less confusing once you realize that Christianity has nothing new or unique about it. The bible is obviously a compilation of myths and legends from a variety of cultures, with some fairly universal themes and figures. The interpretations of the stories change depending on current events--that's why you, Jst are certain that you see biblical truth when you look around at the world. Muslims say the same thing about the Quran.

People always see their myths reflected in the real world. That's the point of these stories; before the scientific method gave us a systematic way to figure out what was going on, these old stories were the main way to teach how the world worked.  These stories are important and interesting and fun, that's why they keep getting retold: Star Wars, Batman, Harry Potter, Twilight and The Avengers. But just like these modern popular versions, they are not factual!

Pre-Christian pagan belief systems do not have a devil or super-evil villain god. The "angel of death" was in charge of the underworld or the next world or whatever happened after people died. He was not a bad guy; that was just his job description, like Shiva for Hindus, or Hades for the ancient Greeks.

The devil figure with the horns, tail and cloven hooves was designed after the ancient god Pan, who ruled over chaos (pan=panic, pandemonium). People today often think more of Lord Voldemort, Darth Vader, the Grim Reaper or the Mad Scientist being up to no good.

The "good god of light" versus "evil demon of darkness" came into Christianity through Persian Zoroastrianism, IIRC.

The gods were like extra-powerful people, kinda like superheroes, with good and bad qualities. Some gods (Thor, Krishna) embodied nobler qualities like courage and selflessness. Other gods (Eshu, Mercury, Raven, Coyote) existed to trick people, to teach a lesson or to make people think.

Gods like Babaluaye, Loki, Shango and Bacchus messed things up, forgot things, threw tantrums and destroyed stuff. Some, like Zeus, had sex with humans or animals, or messed around with dark powers, creating demi-gods (Jesus, Hercules, Hulk) and other magical creatures (elves, fairies). Gods were not only puny, but sometimes naughty! 

A particular god might set up silly tests for humans or challenge another god to a contest. If bad stuff happened, it could be because a certain god had a bad day, was jealous of another god, did not like the sacrifices, or was not being worshipped enough.  (Funny how much that sounds like the OT Yahweh.)

The NT tried to go all monotheistic, and smooshed the ancient gods together into one big god. He was supposed to be this good, smart, loving grand-dad, like a calmer, less sexual version of the horny old goat Zeus. Pagans added in the son figure from young, pretty-boy gods like Apollo.

(I can't remember where the holy spirit part of the Trinity came from off the top of my head. Haven't taught this in a while...)

The naughty, chaotic, destructive and sexy characteristics didn't fit with the good grandpa persona, so those aspects were combined into the persona of Satan, the evil one. When bad stuff happens, he became the scapegoat so you don't blame the big good guy. He was also given rule over death and the underworld, since the good guy couldn't be expected to do that.[1]

So, you need to know about how similar the bible stuff is to every other culture's mythology. Then you might be able to understand why so many people here can't take you seriously when you try to argue that your religious stuff (unlike everyone else's) is factually true. And why there is no evidence for any culture's mythology being factually true.

1.	In the Middle Ages, bad or crazy women were always being accused of having had sex with the devil--he was that hot. And once you go demon, you never go back!

[GodlessHeathen]

(I can't remember where the holy spirit part of the Trinity came from off the top of my head. Haven't taught this in a while...) 

The Holy Spirit used to be the goddess, Sophia (Wisdom). As the church became more and more male dominated, the female Sophia was replaced with the male, Holy Spirit (I know that, in JW theology, the Holy Spirit is considered an impersonal force, but it is still preceded in the Greek with a masculine article).

Source: http://holyspirit-shekinah.org/_/sophia_lost_goddess_of_wisdom.htm

[pingnak]

Well, it figures the xians wouldn't want WISDOM anywhere near their religious ideologies.

[nogodsforme]

(I can't remember where the holy spirit part of the Trinity came from off the top of my head. Haven't taught this in a while...)

The Holy Spirit used to be the goddess, Sophia (Wisdom). As the church became more and more male dominated, the female Sophia was replaced with the male, Holy Spirit (I know that, in JW theology, the Holy Spirit is considered an impersonal force, but it is still preceded in the Greek with a masculine article).

Source: http://holyspirit-shekinah.org/_/sophia_lost_goddess_of_wisdom.htm

Thanks. That makes sense.

Other goddesses got smooshed into the Virgin Mary or transformed into local saints.

[Anfauglir]

...If the world is Satan's, why is it okay for God to take it from him as foretold in the Revelation of St.John?

I am not exactly sure what part of Revelation you are referring to but if God takes it away from Satan then does that not mean that up to that point it was Satan's?

