What happened to those who believe in UR.

[KCDAD]

And I say your answers are merely and typically "insufficient" particularly when you openly profess that the "Bible" is only "man's words," God is Satan, and you are the "devil."

I say The Word has reflected you quite adequately.

Next!

I didn't make up that God was Satan, it is apparently what the Bible presents. That is one reason I don't accept the Bible as the word of God.

What do you mean by the Word reflected me quite adequately?

 

[KCDAD]

Here, let me turn it up for you a little.

IF there is a SEPARATE ENTITY called SATAN that was made BY GOD, is it reasonable to assume that God will deal DIFFERENTLY with that entity and working, than let's say, how God might deal with His children or His Son?

The arousal of EVIL by God, and recompensing of greater evil UNTO evil is a very common working of the O.T.

Since you have no SEPARATE PARTIES to divide these workings, you then claim my blindness for not going down your tunnel, when that tunnel only results on GOD BEING SATAN. And you expect me to accept that conclusion? lol Not my "issue." But a conclusion that you will find openly laughed at by any serious encounter. Try that approach in your local "assembly" sometime and see how far you'll get.

I'm sure the Methodists you claim to be take that position as well eh? lol on that one too. I'm sure if they knew that's where your head was at and they had any guts, they might point out the idiocy of that presentation. You wouldn't be the first heretic sitting in the pews.

God can't be Satan if there is no Satan... no one can be.
If there is no Satan then.... there is no Satan. The obvious solution to why does it appear in the Bible is ... it is a image... a symbol... a metaphor.

Why do I say this? Because none of the representations of satan in the Bible are consistent with each other. First he is serpent, then the wrath of God, then an employee of God, then a great mighty angel, then a fallen rebel, then a whispering voice testing Jesus in the desert offering him riches and power, then possessing poor sick people, then inhabiting Peter, then a dragon... if anyone would read the Bible with any reasoning ability, it would be clear these are not the same.
Just like God doesn't walk around Mt Sinai naked, exposing his private parts to Moses or anyone else.

 

[StudentoftheWord]

2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 ... please explain how Satan and God are not the same... or is the Bible wrong?

Nope, the bible isn't wrong.

If we keep believing Satan is a unique being, opposite to God, we have this thinking there is two God's.

If we start understanding Satan is a title, used to describe an adversary, accuser, etc. and can be filled by any principality or power, lower or higher, then we begin to understand.

 

[StudentoftheWord]

Don't know what you're reading there pal, but I made my OWN observation, and here it is again:

"And when did a "tare" become the same plant as a "wheat?"

NOW just where did I CHANGE Craig's words? I didn't. I simply asked Craig if the wheat and the tare were the same? I know he didn't SAY tare, he said "chaff" and I would remind you both that a TARE in the harvest season is ENTIRELY CHAFF.

Perceived offence is worthless in dialog when IT ISN'T THERE.


What LOVE might that be again? Promoting that mankind are Devils as well as Jesus being SATAN? Is there some kinda LOVE involved in that? If so, you show me. I do feel free to probe the depths of that presentation as being "legitimate."


You can spin a dialog whatever direction you want. I prefer factual positions and presentations over false perceptions. You want me to butter up my speaking to make you feel better when you pronounce that my God and my fellow man are DEVILS? Why would I do anything less than PUSH on those buttons with FACTS? Feelings are quite useless in factual conversations particularly when accompanied by that working. I don't care if you don't like the press on your own presentations, nor do I care if you don't "feel good" in standing up to your own positions.

Not my problem. I am as familiar as I care to be with evasion tactics when they "stray" from core observations in the name of false accusations and "make me feel better" presentations.

enjoy!

squint

Don't know what you're reading there pal, but I made my OWN observation, and here it is again:

"And when did a "tare" become the same plant as a "wheat?"

NOW just where did I CHANGE Craig's words? I didn't. I simply asked Craig if the wheat and the tare were the same? I know he didn't SAY tare, he said "chaff" and I would remind you both that a TARE in the harvest season is ENTIRELY CHAFF.

I did not say Tare, I said chaff. You were the one who changed my words. Soul Searcher is correct, you are wrong.

