So you don't believe in the devil

a reply to: Astyanax

Your God, friend, is yourself blown up to vast, wobbling size like a flatulent hot-air balloon. So is your Devil. End of conversation − unless you stir yourself to say something intelligent, which going by your form so far would be a genuine miracle.

LMAO well I figured sooner or later I was gonna have to let you
get that out. Couldn't have you wandering around ATS with that bottled up
inside. You might develope somekind of a spastic eye twitch or
something. Feel better now?

So the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible − the Absolute Power over all of Creation, the Alpha and the Omega − tortures Job because he is afraid looking bad in front of his posse? Hahaha!

So it's intelligent to say God tortured Job? Have you actually even read the story?
Seems to me you desperately need to live in your protected little glass house.
You know where reality is only a reflection of what you think it is. So typical
and boring.

a reply to: Unharmed

God did bring Job a happy life again afterwards, making up for all the time Job suffered.

In the first line of this post I said God doesn't do these things, but the story of Job and the verse in Isaiah prove God does do these things, although Satan does the work, God has a plan.

Satan is also merely a creation and should learn the things of God, not?

All the things Satan does God approves of, but God is Master, and like, with time, no matter how long things are wrong, terrible and bad, when the day comes things became good, you're just having a good day and everything goes well again and you move on with life happily again.

Since with God everything is possible, he could make you a private island in the sky with everything you want. He can make you dead for a while and do anything to his endless opportunities to make things good. There's endless time with God and he could keep you alive endlessly. There's nothing to fear with God and nothing to worry about. He could make you walk around without a head and it would be good.

All things are according his approval so everything is just the play played out. Alive you are with God, dead you are with God. Nothing is worth anything more than God because without God all else wouldn't be here, so, okay, we take all the extras with it. They're simply an addition to God's wonderful activity.

Everything is a wonderful play.

Well said, I'm glad you bothered.

History shows TPTB persecute mock marginalize insult and torture
those who are capable of looking thru a wider scope.

Here is some other things to consider.

They say the winner of wars rewrites history. Wouldn't that include the Bible?

There has been book burning why not book rewriting.

Could that be why the Bible has contradicting information? Was it purposefully rewritten to alter the content to cause conflict, division and confusion?

Who/what enjoys conflict, division and confusion?

Why does the Bible still exist if it contains all the answers? Wouldn't it have been destroyed long ago?

Or, was there no need to destroy it because keeping it and altering it served a better purpose?

Do we need it to know what we should do and how we should conduct ourselves? Could it be that that information is already within us?

If you like to look to the Bible for answers would it not be best to disregard all the people and stories and just look for the basic info. provided on how to conduct oneself in a socially productive manner, i.e., respecting 'all' creations and living in harmony with them? E.g. Love thy neighbour, do unto others, judge not lest ye be judged, plus the 10 Commandments. Isn't that enough to go on?

Many realise there is little to no freewill here. However, there is freewill as to how you live your life. Are you peaceful? Do you create, nurture and save; or do you destroy? (Are you malevolent or benevolent?)

This means your actions determine whose side you've chosen.

Why do we need labels like athiest, Christian, agnostic etc. to define us? Especially when it only causes division (by design). Who and what we are is obvious by how we live our lives, no labels needed.

Could it be possible that someone who has no belief in gods, devils or religion could be given undenying personal experiences (evidence) by the unseen because they have chosen a particular path? Proving there is no need to have a label or read any books.

Maybe this evidence is only provided when a person has reached a certain point and passed many tests.

Why do people believe there is only one malevolent and benevolent entity? Because that is what we are told?

Do we need to put labels on everything. Can we not just see something by its actions without classes and hierachies?

Why is it people want to follow something instead of trusting in their own hearts and minds?

Do you believe that material possessions, jobs, social status and achievements show your success? Or, could it be that the more earthly things you aspire to and collect the more disconnected you become from what is really important (you heart and soul). When you have more than enough but others you could help struggle.

Actions speak louder han words. No books required just actions.

Therefore, it is the actions you choose that show the side you choose. As simple as that. No need to complicate it.

a reply to: HighEQ

The eternity, as it says on itself, is undefeated so conquers everything and all times thus God is a winner in nature.

