My surprise is clearly reflected in my double use of “huh.”
Right - I know, right?
Look, Theophane, if you refuse to back up your assertions with any citations when requested, the only result is that you lose all credibility in the debate. In which case I have to ask, why bother? If you know something, and it is true, there must be a cite that backs it up. It is your responsibility in a debate to do so. Refusing to cite your assertions is cowardly, means that you don’t really know what you think you know, and reveals that you are ultimately not worth debating.
Maybe it’s Pascal’s Half-Assed Effort. If God doesn’t exist, it doesn’t matter, but if God does exist and you don’t make a feeble attempt to convince others of his existence, he gets mad, so better to make the feeble attempt than not.
Hahaha! Nice.
Luke 10:18-20 and Revelation 12:7-10 are the usual verses used to say that Lucifer is Satan. They don’t mention Lucifer by name, but they do mention some great being being thrown out of the sky.
Then again, it’s not as if the exact term he used for the guy is relevant to his argument, so I’m not sure why you are on this tangent. The only question is whether the serpent in the Garden of Eden is Satan. The basic logic I’ve seen is the identification of Satan as a serpent in Revelation, combined with the fact that the serpent attempted to tempt them, and Satan means “the tempter.”
None of this is esoteric knowledge. I found it in a few seconds using Google and Wikipedia. Theophanes is right about one thing–if you were actually interested in the answer and not in trying to prove him wrong, you could have found it, too.
Oh, and an omnipotent being can very well have an enemy, just not one he can’t defeat. Now, you can argue that he isn’t omnibenevolent because he lets that enemy cause suffering, but that’s another debate entirely.
Oh, we don’t have to prove him wrong. We just need to ask certain questions to demonstrate that what he claims is in the Bible… isn’t. That he doesn’t even have a firm grip on the concepts he argues we should blindly accept.
He talks about Satan and Lucifer as though these were extensively-detailed concepts within his faith, when they obviously are not - the common views of these are a mishmash of nonbiblical sources and overly-favourable linkages of “basic logic” such as you have just claimed. Why should the serpents in Genesis, Luke and Revelation be linked, let alone considered as a single entity? Heck, in your Luke cite, they aren’t even called serpents, nor are they described as Satan - just that snakes can be “trampled” like Satan, and the “enemy” towns that won’t accept Jesus.
That’s not an enemy. It’s not even a nuisance.
He’s John Galt.
You appear to have missed the, “in any meaningful sense” from my comment.
In any case, any omnipotent being has an enemy because he specifically decided that he should have one. It’s a circlejerk.
Hmmm, flippancy aside, that could be argued. Rand went to great (painful even) lengths to liken Galt to Prometheus. Was there ever a linkage between the myths of Prometheus and Christ (there are certainly similarities in their “bringing light” and being tortured for it), adding to Crown Prince’s linkage of Christ and Lucifer?
Citations are required for a debate to be worthwhile. Otherwise, you can just make up random nonsense and statistics, as worthy as ranting on a street corner.
You make an assertion, it’s your responsibility to back it with a citation. Anything else is ranting on a street corner. Glad to see you’re not like that, though.
Seems fairly self-evident.
Either one is omnipotent, in which case one can just will any would be enemy out of existence (or will them into a parallel dimension where there is only spinach flavoured ice cream. Forever.) ; or one can’t in which case omnipotence is demonstrably bogus. The only explanation that would allow for both God’s omnipotence and Satan/Lucifer/Azazel/Old Scratch/Etc…'s continued existence is that God keeps him around for reasons unknown. Which, assuming tiresome proselytes are correct and Satan is behind so much if not ALL evil on this Earth, does seem like a cunt thing to do all things considered.
Satan also notably clashes with the notion of God’s omniscience - after all, if he were he shoulda known that the Morningstar was going to go all “No fuck you, Dad !” at some point. Even moreso that angels don’t get free will, meaning they’re purely deterministic. So if we do posit omniscience, we cannot but come to the conclusion that not only did God know Satan was going to end up being Satan, he must have created him *to *be Satan in the frame job of all frame jobs.
A trickster-god. Very common figure in world mythology and usually not evil. Also, a symbol of immortality.
Agreed. That being said, his existence does beg the question of why there’d be a trickster inside God’s perfect garden in the first place. Maybe he evolved from merely fairly bright proto-snakes over millenias ? 
Let me see if I’ve got this straight-There was a serpent in the beginning of the book, and there was a serpent at the another book written by the another author, so they must be the same serpent? I think I follow the logic here-Job was a man, and Saul was a man, therefore…they are the same man!
Well, all serpents are the same serpent. Or at least I’ve never seen them produce ID to prove otherwise.
In John 8:44 (NIV), Satan is called “the father of lies.” In 2 Corinthians 4:4 (NLT), Satan is called “the god of this world.” So to call him a “trickster god” is in my opinion not that much of a stretch.
Do you know nothing of other mythologies?
Or maybe the serpent’s presence in the Garden was no accident. Maybe the serpent’s presence in the Garden was a test of Adam and Eve’s obedience. Another way of looking at it would be to say that the serpent represented the beginning of human choice, ie. the beginning of man’s ability to disobey God.
Then that “evil” began when your god put that tree where they could get to it.