If God is omnipotent, why can't He smite the devil?

[Davebuck]

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

Turns out, there are folks still worshiping Mithra.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mithras/

Not only did the early zorathustrains write about Mithra, so did their enemies. There is plenty of writings about Mithra and his December 25th birth and his death and resurection.

So, for me, that's not enough to believe that Mithra was real. Is it enough for you?

 

[Outspoken]

Outspoken,

Fine, there are no extraordinary claims. I'll go dig up proof of mithra and post the links. You can review them and see if they are enough for you to believe Mithra is the son of a god.

Meanwhile, you go find proof of the devil.

No, I was asking about the boogyman. You said that very plainly. If you are abandoning that claim, so be it. As for Mithra, of course there are people worshiping Mithra, can you find evidience for Mirhra being on this earth and directly interacting with several differnet cultures and have people from several different cultures write about Mirthra. Then show me how Mithra accepts you BEFORE you do anything and you don't have to work your way to "heaven". Then we can talk

As for your evidience, you didn't read very well did you..

"However, although our literary sources for Mithraism are extremely sparse, an abundance of material evidence for the cult exists in the many Mithraic temples and artifacts that archaeologists have found scattered throughout the Roman empire,"

I.E. not much evidience. The bible on the other hand has more pieces and manuscripts then any other ancient work.

 

[Davebuck]

Outspoken, The books of the bible each have their own content. They discuss different things and beliefs as written by believers in Yahweh. Only the gospels are tales of jesus and there is dispute as to their authorship and possible plagerism. Also, many of the books or even scriptures within the books contradict themselves.

Plus, Genesis is not proof for jesus anymore than Mathew is proof that adam and eve existed. You still only have single manuscripts for most claims (except Jesus in which you might have 4 (more if you count the gospels that were discarded).

So, even if there are a few manuscripts recording the story of Mithra, that should be enough. Or, do you require a magic number. Also, as the website stated, there are tons of references to mithra in other cultures. Does mithra have to be found in Native American writings to be real?

ANd, why does Mithra have to accept anyone? And, why should I worry about heaven if Mithra says there isn't one? If you read up and learn the religion of mithra, you should see that it doesn't jibe with the writings in the bible. So, which one is correct? All you have is one written word against another. What other evidence can you use to say that one is correct and the other is false?

I say that if there are these gods, then they should be accessible and come down and show themselves. Its not unreasonable to be doubtful unless they do this. I'd guess they'd understand our skepticism. Especially with some of the crazy stories they'd have us believe (e.g., talking donkeys, snakes, parting of the red sea, turning wine into water, etc...)

ANd, you should talk. I suspect you are skeptical of the story of Joseph smith and his account of Jesus. I bet you're skeptical of all those 1000s of people who are 'healed' by christian preachers right on TV in front of your eyes. Yet you have no doubt that jesus healed folks because it has been written that he heals folks.

You really only believe what you believe because of the bible, some old, unconfirmed written words.

 

[Outspoken]

Outspoken, The books of the bible each have their own content. They discuss different things and beliefs as written by believers in Yahweh. Only the gospels are tales of jesus and there is dispute as to their authorship and possible plagerism. Also, many of the books or even scriptures within the books contradict themselves.

Plus, Genesis is not proof for jesus anymore than Mathew is proof that adam and eve existed. You still only have single manuscripts for most claims (except Jesus in which you might have 4 (more if you count the gospels that were discarded).

So, even if there are a few manuscripts recording the story of Mithra, that should be enough. Or, do you require a magic number. Also, as the website stated, there are tons of references to mithra in other cultures. Does mithra have to be found in Native American writings to be real?

ANd, why does Mithra have to accept anyone? And, why should I worry about heaven if Mithra says there isn't one? If you read up and learn the religion of mithra, you should see that it doesn't jibe with the writings in the bible. So, which one is correct? All you have is one written word against another. What other evidence can you use to say that one is correct and the other is false?

I say that if there are these gods, then they should be accessible and come down and show themselves. Its not unreasonable to be doubtful unless they do this. I'd guess they'd understand our skepticism. Especially with some of the crazy stories they'd have us believe (e.g., talking donkeys, snakes, parting of the red sea, turning wine into water, etc...)