Who understands all of the Bible? God's wisdom and understanding is immense and we all go by it.

a reply to: HighEQ

You ask some very pertinent questions.

They say the winner of wars rewrites history. Wouldn't that include the Bible?

I disagree with the saying; losers rewrite history all the time. In fact, most of the Old Testament is history seen from the losing side. But yes, the Bible, and in particular the New Testament, do show signs of extensive addition and rewriting. Subtraction, too: the process of accepting texts as canonical or rejecting them as apocryphal or spurious was, in fact, censorship. Historicity of the Bible

Why does the Bible still exist if it contains all the answers?

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that it is the Word of God. Conventionally, Christians agree on the ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible (whatever that means), but neither the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox Church consider it to be the final authority on anything; the idea that it 'contains all the answers' is a Protestant superstition, invented by people like Luther and Calvin to replace the authority of the Pope, which they denied.

Protestants were forced to fill a vacuum of their own making... Almost unanimously they saw final authority to reside in the Word of God, which they simply equated with the Bible. The Protestant heritage

The origins and historical accuracy of the Bible have been questioned by scholars since at least the eighteenth century, creating problems for so-called ‘Bible believers’. Higher Criticism.

Could that be why the Bible has contradicting information?

Partly, but it's really more because it was written and compiled over a vast span of time by people who had no idea that it would all one day be put together, and so didn't make any effort to keep the narrative consistent. According to secular scholars, the oldest part of the Bible (the Song of the Sea, Exodus 15:1–18) had already been written down by 1300BC. The most recent book is Revelation, written about 95AD. Dating the Bible

If you like to look to the Bible for answers would it not be best to disregard all the people and stories and just look for the basic info. provided on how to conduct oneself in a socially productive manner, i.e., respecting ‘all’ creations and living in harmony with them? E.g. Love thy neighbour, do unto others, judge not lest ye be judged, plus the 10 Commandments. Isn't that enough to go on?

But, as you say, they contradict one another. The Ten Commandments demand strict observance of the Sabbath; Jesus pooh-poohed that. Moses instructed those who had been wronged or injured to extract vengeance in kind: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Jesus instructed the wronged to forgive offenders seventy times seven. Nobody in Scripture − not even Jesus − ‘judges not’; they all pass judgement like fury. God himself changes his mind several times in the Bible, and admits it, too; He regrets that he created man, regrets that he made Saul King of the Hebrews, etc. The Books of Job and Revelation, at opposite ends of the historical timespan of the Bible, are both about God changing His mind.

***

Do we need [the Bible] to know what we should do and how we should conduct ourselves? Could it be that that information is already within us?

This, of course, is a matter of opinion. My own answers would be, respectively, No and Yes. Aside from one stunning insight − Christ’s second commandment, which can be re-stated in biological terms as ‘treat all members of your species as though they were your identical twins’, there is no unique moral teaching in the Bible; you can find it all in other texts. That one commandment, however, is of such vast importance that it overshadows every other moral insight ever had by anybody else anywhere, ever. It has made the world we live in today.

Yet the basis of it was, in a sense, already within us. It existed in the form of a complex of instincts evolved in us as social animals − to nurture our near kin, to support and protect them, to exchange gifts, to cooperate with our wider kin group for mutual benefit and protection and so on. Jesus had the brilliant idea of getting people to train themselves to extend those instincts beyond their kin group to the whole human race, and to do it ‘from the heart’, ie as an expression of love. The popular claim that he was God in human form is a tribute to the unique nature and power of this insight.

Could it be possible that someone who has no belief in gods, devils or religion could be given undenying personal experiences (evidence) by the unseen because they have chosen a particular path? Proving there is no need to have a label or read any books.

I’m guessing that by ‘undenying’ you mean ‘undeniable’. A bit of logic resolves the question. If someone has no belief in the supernatural, they will either change their minds when offered undeniable proof of it, or else they will reject it, and logic with it. Therefore the answer to this question has to be ‘no’. But no-one needs ‘the unseen’ to tell them how to behave. The knowledge and even the motivation are, as discussed, within us already.