Perceived offence is worthless in dialog when IT ISN'T THERE.

Actually, because of previous conversations with you, it isn't just a perception. Or should I bring the entire moderating staff from another forum in here to bear witness?

So if there is no offense, your words would reflect this, and your actions would reject this. As it is, your words have not changed, and your actions remain the same.

Again what happened to the nice squint?

 

[StudentoftheWord]

God can't be Satan if there is no Satan... no one can be.
If there is no Satan then.... there is no Satan. The obvious solution to why does it appear in the Bible is ... it is a image... a symbol... a metaphor.

Why do I say this? Because none of the representations of satan in the Bible are consistent with each other. First he is serpent, then the wrath of God, then an employee of God, then a great mighty angel, then a fallen rebel, then a whispering voice testing Jesus in the desert offering him riches and power, then possessing poor sick people, then inhabiting Peter, then a dragon... if anyone would read the Bible with any reasoning ability, it would be clear these are not the same.
Just like God doesn't walk around Mt Sinai naked, exposing his private parts to Moses or anyone else.

Which is why we must understand that Satan is not a being, it is not a thing, it is a name, a title, which describes a particular aspect of what principality, power, or thing, fills that role.

 

[Casstranquility]

Some verses to think on. For one, if we are slaves to Satan, according to squint, then Satan is sin. If Satan is sin then Satan is dead apart from the law. Satan is a law. Desires spawn Satan. Jesus is Satan. Satan can be our eyes, hands, and feet.
Here's another one-Satan holds the power of death, but Jesus holds the key to death?

The wages of Satan is death-but we die...are we Satan?

Jesus Himself called a man a devil.

Sins are our responsibility.

We can be objects of wrath. How can that be if it is Satan in us who is the object of wrath?

James 1:15
Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.


Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death

Romans 7:11
For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.


Romans 8:2
because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

1 Corinthians 3:21
All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[a] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours

1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.


Hebrews 2:14
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—

John 6:70
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin

Matthew 27:4
"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."


John 8:34
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

Romans 7:8
But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

Romans 7:17
As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

2 Corinthians 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


Ephesians 2:3
All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

(All verses are NIV)

 

[Soul Searcher]

So what? Does that give you an opportunity to find false accusation? It sure does, and it sure showed didn't it?

There was no false accusation made by me. You did change the word as part of your response.

I asked that way "on purpose." You see from Craig's body, as yours, you both present that there is NO DEVIL but mankind, Gods offspring. I personally have an "issue" with that presentation. I don't see the "wheat" to be the "same as" the TARE. Why should you hold a factual DIFFERENCE against me? I can certainly read and discern the difference without taking offense.

Again he did not say the wheat is the same as the tare he said the wheat and the chaff are of the same plant. You are talking about something different.

Your position is clear enough. Without a separate entity as THE DEVIL you have little wiggle room left but to the remaining parties, God and your fellow man. The simplicity of that logic seems to continually evade you. At least your buddy, KCDAD, has admitted that he is the devil, as that CONCLUSION is his inevitable and only position, and I do appreciate that HE TOOK THAT POSITION to himself. At least that is an HONEST conclusion, even though I disagree with the scriptural validity of that presentation.

Nonsense either you do not understand my position or you are intentionally misrepresenting it. I said there is no entity called the devil, I did not say that man is the devil. Devil is a translation of other words that do not mean what most mean when they say devil and since you absolutely refuse to even tell us what you mean by devil when you use the word I am left to assume that you are talking about a red guy with horns and a pitchfork and I can say with reasonable certianity that this entity does not exist anywhere but in your own mind.

Look, if you want to chase your tail, that's your business. My observation however will remain most logical as well as the inevitable conclusion, that Jesus spoke to Himself as SATAN. Craig has openly admitted that is his view as well, though he will pile on a lotta words to "obscure" that presentation, as you will come to see, just as you cover.

I guess trying to get you to answer even one simple question does amount to chasing ones tail as does trying to have any kind of rational conversation. I did not say that Jesus spoke to himself as satan. I indicated that we do not know who he was talkign to or even if he said it at all. That is quite a far cry from saying what you think can be logically inferred from such. Your logic is illogical.

