I have noticed that a majority of the points you make against Satan seem to come from sources other than the Bible.
So there’s still a capitalist economy in Heaven? And why would it be perfect to be poor now but totes ok to be rich later? If Heaven is what God wants us to achieve why the unnecessary suffering and sacrificing if that was the ideal to begin with? It’s like shocking a mouse through an obstacle course filled with cheese only to give them cheese as a reward at the end. I completely fail to see good in a person who would do that but only see a sadistic, morally failing deity.
Are you saying Atheists have a problem with Religion because they perceive that adherents to any particular religion are sincere? Why would an Atheist care what someone else believes? Do they care if I believe in UFOs or Bigfoot?
Ah, War! You think wars have anything to do with Religion? Wars are about power. Wars are about controlling natural resources. Wars are about money. Do Atheists not go to war? Was Mao Zedong religious? Stalin? Did Hitler invade Poland for God? Religion has been used as a tool of oppression by powerful men, to control the masses … it has nothing to do with the belief systems. It’s about the methods of the oppressors. They may as well use Communism or Socialism instead of religion. They have.
Because religious groups tend to try and impose their worldview onto everyone using the hammer of law (see: gay marriage, abortion, religious schools…) or violence (see: radical Islam). I don’t belive UFO cults or Bigfoot hunters have gained such footholds into the non-kook world.
[QUOTE=Trinopus]
But Satan’s rebellion? It must have had some good arguments behind it, or else you wouldn’t have had 1/3 of the Angels sign on. Did they know the cause was hopeless? Did they know they would be sent to Hell forever? Did they take up arms anyway, even knowing that? That’s dedication!
Or were they lied to and beguiled and tricked? If so, how responsible are they for decisions they made without adequate knowledge?
And…why did God let it get so badly out of hand? Why not show up, early, and either negotiate in good faith – or just issue a Divine Decree. “Stop all this nonsense and get back to work!” You know, backed up with Omnipotence.
There simply isn’t enough information for us to work with here. The story is woefully incomplete.
[/QUOTE]
Well the root cause of Satan’s rebellion is up in the air, there are competing fanfics.
The main contenders are :
- Pride. Lucifer was the most bestest beautifulest of all the angels and couldn’t stomach the idea of bending the knee to anyone. Not the most joinable cause for anyone else, innit ?
- Jealousy. God made the angels, who were perfect and obedient and faithful and did shit for god without even getting paid. Then god made humans, who were untrustworthy sinful free-willed bastards who turned away from god half the time and fucked a lot. But god loved them more anyway, WTF, god ?
- Humanism. God made humans, then keeps playing fuck-fuck tricks on them and demands any number of things. Lucifer would rather liberate us from the toxic influence, give us true freedom and see how that goes.
- Lust. Them human women are tasty lays. God said not to because, well, god. Also crazy nephilim offspring. Fight for your right to partay, bro !
And that’s where the setup part comes into play.
God made Lucifer having omniscience, so he must have known making him this way would lead to shit going down. All the moreso that angels don’t have free will. So god not only made Lucifer knowing he would revolt, he made him so that he would revolt - Luc’ literally didn’t have a choice in the matter. Nor did any of the angels who fell with him because, again, omniscience and no free will.
And, having omnipotence god could end the rebellion at any time, turn Satan into a ratan lawnchair. But doesn’t. Maybe Satan has chariots of iron, I dunno.
The only conclusion can be that it’s all a big game. Hell, there are even narratives where Satan isn’t even the bad guy or fighting against god at all - instead he’s just dutifully playing his part in the metaphysical good cop/bad cop routine, the guy who tries to tempt mortals away from god so that god can know who *really *loves him. Because god is evidently terminally insecure.
I’ve had exes who were that way, too. Bitter-sweet memories there, but bottomline : don’t stick your prayer in the crazy, guys.
Politicians don’t oppose Gay marriage because they are religious fanatics … they do so to get votes from weak-minded voters who are easily manipulated by religious issues. Same with abortion. You think Right-wing politicians care who has an abortion.? All they care about is money and power. They get votes from conservative traditionalists. I know quite a few traditional conservatives who are non-religious, but they are still squares … they still have a 1950s whitebread conservative mindset. It’s not about God, it’s about the White conservative majority controlling the behavior of the people.