ANd, you should talk. I suspect you are skeptical of the story of Joseph smith and his account of Jesus. I bet you're skeptical of all those 1000s of people who are 'healed' by christian preachers right on TV in front of your eyes. Yet you have no doubt that jesus healed folks because it has been written that he heals folks.

You really only believe what you believe because of the bible, some old, unconfirmed written words.

"Only the gospels are tales of jesus and there is dispute as to their authorship and possible plagerism"

No, they are not in dispute over plagerism, what a silly thing to think.

"Plus, Genesis is not proof for jesus anymore than Mathew is proof that adam and eve existed. "

I guess you've never read Matthew or genesis have you?

"So, even if there are a few manuscripts recording the story of Mithra, that should be enough"

No, its not enough. With a large number of manuscripts and a large distribution geographically you can conclude that people thought them to be true, if they are written from a nonfiction context. If they did not, there would have been more refutes of them upon circulation. This is also one way historians judge the validity of a historical work and its being perserved.

"If you read up and learn the religion of mithra, you should see that it doesn't jibe with the writings in the bible."

No, you dont' have just one verses the other. One has far more evidience then the other.

"I say that if there are these gods, then they should be accessible and come down and show themselves. Its not unreasonable to be doubtful unless they do this. "

ahh the height of mankind's arrogance. I want everyone to do everything for me. have you everythought maybe this did happen? His name is Jesus

"Especially with some of the crazy stories they'd have us believe "

ahh the double standard. "In my experience I have never seen it happen so it must be something that can never happen" (see false dialemia (sp?) of extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidience). Yet, you're probably one of the ones that thinks, without a doubt in your mind, there was life on mars.

"I suspect you are skeptical of the story of Joseph smith and his account of Jesus."

Yes, for it was ONLY him that saw those plates. Christ was seen and heard by many.

"I bet you're skeptical of all those 1000s of people who are 'healed' by christian preachers right on TV in front of your eyes."

No, I've read accounts from people that have and have not been healed. I think it might happen sometime, but I don't think its of God because what they say clashes with his word set forth in the bible.

 

[Davebuck]

Outspoken,

We'll have to agree to disagree. We have different truth criteria. Mine are more stingent. We also have different definitions of what are considered 'extraordinairy claims'.

You also seem to equate my 'doubt' with 'unquestionable belief that something is false'. Like with 'life on mars' I am skeptical and need a great deal of proof before I give such a statement creedence (e.g., a fossil record on mars would convince me).

Asking for clear proof and the presence of a deity isn't arrogance. We do it ALL the time. If we didn't, and accepted every crazy claim on faith, we'd be 'gullable'. It's considered reasonable.

Finally, your last statement shows me what you trust more. You can 'witness' 1000s of folks getting healed and you are skeptical (which is good) but the reason you are skeptical is because the bible doesn't predict those particular healings. Yet, you have no problem believing 4 books of the bible discussing healings that jesus performed. 4 old books convince you more than 1000s of living people's first person claims. If these 1000s of people can be lying or fooled into believing something that isn't true, the same can be true for the folks during the time of jesus.

You and I have different concepts of what is reliable evidence and what is suspect. So, you continue to have no doubt of talking donkeys and god-caused floods and famines and the parting of the red sea and talking shrubbery. Other religions will continue to believe their stories of sun gods and magic crows. Continue to practice your ancient rituals (some not even from your own religion). All other religions will keep practicing theres too. And, keep looking for that devil that your god created and lets run loose at yours and others' expense.

That sounds a bit flamey and will likely make you feel reactive. But, it is valid from my persective.

 

[Davebuck]

God can and will smite the devil.

Regards,
<edit>

THe point of the thread is, why hasn't your god done this already? According to your bible, god was smiting humans left and right. Why didn't he smite this devil fellow? Why create him, knowing all the bad things the devil supposedly causes?

Perhaps, it is a mistake to even think such a being exists.

 

[slayer-2004]

how can one know good without evil ? And is heaven not supposedly in a diferant dimension of time ? How can we know the rules and logic of such a place ? This is a question that humans probobly will never be able to answer alone .

 

[Davebuck]

Slayer, your explanation sounds very mystical, like a science fiction/fantasy story where anything goes. I guess the possibilites are infinite and therefor unknown if that's what you believe.

Also, you can know that something is good without experiencing evil. I knew that cookies were good and my parents were good when I was little. That is, I knew I liked them. But, I didn't have to experience eating limburger cheese or witness a child being murdered to know those things were good.