You'll have to be more specific with your "critique." A hollow statement without factual connections will remain just another false accusation. ho hum and boo hoo.

I have asked you the same question several times you did not give a straight answer, others have did the same with the same results. It is clear without being more specific and does have factual connections. The only false accusations here have been made by you.

Then "prove it." It does no good to make unsubstantiated statements without factual attachments. Witnesses present "factual observations" not what rattles around in their own heads pretending it's the other guy's position.

Prove it? What is there that needs to be proved? All you need to do is read the thread you have made a habit out of saying that people are saying things that they are not saying. They have told you this and you insist in misrepresenting them. The proof is right before your eyes, look at it.

As stated, if there is NO SEPARATE ENTITY called SATAN OR DEVILS then you have only the remaining parties to the transaction to BE THOSE THINGS. This observation will remain a FACT no matter how hard you try to avoid your own presentation. Go down the funnel with your presentation because that IS where it will LAND.

There is no entity named satan or devil this can not be consrewed into this one is the devil or satan. If it does not exist it does not exist. All we have are some poorly translated words.

Oh? What "lie" might that be again? I see a whole lotta slingin and not much in the way of FACT. Get real or move on.

You know very well what I am talkign about. You have repeatedly said directly and indirectly that I said soemthign to the effect of man is the devil, I did not, and that Jesus is satan or spoke to himself as satan again I did not. You are telling lies everytime you say such a thing and I find your credibility to be completely shot at this point.

Here was your statement, presumably in an attempt to be hung around my neck:

"Perhaps I am wrong here but I do not recall arrogance as being one of the fruits of the spirit."

Rather than approaching this subject "factually" you suppose to instead call me "arrogant?" lol

Yes I said you are coming across as arrogant and it is a fact.

Then tell me who Jesus spoke to in the desert AS SATAN if there IS NO SATAN??? It'll come to you sooner or later...

Asked and answered. You don;t like the answer so you keep asking yet the answer will remain the same.

It's not that you SAID what I asked, it's that you can't bring yourself to ADDRESS the question. You would not be the first guy to tell me that Jesus was talking to Himself AS SATAN, but Jesus was NOT talking to Himself AS SATAN. I love to see that little ring around the toilet. It's a real hoot!

More lies. I have addressed your question more than once already and I did not say that Jesus was talking to himself although he could have been. You however have blown off pretty much every question asked of you. Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?

whatever dude. spin away. chase yer own tail. I do get a kick out of it, as sad as it is to see.

It's rare that I find someone who can not be communicated with but I think I have found one here and yes it is sad to see.

 

[StudentoftheWord]

I do get a kick out of it, as sad as it is to see.

Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Colossians 1:21
Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.

 

[Evergreen48]

Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Colossians 1:21
Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.

And may I add that the scriptures teach that it is the natural or fleshly MIND of the person themself which is at enmity against God. (Romans 8:7)

And . . . . .

It is recorded that Jesus said, that it is out of the HEART of the person themself from which comes evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. And that it is these things that defiled a person. (Matthew 15:19-20)

 

[squint]

I didn't make up that God was Satan,

Hey, if that's where you landed, that's where you landed. I just like to see these positions be put out in the open.

it is apparently what the Bible presents.

That's what has been reflected from your viewing and that is what is supposed to happen by that same Word.

That is one reason I don't accept the Bible as the word of God.

Not my issue there either.

What do you mean by the Word reflected me quite adequately?

A vessel of honor speaks or acts, or a vessel of dishonor speaks or acts from the flesh. I blame no offspring of God whom all of mankind are for presenting that God is Satan or denial of the Word.

We have your summary. Thanks!

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

I did not say Tare, I said chaff. You were the one who changed my words. Soul Searcher is correct, you are wrong.

I didn't say "you said" tare. I asked you when the tare became the same as the wheat. A simple "they aren't" would have been a sufficient answer. So who's twisting the two together and forming accusation?

Actually, because of previous conversations with you, it isn't just a perception. Or should I bring the entire moderating staff from another forum in here to bear witness?