You think Islamic radical leaders are waging wars and terrorism because of devout religious belief … how naive. They want power. It’s about power, not God, or Allah, or Mohamet. It’s about power-hungry tyrants. Would Kim Jong Un be any more annoying if he were Xtian or Muslim? He has practically set himself up as an Atheist Deity, he seems to want to be worshiped. Who cares what people believe about invisible entities … it’s the power and the wealth that drives war and violence, not the religion, that’s just a brainwashing tool.
The end result is the same, innit ? And, coming the other way, toning down religious sentiment among “weak-minded voters” leads to fewer old testament legislation being put forward by cynical politicians to suck up to the crazies. That specific kind of crazies, anyway.
I’m not sure how perpetrating 9/11 gave power to anyone. I’m sure religion is a powerful tool for cynical tyrants. But I do believe **some **are sincerely and faithfully religion-crazy. If only for the originality of it.
Look, this is all so simple. Substitute the word “Fatherland” for “Allah”. Does the Nazi fight for God? Or the Banzai pilot? Use the word “Emperor”. Doesn’t matter what motivates the gullible. It just doesn’t. Something will. In the end, the clever manipulator will push the weak-minded cannon fodder to forward an agenda, an agenda of power for the powerful, and hardship for the naive.
So, blood thirsty zealots and politicians can’t be true believers?
Can be? Yes. IMO, are they? In reality, almost never. And what difference does it make what motivates a tyrant? Like I said, would Jong Un be any crazier or more annoying if he were a Methodist?
Your hijack is boring to me. Can we please stick to the thread?
Sounds good to me. If the only reference we have to the past actions and present/future motivations of the two main protagonists is the New and Old Testaments of The Bible, then we have some major problems. The “God” and “Satan” of the Old Testament do not really resemble their namesakes in the New Testament in actions or temperament. There are even some serious questions as to what events in the Old Testament can be attributed to Satan.
It was the first Superman reboot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
I’m not sure having their own agenda is even a factor. Have you ever played “The Secret Game” as a child in grade school? That’s where all the children sit in a circle and the teacher tells one kid a secret. That secret gets passed on from child to child till eventually it makes its way back to the teacher. Except, the thing is, the secret told to the teacher bares little resemblance to the original.
I’m pretty sure the same thing had to have happened with our ancestors from long ago.
I’m on SirGalahad’s side on this one. The kids in school think they’re just playing a game. The people passing on the mangled messages that became the Bible were consciously pursuing an agenda when they were producing their ‘interpretations’ of hear-say and legend, resulting in less-than-honest mistakes-with-a-purpose.:mad:
–G!
I will choose not to decide
I will choose Free Will!
…–Geddy Lee (RUSH)
…Free Will
…Moving Pictures
I’m taking this thread to Cuba.
“It’s just that you’re not on a ship.”
“Then where the devil am I?”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
So, blood thirsty zealots and politicians can’t be true believers?
I guess GWB was quite an exception – politician and zealous true-believer all at once.
Oh, and James Watt
Oh, and Rick Ryan
Oh, and Christine O’Donnel
Oh, and…
You can’t be serious! We’ve got humans and religion involved here…
The National Socialist Party of Germany leveraged extant antisemitism, harnessing it to post-WWI social unrest and economic depression to conduct genocide and military imperialism IN THE NAME OF CHRIST the alleged embodiment of God.
IOW: yes
The correct phrase is Kamikaze pilot.
Interesting word, that one. It’s a Japanese term comprised of two ideograms or words.
[ul]
[li] -kaze is the/a wind[/li][li] Kami- is a/the god(s)[/li][/ul]
The name the astoundingly zealous suicide pilots chose for themselves, Kamikaze, is therefore “God-Wind” or “Wind of the Gods” and was chosen because they planned to be like the gust/breeze/wind in front of a hand that is quickly sweeping opposing tokens off a game-board (or strategic map). They were fully aware that they were the leading force that would clear the way to Japanese domination of the Pacific. They believed themselves to be agents of their Shinto gods.