Why do people believe there is only one malevolent and benevolent entity?

You are speaking only of Westerners. Western cultural tradition just happens to be monotheistic: it emerged from Judaism, in which only one god is worshipped, and gave birth to Christianity, Manicheanism and Islam, all of which inherited from it the idea that there is only one god (and in some traditions, though not all, a devil as well). In other parts of the world, however, the idea of one god and/or one devil is quite foreign. Most faiths are polytheistic; good and evil are not necessarily absolutes represented by different deities but are situational, transactional and equally to be expected from any supernatural entity.

Can we not just see something by its actions without classes and hierachies?

Some of us try to. The first of my personal Three Commandments is, ‘When words and actions disagree, trust the action not the word.’ However, it is difficult to apply experience and learning in one’s daily life without dividing things up into categories in this way. Categorization and judgement are key tools in our cognitive kit; we discard them at our peril.

Why is it people want to follow something instead of trusting in their own hearts and minds?

Because we are social animals. Our instinct is to follow dominant members of our social group and to place as much or more weight on the judgements of the group (and its leaders) as on our own. The idea that humans are free to do what they want is false. We are, to the greatest extent, driven by instinct, responding to stimuli in our environments in ways we cannot wholly control. Only a very small part of us is rational. So the idea that we are free agents, able to do whatever we like, is just as mistaken as the opposite belief − that we are helpless slaves to instinct or conditioning and have no freedom of choice whatsoever.

The truth, I think, lies between these extremes.

More to follow below.

originally posted by: HighEQ

Do we need it to know what we should do and how we should conduct ourselves? Could it be that that information is already within us?

Every day we can learn on what to do even more. I'm sure there's things in there who can make you understand more of what we are.

a reply to: Astrocometus

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

-Isahiah 45;7

God likes evolution. With God people can make little understanding more understanding. People can make clay into bricks, bricks into houses. So too God likes to make little knowledge become more knowledge. Little love more love. With God the way is up.

So I post what I think about God and then I look outside the window and I was like, there's a tree. Now, God sees the right, right at this very moment for as long as the tree exists and that is like with everything and he knows beforehand the wrong keys I press on my keyboard. God leaves the tree growing. I guess he's alright with the tree.

a reply to: HighEQ

I left this one for last.

Who/what enjoys conflict, division and confusion?

Ha! Many of the posters on this thread would undoubtedly answer ‘Satan!’ but Satan is an imaginary being. The truth is that nobody enjoys conflict, division and confusion.

A more instructive question to ask is ‘who or what enjoys unity, harmony and orderliness?’

Allow me to suggest a few answers.

• Choirmeisters and orchestra conductors
  
• Military drill instructors
  
• Bureaucrats of every kind
  
• Low-level managers and HR personnel
  
• Obsessive-compulsive neurotics
  
• People who lack intelligence and flexibility of mind
  
• People who can’t bear to be contradicted
  
• Racists and ethnic supremacists
  
• Religious fanatics of every faith
  
• Oligarchs, despots, strongmen, dictators: all tyrants

Conflict, division and confusion are unavoidable, because people are all different, and want different things at different times. What really matters is how we deal with them. If our response is to suppress them, and to punish those whose ideas and views differ from our own, we are not only behaving inhumanely and selfishly, we are also bound to create even more division and conflict in the long run. Action and reaction, cause and effect. If, on the other hand, we accept that other people’s needs and wants deserve as much consideration as our own, then we can talk across our divisions and negotiate compromises that, although they may not satisfy anybody one hundred per cent, will at least allow everyone to rub along together in relative peace and get on with their lives without excessive interference from others. That is how successful human societal groups − from quilting bees to great nations − function and have always functioned.

The appearance of perfect order, unity and harmony, on the other hand, is always evidence of great evil at work.

a reply to: HighEQ

Like these questions, think I've already been beaten to a few of my 'left-handed' answers.

Why do people believe there is only one malevolent and benevolent entity? Because that is what we are told?

Dualistic Monotheism. Wasn't always that way.

It went through stages of Polytheism, Monolatry, and finally montheism.