Oh, you mean the entire group of people who present that Jesus was Satan and who count sins against their fellow man, and mark them all as LESS??? That "group?" Pardon me for not being impressed by their presentations. Their folly will be rightfully exposed as noted. And you also know perfectly well that ANYtime that presentation is dragged out, that even the most halfwitted believers will say NAY.

So if there is no offense, your words would reflect this, and your actions would reject this. As it is, your words have not changed, and your actions remain the same.

The fact that you writhe in judgment is no surprise to me. I expect that whenever dealing with people and Word. That's what supposed to happen.

Again what happened to the nice squint?

It is a common dialog tactic to make Gods love a fascist mindset and to bring false judgment upon others. You don't know me from Adam save for the spike being driven into the ground on certain matters, which are quite simple observations. Your attempt to "make me a bad guy" for NOT accepting that God or Jesus IS SATAN speaks for itself.

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

There was no false accusation made by me. You did change the word as part of your response.

My question stands as asked apart from your spinning upon it to find fault.

Again he did not say the wheat is the same as the tare

I don't recall Craig has addressed that yet.

he said the wheat and the chaff are of the same plant. You are talking about something different.

Brilliant! You finally figured that out? Could you even imagine that is why I asked the question I did?

Nonsense either you do not understand my position or you are intentionally misrepresenting it. I said there is no entity called the devil, I did not say that man is the devil. Devil is a translation of other words that do not mean what most mean when they say devil and since you absolutely refuse to even tell us what you mean by devil when you use the word I am left to assume that you are talking about a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

I already said "multiple" times that Satan and his entire associates are ANTI-Christ "spirits." Your attempt to make that into an imp in a red jump suit with plastic horns and a paste on mustache will remain "an imagination" on your part trying to insert itself into my mouth.

and I can say with reasonable certianity that this entity does not exist anywhere but in your own mind.

In any case of presentation, with a SEPARATE ENTITY as the Anti-Christ spirit, the DEVIL, Satan, etc. you will find that either God, Jesus or mankind are then that entity, which I will expose and decry.

I guess trying to get you to answer even one simple question does amount to chasing ones tail as does trying to have any kind of rational conversation.

The only irrationality going on here is you failing to arrive at the conclusion of your own lips.

I did not say that Jesus spoke to himself as satan.

WHO then would you "propose" that Jesus spoke to in the desert when He spoke to SATAN if there IS NO SATAN?

I indicated that we do not know who he was talkign to

Uh, apparently Jesus was TALKING TO SATAN eh? If you can't figure that one out what do you expect me to say?

or even if he said it at all.

yawn...Hey, you can jump into KCDAD's pocket and just openly deny the Word. That was his way out the door.

That is quite a far cry from saying what you think can be logically inferred from such. Your logic is illogical.

I simply see Jesus speaking to Satan as that Word states. Since there is no Satan in "soul searchers" world, I ask YOU then WHO was Jesus speaking to since there IS NO SATAN in "soul searchers" world.

I have asked you the same question several times you did not give a straight answer, others have did the same with the same results.

Uh, what questions might those be again?

It is clear without being more specific and does have factual connections. The only false accusations here have been made by you.

You just don't want to get into your own box my friend. Not my problem.

Prove it? What is there that needs to be proved? All you need to do is read the thread you have made a habit out of saying that people are saying things that they are not saying.

I think you're the last one in this thread to your own party.

They have told you this and you insist in misrepresenting them. The proof is right before your eyes, look at it.

Oh, what proof? That Jesus or God or my fellow mankind, Gods offspring are Satan or DEVILS.

No thank you sir.

There is no entity named satan or devil this can not be consrewed into this one is the devil or satan.

Who then did God speak to when speaking to Satan? Who did Jesus speak to when speaking to Satan?

Your own conclusions seem to continually escape you.

If it does not exist it does not exist. All we have are some poorly translated words.

Like I said, Word denial is certainly an option.

You know very well what I am talkign about. You have repeatedly said directly and indirectly that I said soemthign to the effect of man is the devil, I did not, and that Jesus is satan or spoke to himself as satan again I did not.

