Why is satan the bad guy?

[Robban]

I'll not hesitate to call that totally wishy washy. Jesus has given us clear instructions on how to find him and he's made the first move to bring us home.

Too much for you then, does it require too much thought?

 

[Nithavela]

Well... Sarcasm is not of intellectual value...Its origins are from the bad guy..

More baseless assertions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Cool, well I think it's been posted before. Anyway, the Bible according to my understanding frames Satan as a bad guy. It's all there for anyone to read.

See, this is the problem. Merely defining him as the bad guy is not a valid argument.

Look at Star Wars. Darth Vader is not merely defined as the bad guy. Anyone who watches the movie without knowing anything about the story can present a valid argument for why he is the bad guy. And in that argument, they will be pointing to his action, decisions and motives. The argument will not state "he's the bad guy because Obi Wan or Yoda say so" or "because that's what George Lucal decided". Why can't the same be done with Satan and the bible? Or at least, why do people fail to present such an argument?

Sounds like a d&d religion just curious, did you know that satan is described as a dragon?

Did you know that in plenty of cultures, dragons are not the bad guys at all?

Ok but if were assuming it's real we should assume it's all real: like God is just, God doesn't sin, God gave his own life etc - because the Bible is all related.

No, that's not the case at all.
To give an extreme example.... the story of Nazi Germany and WW2 is very real. Suppose that in 2000 years, the only source of information on Nazi's is a Nazi propaganda book. That doesn't mean that the existence of the story as presented in the book means that the Nazi's were the good guys.

The reality of events presented in a story is not the same as the ethical and moral implications of those events. Certainly, a distinction should be made if we are going to try to objectively evaluate the ethical and moral implications of the story. The "objective" part means that you should read the story while filtering out the bias of the author.

I could, for example, write a piece about Ted Bundy in such a way that I present him as a victim who isn't as evil as his actions make him look. And in fact add sentiments that somehow, in some mysterious way, his actions were done with the best intentions. You would need to make a distinction between his objective factual actions and my mere opinion about them.

And even if you don't believe the creator is right, isn't blaming him for the consequences of our own rebellion a bit like slamming the door on mom and dad when you're 11 and screaming "I wish I had never been born!"

No, it's not. Suppose my parents are deeply racist people. As I grow up, I start to realise that and at 15 years old, I rebel against them. At this point, I'm not telling them "i wish I was never born!!". Instead, I'm just standing up for what I consider to be a right cause. Knowing very well that I will be punished by them for it. I might get grounded, I might even be kicked out of the house.

Authority and might does not make right.

What's the solution here guys? Do you want god to unmake you?

I'm not looking for a solution, because I consider the thing to be a non-existing problem. All I'm saying is that I do not see any valid reason to simply "assume" that god is moral just because the book claims it. God is not moral just because he is all-powerfull or all - knowing or whatever.

It seems to me that every theist rejects at face-value the idea that an omnipotent creator of the universe is capable of being an evil douchebag. And I can't understand why.

Any analogy where God is a mafia boss doesn't work for me. God is love.

You are again going purely by definitions. What does it mean to say "god is love"? Love is an emotion. Do you mean to say that "god is loving"?
How do you know this? And does it make sense? For example, I love my children and I assume you do to. Ask yourself, is there anything your children could do that would make you send them to a torture chamber for only a week - let alone an eternity? Your "loving" god does exactly that for something even as trivial as "not loving him back".

You're assuming God was a little bit evil and therefore Satan was kinda justified, but it's not true.

Actually, my personal opinion on the story is that god is not just a little bit evil. The story as I understand it shows a petty, self-obsesses, jealous monsterous dictator who pushed the wrong buttons on one of his army officers, who then rebelled against them - even knowing full well that it would not turn out good for him. If we transpose this story to any other context, Satan would be called a martyr and a hero.

But off course in my worldview, might does not make right.

Come on man, if you theorise God made everything etc, why do you theorise him to have flaws? He's much more likely in my eyes, to be perfect.

One does not follow from the other. Once again, might does not make right.

 

[rockytopva]

More baseless assertions.

Something of intellectual value, please...

 

[DogmaHunter]

He doesn't.

So, you don't believe in hell?
I know some christian denominations don't believe in hell.