Jst, just a heads up:  The question you answered is not the one that Anfauglir actually asked.  See the bolded text above.

Okay sorry.  To me it seems the question of "why" did, or will, God do certain things is seperate from "what" has God done.    But I think the simplest answer is that if it is understood that God has granted Satan permission to rule the world the God also has the authority to withdraw his permission.  Why does God at that time withdraw his permission?  That is a different discussion.  I am simply trying to show that biblically "God has" and not "why God has".

If anyone would like to discuss "why" then feel free to open a new thread and I will attempt to answer "why".

Is this answer suitable?

Nope.  Because.....

God has given Satan permission to rule the earth.....I do believe there are limitations set on Satan....The point I am trying to make is that Jehovah HAS given Satan permission to rule the world.

.....if you set limitations on a ruler's powers, then they are NOT ruling.  The person setting the limitations is.  Hence it is - and always has been - Yahweh who rules the world, since everything Satan chooses to do on it has to be within Yahweh's mandate.

Only is Satan is entirely unbounded by Yahweh can it be said that he does indeed "rule" the world.  But its your belief that that is not the case - for what I agree are entirely logical reasons.  But the fact remains: if I have to ask before I do anything, or have to work completely within a set of unchangeable parameters, then in no way am I responsible for what goes on, and in no way can be considered the ruler.

So no.  You have NOT shown that Satan is the ruler of the world in any meaningful sense.  You've instead shown that everything happening here is done according to the will of Yahweh - which makes HIM responsible for everything that happens here.

As a brief example.....Yahweh could have said "Satan, do what you like to the world - but NO, I repeat NO children will ever be assaulted by my priests."  And Satan would have had to go along with it.  But Yahweh didn't, which means that it was HIM decided it was okay to happen. 

Alternatively, Yahweh could have said "and you can destroy all copies of the Bible so that nobody ever hears about me or my son" - but he DIDN'T.  I'm sure Satan would be overjoyed to be able to remove all mention of Christ from the world so that nobody would have the first clue of how to be saved.  But that was Yahweh's decision, not Satan's. 

And if Yahweh makes the rules.....then Yahweh is the ruler.

Does that make it clear enough?

[Graybeard]

Now can we conclude that the Bible says Satan is the ruler of this world so that I may move on?  Or do I need to provide more rebuttal?

Well, that is only of any value if you accept there is a god and that the bible is his word. as yet, you have shown absolutely nothing to substantial this.

I may as well say that Voldemort is the ruler of the world of wizards.

That aside, I don't remember an answer to "Who created Satan?" "Who gave Satan his morals?"

[velkyn]

Omen
It seems you are the only one sticking to the argument that the Bible does not teach that Satan is the ruler.  I'm even being asked above "why God takes the rulership away."

the Bible does not teach that satan is the ruler of this world.  Parts of it may be interpreted to support this, and other parts do not, so the "bible" is not uniform on what it claims.  You cherry pick what you want to be the "truth" from the bible as does every other theist who holds the bible in some esteem.  You have yet to show why your version should be accepted and say the Roman Catholic version should not.

Yes it is important.  But I have made no promises.  Maybe my mistake is not starting "in the beginning."

You have claimed that your interpretation is the right one and when asked to show evidence, you fail to provide any that is not the same nonsense that other theists claim for their supposed "truth".  This comes back to any claims of objective morality.  Anything that is objective should not be up for personal interpretation.  Since theists who use the bible as their source for a supposedly "objective morality" cannot agree on what that objective morality supposed is, this demonstrates that their morality is anything but "objective".  It becomes a lot of theists standing in front of virtual altars, all sure that their god supports them, but no fire appearing for any of them. 

I have no idea how starting at "in the beginning" would help since you still have no evidence for your god, that other gods do not exist and that your interpretation is the only right one.  You ask for others to show that you are wrong and they have, for instance when I show you that theists don't agree, that Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Muslims, etc don't agree about the same book.     

Yes I understand this.  Many people do not agree about interpretations of Romeo and Juliet but this in no way means that the author didn't actually write it or that the author was a moron.

Again, jst, evidence of just who wrote the bible is required to support your claims as well as evidence that this writer was not a "moron" and evidence that your interpretation is the only "right" one and agrees with some "writer". 

You seem to assume that
1.you somehow know who the writer was
2. what they "really" meant
3. that you are the only one who knows this. 

These are all assumptions that have nothing concrete to support them.   

[Add Homonym]

The point I am trying to make is that Jehovah HAS given Satan permission to rule the world.

I don't know if the quotes actually show that God has given any power to Satan. They merely say he exists and will do dark things.