My questions remain then before you, and avoided for several days now. Typical dodger style.

You are telling lies everytime you say such a thing and I find your credibility to be completely shot at this point.

Oh? What "lies" might those be?

Yes I said you are coming across as arrogant and it is a fact.

You might come to notice that I could care less about how you try to wiggle away from your own logical conclusions.

Asked and answered. You don;t like the answer so you keep asking yet the answer will remain the same.

You've addressed NOTHING. You put up a couple of guesses that Jesus was either talking to "an imaginary allegory" which therefore makes Jesus addressing Himself in any case, OR even that Jesus was talking to PETER as Satan, which was patent absurdity since there is no such presentation of Peter being in the desert.

More lies. I have addressed your question more than once already and I did not say that Jesus was talking to himself although he could have been.

heh heh heh....

enjoy!

squint

 

[KCDAD]

heh heh heh....

enjoy!

squint

Can you say haughty and arrogant spirit?

 

[squint]

Can you say haughty and arrogant spirit?

If you want to say I am arrogant for not believing that God, His Christ or my fellow mankind, Gods offspring are not Satan or Devils, so be it. I will remain in that belief that they ARE NOT regardless of your twist.

 

[KCDAD]

If you want to say I am arrogant for not believing that God, His Christ or my fellow mankind, Gods offspring are not Satan or Devils, so be it. I will remain in that belief that they ARE NOT regardless of your twist.

And no one is disagreeing with you. You created this strange notion.

You seem to be the only one insisting on this. We don't even believe there is a Satan. or devil or demons. You seem to insist that the Bible says there is, so there must be, and yet you concede the Bible is neither without error nor without metaphors or symbolic language.
Why do insist on this particular passage, relating to Jesus' temptation in the desert, as being interpreted literally?

 

[squint]

And no one is disagreeing with you. You created this strange notion.

Your position was made abundantly clear. More power toya!

You seem to be the only one insisting on this. We don't even believe there is a Satan. or devil or demons. You seem to insist that the Bible says there is, so there must be, and yet you concede the Bible is neither without error nor without metaphors or symbolic language.

I don't recall having an inerrancy conversation with you.

Why do insist on this particular passage, relating to Jesus' temptation in the desert, as being interpreted literally?

Interpret it however you want. Not my issue. Just pointing out where you land without Satan as a separate entity.

 

[KCDAD]

Your position was made abundantly clear. More power toya!


I don't recall having an inerrancy conversation with you.


Interpret it however you want. Not my issue. Just pointing out where you land without Satan as a separate entity.

You can't answer a simple or not so simple question at all without being arrogant and obtuse... can you?

 

[squint]

You can't answer a simple or not so simple question at all without being arrogant and obtuse... can you?

I have your positions.

Not here to share with others who deny Word or who present that God is Satan.

Not interested in delving into the depths of your personal imaginations on these matters. Spin that however you want. Not my problem.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Uh, what questions might those be again?

I am not repeating them yet again. I do not care to converse with you any farther on this or any other matter.

My questions remain then before you, and avoided for several days now. Typical dodger style.

Total nonsense, As I said I answered your questions both plainly and truthfully.

Oh? What "lies" might those be?

Most of what you have said actually.

You might come to notice that I could care less about how you try to wiggle away from your own logical conclusions.

You also do not appear to care that you are WRONG in most of what you are saying.

Enough is enough have a nice life.

 

[squint]

I am not repeating them yet again. I do not care to converse with you any farther on this or any other matter.

What matter? You keep charging me with unaddressed questions and false accusations. Name one question I have ducked or one false accusation delivered.

Total nonsense, As I said I answered your questions both plainly and truthfully.

Couldawouldashoulda is as close as you will get.

Most of what you have said actually.

I have your "coulda" on elec. paper. That's where your conclusions will lead. Just because I saw your own conclusion well in advance of you doesn't make me the bad guy.

You also do not appear to care that you are WRONG in most of what you are saying.

You keep saying that and I say without specifics it's just another rattle in your hand.

enjoy!

squint