In any case, all christian denominations have some kind of "saved" concept. Which means there still is the notion of "not being saved".

Nope. If we met those requirements inherently we would be perfectly without sin and thus not human at all, in any recognizable capacity.

So the he created rules and requirements and then created us in such a way that we would be unable to live upto it?

No, saved from the consequences of our own sins.

Those consequences were decided and installed by him. It's his system, his rules, his requirements, his reward and his punishment.
Furthermore, he created us in such a way that it would be impossible for us NOT to sin.

A direct analogy would be me building a room deep underground with no access to the outside world whatsoever, locking you in there for a year and then punishing you when you fail to tell me what the weather is like on the surface of the planet. Purely by virtue of defining "sin" as "not being able to tell what the wheater is like".

It's ridiculous. It's punishing humans for being humans.

 

[bhsmte]

So you're in favor of just granting people anything they want for no reason even if they not only don't deserve it, but actively refuse your gift?

This kind of attitude always reminds me of a bratty little child:

"I want an ice cream! I want an ice cream!"

"Sorry, little Timmy, you were bad and threw a temper tantrum and made a mess in the kitchen earlier, so you don't deserve an ice cream."

"But I want one!"

"Well, okay, just because I'm being so nice, I'll forgive you. You can have an ice cream, as long as you apologize for what you did earlier."

But the atheist goes:

"No, I don' wanna' 'pologize! I didn't do nothin' wrong! Gimme my ice cream!"

And then they say it's unfair that they don't get one.

I am in favor of fairness and judging people on the actual life they lead, not what stories they decide to believe.

The rest of what you wrote, is really a reach and misses the main point.

 

[Strathos]

So, you don't believe in hell?
I know some christian denominations don't believe in hell.

There is a Hell but it's not a place of everlasting torment for human souls. That's an idea that was invented by the church later and is not supported by the original scriptures.

In any case, all christian denominations have some kind of "saved" concept. Which means there still is the notion of "not being saved".

Yes, and it's entirely your choice.

So the he created rules and requirements and then created us in such a way that we would be unable to live upto it?

We are finite beings by definition and don't inherently deserve eternal life, yes. But he offered it to us anyway, it's your own choice to reject it.

Those consequences were decided and installed by him. It's his system, his rules, his requirements, his reward and his punishment.
Furthermore, he created us in such a way that it would be impossible for us NOT to sin.

If if were impossible for us to sin then we would be mindless automatons. Is that what you want?

A direct analogy would be me building a room deep underground with no access to the outside world whatsoever, locking you in there for a year and then punishing you when you fail to tell me what the weather is like on the surface of the planet. Purely by virtue of defining "sin" as "not being able to tell what the wheater is like".

It's ridiculous. It's punishing humans for being humans.

Is allowing human lives to end (which is the natural consequence of mortal lives) somehow a punishment? You might as well say that being human is a punishment for being human, that makes no sense.

I am in favor of fairness and judging people on the actual life they lead, not what stories they decide to believe.

So what have you done that makes you think that God owes you eternal life?

The rest of what you wrote, is really a reach and misses the main point.

Not really, it's quite an apt analogy.

 

[bhsmte]

There is a Hell but it's not a place of everlasting torment for human souls. That's an idea that was invented by the church later and is not supported by the original scriptures.



Yes, and it's entirely your choice.



We are finite beings by definition and don't inherently deserve eternal life, yes. But he offered it to us anyway, it's your own choice to reject it.



If if were impossible for us to sin then we would be mindless automatons. Is that what you want?



Is allowing human lives to end (which is the natural consequence of mortal lives) somehow a punishment? You might as well say that being human is a punishment for being human, that makes no sense.



So what have you done that makes you think that God owes you eternal life?



Not really, it's quite an apt analogy.

If you can show me that the possibility of eternal life is real, I could answer your question better.

My discussion, is around the Christian dogma and how people are judged; on their beliefs, as opposed to the quality of life they live. I believe this is immoral and self serving and highly likely, to be a fairy tale.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is a Hell but it's not a place of everlasting torment for human souls. That's an idea that was invented by the church later and is not supported by the original scriptures.