You can have plenty of good things without death, destruction, disease. If I were a god, I wouldn't allow people to be tortured or diseased and suffer. period. But that's just my ethical standard. Yours may be different.

 

[Marz Blak]

The OP smells something foul, and rightly so. There are two options. A) God is not omnipotent, because the devil has the power to go against his will or B) God desires the devil to exist and tempt people. According the Job, as aforementioned, its B. But then we run into the problem of God's omnibenevolence....

It always comes back to the Problem of Evil, doesn't it? Which anyone who cares to take even a few moments (i.e., Google "Problem of Evil" or "Problem of Pain") can find out has been argued ad nauseam for centuries, but which it seems to me the apologetics opposing always resort back to some sort of special pleading or unknown purpose, and thus call for presupposition in favor of the existence of the God of the Apologists--i.e., faith; which, being an empricist/rationalist sort of guy, I have always found completely uncompelling.

P.S. Anyone who is interested in this topic might check out Internet Infidels, both the main site (www.infidels.org) and the discussion board (www.iidb.org). Lots of good, high quality info on both.

M.

 

[Marz Blak]

...Perhaps trying to grasp the essence of God through our limited ability to reason through logic is not the best way to begin to understand God....

Are you saying that reason is, at least in potential, the enemy of faith?

If so, a question: what do we call people who, apart from religious belief, believe things contrary to what their ability to reason tells them?

I believe the technical term is 'crazy', right?

 

[Marz Blak]

I believe that the Devil does exist for a reason, it is free will. God loves us enough to let some (many actually) drift from Him, which pains Him severely, so that we do not live as slaves. If we were born into a world without sin, we would not be following God because we wanted to, or believed he created us because he loved us, we would believe because we were told to, and see Him as a slavemaster. In this sense, the Devil is necessary for as long as God allows us to live on this earth. That time is also necessary to give us a full understanding of evil, so that we may know what God truly feels for us.

Two problems I see with this line of apologetics are the mainstream Christian concept of Heaven, and the angels. Think about it. Are those who ascend to Heaven, where there is no sin and everyone is perfectly happy, slaves? If so, and they're nonetheless happy, then what's the problem, and why, if it is possible for things to be so, does there have to be this mortal world, full of sin?

Then there's the angels. The angels were apparently created with free will (i.e., Lucifer's descent), and being created to live much closer to God's presence, presumably know Him much better than can we humans, but still some of them rebelled. If Lucifer, knowing God much more closely than we, nonetheless rebelled, then why did HE do so? Was it because HE came to see God as a slavemaster? Was it because of jealousy of us humans after Adam's creation? Maybe there's a way of tying this all together that makes sense, but I don't think what you've posted here yet does so. I think you need to think through your apologetics a bit more.

 

[Davebuck]

The problem of evil is one of the top 5 reasons why believers switch to agnosticism or atheism.

Empirical research source: Altemeyer, B., and B. Hunsberger. 1997. Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion. Prometheus, Amherst, NY.

 

[Marz Blak]

To answer both of these read up a bit to my first post in this section, it's post #44, the answer is free will!

The free-will defense against the argument from evil has been argued for centuries. In my mind, it is not persuasive, not the least of which because it is arguable, perhaps, as a defense against moral evil (willfully moral acts), but has no relevancy whatsoever with regard to amoral evil (i.e., apparently gratuitous suffering--think of a baby falling down a hole because of an earthquake and dying a long, lingering death no one ever even knows about), but I guess it depends on one's presuppositions to some degree.

 

[Marz Blak]

When the Devil is finally stifled, man will be brought into the kingdom of heaven where sin does not exist. The people who followed Christ faithfully will be with God, and the others will be in Hell suffering eternal pain and torture. The people in Heaven would be without sin, and it would be the only way, and no one would commit sin while in the prsence of God. We would be with our creator as it was meant to be, and will experiance eternal bliss.

Setting aside your rather chilling dichotomy between those in Heaven and those in Hell (as I understand it, not all who call themselves Christians hold the belief in a Hell of eternal torment to be true), does the fact that those in Heaven would be incapable of sinning not mean that they have been robbed of their free will? Or is free will only important here, but not There? Again, I think you need to think this through a bit more.