IOW: Yes
Again, quite funny you should include that in the argument. The Japanese emperor, in particular, is the most recent in a long unbroken line of emperors of Japan, tracing its lineage back to Jimmu Tenno, the first Emperor of Japan. He established his hereditary right to the throne by showing his peers that he, alone, possessed the holy artifacts of his ancestors: The imperial jewels, the sword of Susanowo, God of Storms, and the octagonal mirror of his sister Amaterasu, Goddess of light.+
Of course, Emperors and kings also raged across western Europe, each one believing that his might in combat and victory on the battlefield were bestowed directly upon him as signs of the Christian God’s favor. It’s why the Carolingian rulers allowed the Popes to sanctify their rulership, it’s why King Henry VIII didn’t just say, “Screw you! I’ll divorce and marry whomever I please!” and cut ties to the Vatican but instead created the Anglican Church as a substitute hierarchy of Faith to carry on the guise of pious Christian monarchs ruling England.
IOW: YES
With respect, the most common motivator is fear of (and desire to appease) one’s deity and/or conform to the tenets of one’s faith or faction thereof. This includes Orthodox, Catholic (Domican vs Franciscan vs Jesuit), and Protestant (hundreds) Christianity; Sunni, Sufi, and other variants of Islam; Sikh, Jain, and other Hindu sects; and of course squabbles both between and within these religions. Not to be left out, there are squabbles between variants of Buddhism as well as the conflicting Confucian/Taoist world views, as well. Even the Mormons split off from the Mennonites, who had earlier split off from the Amish. And the point is that, even to this day, the motivations for violence and vandalism are rooted in and justified by the aggressors as actions conducted to promote a religious viewpoint.*
And before you suggest otherwise, the Soviet pogroms and the Maoist purges may not have been by religious zealots, but they were still very much about religion; they were trying to get rid of the religious opposition.
IOW: YES!
–G!
+Unlike Christian artifacts, these items exist without claims they are forgeries; replicas are on display in Ueno Park in Tokyo. (You don’t think they’d put the real items in a glass case for someone to steal, do you?)
*I’m intentionally leaving out such stupidity as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and even the witch-hunting fads, not to mention the anti-heathen genocides of the early United States or the exploitation of inter-tribal African conflicts of the American colonies. There’s really no way to suggest “But they weren’t committed in the name of Christ!”
When I signed on as minion earlier in the thread, I assumed I’d be getting a costume and pitchfork. Just so we’re clear on the details. Maybe there should be paperwork?:dubious:
I’ll take these points on one at a time … if you agree to share the consequences if WE"RE accused of highjacking a thread about EVIL and RELIGION by talking about EVIL and RELIGION. Fair enough?
"So, blood thirsty zealots and politicians can’t be true believers?
I guess GWB was quite an exception …"*
What I know of George Bush, living here in Texas, is that he was a party animal who converted from Episcopalian to Methodist when he married his wife. I gather he claims to be very devout, SOP for conservative politicians, especially POTUS. There is no way for either of us to know which conservative politicians are really deeply religious and which play the role for the purposes of expediency, Now, are you calling George a bloodthirsty zealot, or just a politician? AFAIK, politicians are career liars, and I wouldn’t believe a word out of their mouths on any subject, especially topics of Religion and Morality. I remain unconvinced regarding your post.
*“The National Socialist Party of Germany leveraged extant antisemitism, harnessing it to post-WWI social unrest and economic depression to conduct genocide and military imperialism IN THE NAME OF CHRIST the alleged embodiment of God.”
*
This is the quote I’m familiar with:
Originally posted by Hitler-
“I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”
Do you have another cite, because this is a subject of controversy since WWII?
Sounds to me like he was “preaching to the choir”, so to speak. I hear him claim to do Xtians a service, but not to be acting on behalf of a Deity. Once again, you’re not making a strong case, IMO.
"Interesting word, that one. It’s a Japanese term comprised of two ideograms or words.
[ul]
[li] -kaze is the/a wind[/li][li] Kami- is a/the god(s)[/li][/ul]
The name the astoundingly zealous suicide pilots chose for themselves, Kamikaze, is therefore “God-Wind” or “Wind of the Gods” and was chosen because they planned to be like the gust/breeze/wind in front of a hand that is quickly sweeping opposing tokens off a game-board (or strategic map). They were fully aware that they were the leading force that would clear the way to Japanese domination of the Pacific. They believed themselves to be agents of their Shinto gods."