You are aware, I assume, that lots of denominations (many followers of which are on this board), that wouldn't agree with that?

Yes, and it's entirely your choice.

No, it's not. Belief is not a choice.

We are finite beings by definition and don't inherently deserve eternal life, yes. But he offered it to us anyway, it's your own choice to reject it.

This doesn't make any sense. I'm not even sure how to respond to it. If he created everything then why would there be any "rules" about what created thing "deserves" created things?
Clearly, if we are not worthy then it is because he decided to create us unworthy. I don't have ny choice here. It's all his game.

It's like if I would create a traffic network where all lights are permantly locked on the red light and then implement a fining system that punishes everyone that crosses a red light. And then pretend that they had a "choice". They didn't. When red is the only option, you don't have a "choice" of waiting till its green.

If if were impossible for us to sin then we would be mindless automatons. Is that what you want?

Missing the point. The point is that, according to the theology, it is inherently impossible to NOT sin.

According to the theology, he created us with flaws and then holds the flaws against us.

Is allowing human lives to end (which is the natural consequence of mortal lives) somehow a punishment? You might as well say that being human is a punishment for being human, that makes no sense.

I don't know what you are responding too. It can't be anything I said, because I never made a point remotely like that.

 

[TheStraightener]

I've heard on here once or twice that we make a choice to get saved or not.


It is not a choice.

A choice is to pick something from the available options. To me believing in God is not an available option because there is nothing out there to verify his existence. If there was evidence that he exists then I am in a better position to make the choice.

The reality is, if God does indeed exist then he is actually taking away my ability to make a choice. He is hindering my free will to choose because he hasn't made a case for his own existence. Until he does that, belief in him is not an option.

I'm not making a choice not to believe. I physically cannot believe the myth, the magic, the talking snake, the talking donkey, people turning into salt, dead people coming back to life, people living in big fish etc. I'm not choosing to dismiss it.. it's automatically dismissed as a possible option.

So yeah, if your God is real.. he isn't putting himself forward as an option for me to choose. And therefore by extension he is happy to see me go to hell for eternity because I can't believe extraordinary claims when there is no evidence .

Your loving God could prevent that in a second.... But he chooses not to

 

[Strathos]

If you can show me that the possibility of eternal life is real, I could answer your question better.

If you don't accept the possibility of eternal life, why are you complaining that you can't have it?

My discussion, is around the Christian dogma and how people are judged; on their beliefs, as opposed to the quality of life they live. I believe this is immoral and self serving and highly likely, to be a fairy tale.

What finite action on earth would deserve an eternal reward in Heaven?

You are aware, I assume, that lots of denominations (many followers of which are on this board), that wouldn't agree with that?

Yeah, I've debated this stuff with them before. I'm aware my position isn't the most popular.

No, it's not. Belief is not a choice.

So you say, but you probably have made choices to believe certain things regarding your worldview, ethics, and such that you don't even realize.

This doesn't make any sense. I'm not even sure how to respond to it. If he created everything then why would there be any "rules" about what created thing "deserves" created things?

It's basic logic. Humans are finite beings by definition - we are born, we grow older, and we die. Living eternally is not our natural state.

Clearly, if we are not worthy then it is because he decided to create us unworthy. I don't have ny choice here. It's all his game.

So you would prefer to be something completely inhuman then, an eternal, unchanging being with no concept of mortality? That would not even be comparable to a human in how it thinks?

It's like if I would create a traffic network where all lights are permantly locked on the red light and then implement a fining system that punishes everyone that crosses a red light. And then pretend that they had a "choice". They didn't. When red is the only option, you don't have a "choice" of waiting till its green.

Not getting what you want for free just because you demand it =/= punishment.

Missing the point. The point is that, according to the theology, it is inherently impossible to NOT sin.

According to the theology, he created us with flaws and then holds the flaws against us.

You want your ability and propensity to sin removed?

Fine then, you're no longer a human being - you're a mindless (or at least completely psychologically alien) creature, completely unable to identify with any of the thoughts or ideas you had as a human. In effect you no longer exist, you have been destroyed and replaced with a completely different entity. Do you want that?

I don't know what you are responding too. It can't be anything I said, because I never made a point remotely like that.