 

[Marz Blak]

...
Exactly! You feel your life has value, and you know that your life has purpose.
These are nevertheless rational beliefs and they fall outside the realm of empirical discussion. And yet that are absolutely essential to our existence as sentient human beings. Likewise, 'good' exists for you because you understand that you are a moral human being, capable of moral choice. You hence must be more than just the sum of empirical physiological biochemical processes.
...

What about socio-biological theories about the development of the ethical 'instinct', if you will, as a consequence of natural selection? I find such reasoning much more plausible than appeals to the aether, as it were.

 

[Outspoken]

Outspoken,

We'll have to agree to disagree. We have different truth criteria. Mine are more stingent. We also have different definitions of what are considered 'extraordinairy claims'.

You also seem to equate my 'doubt' with 'unquestionable belief that something is false'. Like with 'life on mars' I am skeptical and need a great deal of proof before I give such a statement creedence (e.g., a fossil record on mars would convince me).

Asking for clear proof and the presence of a deity isn't arrogance. We do it ALL the time. If we didn't, and accepted every crazy claim on faith, we'd be 'gullable'. It's considered reasonable.

Finally, your last statement shows me what you trust more. You can 'witness' 1000s of folks getting healed and you are skeptical (which is good) but the reason you are skeptical is because the bible doesn't predict those particular healings. Yet, you have no problem believing 4 books of the bible discussing healings that jesus performed. 4 old books convince you more than 1000s of living people's first person claims. If these 1000s of people can be lying or fooled into believing something that isn't true, the same can be true for the folks during the time of jesus.

You and I have different concepts of what is reliable evidence and what is suspect. So, you continue to have no doubt of talking donkeys and god-caused floods and famines and the parting of the red sea and talking shrubbery. Other religions will continue to believe their stories of sun gods and magic crows. Continue to practice your ancient rituals (some not even from your own religion). All other religions will keep practicing theres too. And, keep looking for that devil that your god created and lets run loose at yours and others' expense.

That sounds a bit flamey and will likely make you feel reactive. But, it is valid from my persective.

"We'll have to agree to disagree"

Okay

"Mine are more stingent. We also have different definitions of what are considered 'extraordinairy claims'. "

No, yours are more, to use the correct word, contadictory. As for extraordinary claims, that's just a false dilema you cling to because you don't want to logically look at a problem.

"Like with 'life on mars' I am skeptical and need a great deal of proof before I give such a statement creedence "

Here you use your life personal experiences to dictate what you think is an extraordinary claim, or to dictate your skepticism. That is simply what you are outraged about when people of religion do the same and scoff at them and say they are being "unstringent". I smell a double standard.

"Yet, you have no problem believing 4 books of the bible discussing healings that jesus performed. 4 old books convince you more than 1000s of living people's first person claims."

Can you find me someone that it was said that Jesus healed them and they say he did not? You have no leg to stand on here. If you read my post I say something might happen, but that doesn't mean it is of God. If you have a standard, and you find something that doesn't match up, then the thing that doesn't match up is probably wrong. I have examined the standard over and over and it does not faulter.


"You and I have different concepts of what is reliable evidence and what is suspect."

Yes, as do you, but you use apply your concept in a double standard way, using your personal experience to judge evidience, but deny the right to others to do the same. Its a bit, "flamey" to me.

 

[cartridge]

THERE AIN'T NO DEVIL INSIDE OF ME, LOVELY![/color][/font]

So do you claim to be the new Jesus then? You see The devil was said to be the incarnate of all sin and evil. According to the bible only Jesus is perfect and without sin... you however have sinned from Birth thanks to adam and the fall. So you do... unless we should all follow you in the hope of a free meal, but I dont really like bread and fish.

 

[Davebuck]

I do not know.

Regards,
<edit>

Well, don't you find it rather odd and even disturbing? Yahweh smote a bunch of families (e.g. flood) but not this devil fellow. Does this Yahweh guy value the devil more than people? It would seem this is true to some degree.

What do you think?

 

[CSMR]

Davebuck, you clearly have no interest in the truth but are just playing with words.

All things are subject to God, including the devil. As flamer said in page 3 of this thread, the devil was created as part of God's plan of salvation. "All things were created by and for Christ". Without the tempter there would be no sin (and conversely without sin there is no devil); if there is no sin there is no redemption.

 

[EviStar]

If God is omnipotent, why can't He smite the devil?

Because "he's" not really real.