There is a fallacy that starts up, when you think of Satan as being from the same domain as God (a spiritual one) and therefore under the rule of God. But, any dark force that enters this world, does not have to face God. Hitler did what he wanted, without God intervening. If a virus fell on us from outer-space and turned us into flesh eating zombies, God would do his usual: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If Satan exists, with his horde of demons, he is not going to be stopped by God, any more than HIV or Spanish Flu is stopped by God.

If Satan has not destroyed this world, it is most likely because "he doesn't want to", or another way or phrasing it: "lacks the power to do so". Even viruses don't want to destroy the host. Spanish Flu couldn't kill everyone. Hitler was still a human, and didn't want to convert us to vampires, or kill us all.

Christian duality has not caught up with reality: God made a harsh world that is billions of years old, and his "love" encompasses such things as giving us rabies for personal development. God put us in this non-ideal state. You can't blame Satan for everything bad, because it's like trying to blame women and Spanish Flu for everything bad. There can only be one entity that can be blamed as the root cause for everything bad, and that's the creator.

[gonegolfing]

Jstwebbrowsing

Okay.  I am trying to show that God has given Satan permission to rule the earth. Certainly I don't think he is doing so apart from that. 

What god ? What satan ? Since they are invisible and therefore hard evidence is impossible to be seen ? How can you prove they exist ?  Are you claiming so based solely on and because of your belief in a book that requires the use of circular reasoning and astonishing mental acrobatics to be able to accept it as true ?  The complete and sum total of your personal evidence that builds your convictions is based only on an ancient book of absurdities and difficulties ??

Where's the common sense and logic in that ! ?

I do believe there are limitations set on Satan or else I think humankind would all be dead, but that's just opinion.

Belief and opinions and thoughts are all you have. No hard or even possible evidence and no direct knowledge of anything regarding the god-idea. You've refuted your own argument in that one sentence.

There are indeed limitations on satan.......he's/it's been limited to nonexistence. As it should be.

The point I am trying to make is that Jehovah HAS given Satan permission to rule the world.

Point made. But your points are merely opinions and not knowns. The fact is, that you've merely parroted one of many interpretations of this idea, which of course has for its only source a completely unreliable ancient peice of historical-fiction literature, which then shows that it is not properly supported and therefore unable to be a unified valid truth.

You "think" that god HAS given satan permission, but that's it. You have no personal or direct revelation from god itself as to the truth of your opinion which is of course based on an opinionated and clearly shown untrustworthy book.

Common sense and logic are clearly telling you things that you're unwilling to acknowledge and accept Jst. We're going to keep bringing this fact home to you. As I've already told you--your beef isn't with us--but with soundness of mind, common sense, and logical reasoning.

All we're doing is trying to get you to see that and that you're harming yourself in your deepest integrity by fighting a lost cause. You've already lost the battle that you "think" you stand a chance at winning. It's over dude.

Watching you battle logic is like watching the boxer who is laying on the ropes and being beaten to a pulp while having his opponent scream in his ear "Why are you making me do this to you!! Throw in the towel man, it's over !!", and yet he stubbornly refuses to be man enough to admit his defeat and to show respect and honor to the hard work of his superior opponent.   

Keep reminding him folks. Some day he may finally and wisely give in to one of his most precious possesions--his faculty of reason..............Pride sure is a destructive companion though.

[jdawg70]

jst, Christians cannot agree on many things.  How one is saved, how much and what of the bible is literal and is metaphor, if one is predestined or not, when the "sabbath" is, the nature of what Jesus supposed was, if prophecies have been fulfilled or not.

Yes I understand this.  Many people do not agree about interpretations of Romeo and Juliet but this in no way means that the author didn't actually write it or that the author was a moron.

Just to throw you a bone here, but if you're trying to argue that the bible is not a work of fiction, you may not want to use a work of fiction as your analogy.

[12 Monkeys]

TOO funny God is the ruler of the ENTIRE universe...and the only planet he has with life on it is ruled by one of his former henchmen

  You just can't believe the shit they can make up....that people will believe,like the 21 virgins waiting for every devout muslim thats 21X 3/4 of a billion devout muslim men......pull anything out of your ass that fits the fantasy BAMM you have a religion

[nogodsforme]

Not too get sexist here, but do the terrorists who think they will be rewarded with all these virgins get to specify what kind of virgins? As in age, looks, etc? I am sure they imagine it's worth dying for the chance to party with 72 naked 16-year-old Britney Spears lookalikes for all eternity.  They could end up blowing themselves to kingdom come and find themselves in a sultan's palace with dozens of 85-year-old bikini-clad Mother Teresas.