Of course you did. You said that God is punishing people for being human, by letting them die, even though that is part of what defines us as humans.

I've heard on here once or twice that we make a choice to get saved or not.


It is not a choice.

A choice is to pick something from the available options. To me believing in God is not an available option because there is nothing out there to verify his existence. If there was evidence that he exists then I am in a better position to make the choice.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

The reality is, if God does indeed exist then he is actually taking away my ability to make a choice. He is hindering my free will to choose because he hasn't made a case for his own existence. Until he does that, belief in him is not an option.

Of course it is. You have to have faith.

I'm not making a choice not to believe. I physically cannot believe the myth, the magic, the talking snake, the talking donkey, people turning into salt, dead people coming back to life, people living in big fish etc. I'm not choosing to dismiss it.. it's automatically dismissed as a possible option.

That's called being closed-minded.

So yeah, if your God is real.. he isn't putting himself forward as an option for me to choose. And therefore by extension he is happy to see me go to hell for eternity because I can't believe extraordinary claims when there is no evidence .

No one is going to Hell for eternity.

Your loving God could prevent that in a second.... But he chooses not to

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[bhsmte]

If you don't accept the possibility of eternal life, why are you complaining that you can't have it?



What finite action on earth would deserve an eternal reward in Heaven?



Yeah, I've debated this stuff with them before. I'm aware my position isn't the most popular.



So you say, but you probably have made choices to believe certain things regarding your worldview, ethics, and such that you don't even realize.



It's basic logic. Humans are finite beings by definition - we are born, we grow older, and we die. Living eternally is not our natural state.



So you would prefer to be something completely inhuman then, an eternal, unchanging being with no concept of mortality? That would not even be comparable to a human in how it thinks?



Not getting what you want for free just because you demand it =/= punishment.



You want your ability and propensity to sin removed?

Fine then, you're no longer a human being - you're a mindless (or at least completely psychologically alien) creature, completely unable to identify with any of the thoughts or ideas you had as a human. In effect you no longer exist, you have been destroyed and replaced with a completely different entity. Do you want that?



Of course you did. You said that God is punishing people for being human, by letting them die, even though that is part of what defines us as humans.







Of course it is. You have to have faith.



That's called being closed-minded.



No one is going to Hell for eternity.

I don't believe I have ever complained about not having eternal life, because it likely does not exist, IMO.

What I have critiqued, is the typical Christian belief of who gets eternal life and how I believe, it is immoral.

 

[TheStraightener]

So being unable to believe in all that myth and magic stuff in the bible makes me closed minded?

 

[Strathos]

I don't believe I have ever complained about not having eternal life, because it likely does not exist, IMO.

What I have critiqued, is the typical Christian belief of who gets eternal life and how I believe, it is immoral.

If you think it's immoral that believers in Christ are granted eternal life and you are not, then you must desire eternal life for yourself. If you don't, then you wouldn't care.

 

[Strathos]

So being unable to believe in all that myth and magic stuff in the bible makes me closed minded?

Being unable to even consider it does.

 

[bhsmte]

If you think it's immoral that believers in Christ are granted eternal life and you are not, then you must desire eternal life for yourself. If you don't, then you wouldn't care.

Not quite.

I am critiquing how some decide to judge others and buy the story that the judgment is moral. Nothing to do with a desire I have for something I don't believe exists.

 

[Strathos]

Not quite.

I am critiquing how some decide to judge others and buy the story that the judgment is moral. Nothing to do with a desire I have for something I don't believe exists.

Being overly judgmental is not a good thing, Christians shouldn't be arrogant, we should be humble.

 

[TheStraightener]

Being unable to even consider it does.

I'm sorry. Animals don't talk, people don't turn into salt, dead people don't come back to life and people don't live in fish. What is there to consider?

 

[TheStraightener]

I've also allowed this to get off track.

We still haven't an acceptable answer to how if this plot was transposed into any other story then Satan would be the hero and God would be the villain.

 

[Skavau]

If you think it's immoral that believers in Christ are granted eternal life and you are not, then you must desire eternal life for yourself. If you don't, then you wouldn't care.

This isn't true. The belief that a certain category of people are determined to languish in eternal hell is an endorsement of torture. That kind of contemptible statement should not go unchallenged.