*
I believe Kamikaze translates to Spirit Wind.
From Wikipedia:
“About 70% of Japanese profess no religious membership,[7][8] according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000.[9] And according to Demerath (2001:138), 65% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[10] According to Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, some 70–80% of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion.”
If you’ve spent much time in Japan, or with Japanese people, you know that “Spirits” is a word, like “Lucky” and “Happy”, that is salted all through the common vernacular of Japanese culture. If you have a cite that supports that Kamikaze pilots were particularly devote Shintoists, I’d like to see it.
Were they attacking us Yankees to make points with myriad Kami, or because they felt religious duty to the Emperor? I understand they were mostly college students pressured into being suicide pilots, so as not to dishonor their parents.
From “A Kamikaze Who Lived to Tell the Tale” by Laurence Rees
"Oonuki said, when he and his fighter pilot colleagues were first asked to volunteer for this “special attack mission” they thought the whole idea “ridiculous.” But, given the night to think about their decision, the men reconsidered. They feared that if they did not volunteer, their families would be ostracized and their parents told that their son was “a coward, not honorable, shameful.” And then, as fighter pilots, they would be sent to the most dangerous part of the front line where they would still die—but dishonored. As a result, he told me, “everyone put down the answer which was opposite from what we were feeling. Probably it’s unthinkable in the current days of peace. Nobody wanted to, but everybody said, ‘Yes’ …”
Sorry, these don’t sound like religious zealots to me.
“Of course, Emperors and kings also raged across western Europe, each one believing that his might in combat and victory on the battlefield were bestowed directly upon him as signs of the Christian God’s favor. It’s why the Carolingian rulers allowed the Popes to sanctify their rulership, it’s why King Henry VIII didn’t just say, “Screw you! I’ll divorce and marry whomever I please!” and cut ties to the Vatican but instead created the Anglican Church as a substitute hierarchy of Faith to carry on the guise of pious Christian monarchs ruling England.”
*
Sound to me like Henry was catering to his subjects, and making a nest for himself to negotiate with the Church in the future from the public position of power as a religious leader himself … not the behavior of a devote Xtian, but the politicizing of “Religion” for personal political gain, the very opposite of what you allege. Please post a cite that supports Henry VII was a zealous Xtian, and led his subjects for the glory of God, rather than greed and avarice.
“With respect, the most common motivator is fear of (and desire to appease) one’s deity and/or conform to the tenets of one’s faith or faction thereof.”
That’s a broad statement, care to prove that fear of a Deity is the most common motivator?
“This includes Orthodox, Catholic (Domican vs Franciscan vs Jesuit), and Protestant (hundreds) Christianity; Sunni, Sufi, and other variants of Islam; Sikh, Jain, and other Hindu sects; and of course squabbles both between and within these religions. Not to be left out, there are squabbles between variants of Buddhism as well as the conflicting Confucian/Taoist world views, as well. Even the Mormons split off from the Mennonites, who had earlier split off from the Amish. And the point is that, even to this day, the motivations for violence and vandalism are rooted in and justified by the aggressors as actions conducted to promote a religious viewpoint.”
Yup, we all know religious sects fight among themselves and with other groups. In terms of serious events like substantial war and genocide, I suggest that, while soldiers and terrorists may very well be devoted to their faith, the leaders of nations and established religions are largely politicians: perhaps believers, but acting to acquire great power and wealth under the guise of Godly motivations.
*“And before you suggest otherwise, the Soviet pogroms and the Maoist purges may not have been by religious zealots, but they were still very much about religion; they were trying to get rid of the religious opposition.”
*
This is my favorite part … Atheist are motivated by God because they are trying to exterminate religion. I had a hearty Laugh.
Well, that was fun. I suggest you start a new thread if you like to continue this volley. I love a lively debate, but we really should address the subject of the OP.
No, I wouldn’t join Satan and his band of merry Demons, tempting as it is (pardon the pun).