I know about Loki and Prometheus, both of whom could be compared to the Judeo-Christian Satan.
No, it began when they chose to disobey God.
Are the NLT and the New Life Version the only texts to specifically say “Satan”? If so, why do they have authority over other versions?
No, I don’t think the NLV and NLT are the only translations that mention the word “Satan.” As far as I know they do not have authority over other translations. Some Christians will insist on the King James Version as the only authorative translation, but personally I think it’s better to have access to a wide variety of translations since some are more expansive and/or more faithful to the orignal Hebrew & Greek than others.
Well, what other versions (if any) say “Satan”? I checked a few at random, didn’t find any. I can understand why it’s convenient to replace vague references to “the god of this world” with a single specific enemy, but what’s the scriptural and historical justification for it?
Satan means “the adversary”, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it translated “tempter”.
Guys, don’t ever fight a theist on his turf. You just can’t make any ground debating scripture as you are essentially feeding the theist’s illogic. If you want to win an argument, or at least drive the point home, stick to topics that revolve around scientific modes of thought (skeptism, verifiability, etc)
This would appear to have some bearing on the conversation
If he wanted us to simply obey and shut the fuck up, giving us free will and setting us this whole tree snake gambit seems like a massive troll, don’t you think ?
But not everyone who was a trickster was Satan. Jacob was a trickster, after all.
I went to Hebrew school, where I was taught by people who read the Bible in the original. There is no Satan in Genesis. It is a just-so story, explaining why we die, why we have to work, why women have painful childbirth, and why snakes have no legs and bite us. It is a talking animal story, so common in early folklore. Satan as Satan does appear - in Job, as God’s buddy.
Christians really have no shame about distorting the Bible to fit into their Jesus myth. Not that the whole thing isn’t a myth, of course. My teachers didn’t even pretend the first part of Genesis was anything but a myth.
I’ve read Asimov’s Guide, and he goes out of his way to not insult religion, and to not even demonstrate that the stories are untrue. He was also raised Jewish, by the way.
I got to meet him several times, and I can assure he would have been able to rip your ignorance to shreds without raising a sweat.
My thoughts exactly - if one takes the Bible literally, the real evil seems to be rooted in God’s vindictiveness, and petty, capricious nature. The fall of Eden, Abraham and Isaac, Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt (for being freaking homesick, ferchrissakes), the list goes on. The God of the Old Testament really was a supreme, A-number-one dickhead.
Since God should have known ahead of time(if he is all Knowing) when he created Humans,then he must have known they would disobey him. He allowed Satan to exist, so then God is at fault for man’s flaws, and if the writings were true, then God has a mean streak,and if humans became like God because they knew the difference between good and Evil, it doesn’t speak much for God. Like playing games with Satan at the expense of Job’s family etc.. Of course no one can say in truth they’KNOW" anything about God, Just take the word of another human. Belief is really the belief in humans,not God!
God( if he was all knowing) also knew they would not obey him, so the punishment could be just a way for God to bring out a mean streak he had. He should also have known that Satan would rebel and he chose to creat him as well. so then it would mean God wanted (and wants) evil to exist if this is a valid way to reason it out!
Of course I just see the entire Bible and teachings as all coming from humans and God had nothing to do with it.
Theophane, I have attempted to explain this to you in a more casual poster-to-poster way, but that doesn’t seem to be working. So I will get serious: if you are posting in Great Debates, it is expected that you will be able to back up your claims with cites. Your continued refusal to do so indicates to me that you either don’t want to have a serious debate, or that you enjoy aggravating people with this kind of behavior. Neither one is acceptable. No one expects you to prove that God exists or prove your beliefs, but if you make a factual claim, you will back it up with cites and not play games. Otherwise you may start getting warned for ignoring moderator instructions or trolling.
And that is exactly why I try to avoid getting into scriptural arguments with atheists.
I’m decidedly theist, and wouldn’t mind seeing your cites.
It doesn’t matter what you’re arguing about or who you’re arguing with. This is what is expected of all debaters here. We don’t expect that you will post a proof that will convince the entire world that you’re right, we just ask that you be able to back up what you’re saying.
I cannot grant that you have ever engaged in an actual scriptural argument. There’s no indication that your understanding of the scripture of which you imply expertise is anything but superficial and second-hand. Your “argument” consists of little more than “Because God said so”, even as you repeatedly misquote him.
There are admitted atheists in this thread who display a better understanding of scripture and whose interpretations of what the text meant that I would sooner trust, and I am confident that I’ve given you more than enough chances to prove yourself.
When I’m talking about anything related to Christianity, odds are that whatever I say is from a biblical perspective. Atheists will try to discredit whatever I say not because I’m wrong but because they are atheists and that is what they do.