By 1200 the Monolatrous trend was well under way. Later Canaanites (Phoenicians) exalted Ba'al, still had a pantheon, but civilization between 1300 and 600 took a single god turn. Likewise, with Marduk in Babylon.

But Zoraster (The Avesta) solidified the game to a specific duality dynamic. Though it was already reminiscent in Lotan/Baal with the Canaanites as they transitioned to Hebrews. As many gods became one, duality took precedence.

When The Persians came in and allowed a return to the Temple Mount, Mazda/Ahriman heavily influenced the writing of the Old Testament.

Which has been dated, due to existence of loan words, to AFTER the fall of Babylon. The aforementioned Song of the Sea predates the rest of the Genesis composition by 600 years. As well as some deuteronomic history. In fact, only a small portion of the Pentateuch existed before 539 BCE.

Do we need to put labels on everything. Can we not just see something by its actions without classes and hierachies?

I don't know about you, but I'm judgey and willfull as f*ck. I try to stone myself in the process, but that's not necessarily a Christian thing.

Have you ever heard of Howard Bloom? E.g. The Lucifer Principle

The Lucifer Principle is a 1995 book by American author Howard Bloom, in which he argues that social groups, not individuals, are the primary "unit of selection" on genes and human psychological development. He states that both competition between groups and competition between individuals shape the evolution of the genome.

I say it all stems from something along those lines, no matter how special we consider ourselves to be able to describe it.

Why is it people want to follow something instead of trusting in their own hearts and minds?

That goes with this quote of yours.

Do we need it to know what we should do and how we should conduct ourselves? Could it be that that information is already within us?

I am of the Richard Dawkins school of the control meme. Everything from morality to "passed on" trauma. While there are arguments for genetic memory, social tendencies are largely learned through environment and observation.

The within us is rudimentary. Empathy is within us. It's a mammalian trait. The heartbreaking videos of animal empathy attest to this. Bonds and love are more or less absorbed by these control mechanisms. Likewise a desire to stratify and thrive are within us, it's an inherent balancing act even in the simplistic form..

It's rooted in the basic and converted to a nice abstract code of conduct for everyone to follow.

I think the reasons this happens lies in Dunbar's Number, or the empathetic limit for human emotional interaction. Clans of Kindred hunter/gatherers were within the empathetic limit. It can regulate itself somewhat anarchistically, under respected elders, and without a need for a greater abstract code.

Exceed that, like when in a society, and these artifical representations of natural respect things, or the assumption therein, tend to fill in where direct empathetic connection can no longer keep cohesion.

I could prattle on with this, but that's enough to share my opinion, which has been partially covered. Love these topics though.

And almost no one will see my answers as partially influenced by nihilism.

@ Astyanax, Unharmed, Degradation33.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in response to what I provided.

People put a lot of faith in the history 'we have been given' and the information others provide. What if everything is a lie? Referencing is a very clever system that keeps the same information regurgitated.

If people know the Bible has been changed many times and even translations could be incorrect why refer to it at all as a reliable source? And who is King James? Are we to believe with that title he is an expert we can trust? More to come on so-called experts.

In our posts on ATS we are asked to provide reasons for edits, does the Bible provide reasons for edits and show what was changed?

Wouldn't it be better to think, well I wasn't around then or I've not experienced that so I cannot know for certain?

There is evidence that we follow the crowd due to survival and social instincts. However, psychologists have shown this can be to our detriment because the group don't always get it right. Also, there are those that know people follow the majority and take advantage of this.

Psychologists have also identified that when someone is deemed an expert or given an important title we will believe them without question.

Psychologists are considered experts, therefore, taking their advice they should not be believed without questioning either. Fortunately with social sciences there are usually instances in our lives where we can see for ourselves that what they say is 'sometimes' correct.

Wouldn't it be best to take this approach with everything? Unless we can see it, hear, touch it etc. ourselves we should not believe it? Maybe park it until we can get our own proof?

Even when it comes to believing in gods, devils, ghosts, aliens etc. It's all just someone else's story unless we have our own experience and evidence we cannot 'know' it is true.

If we tell people this is how it is, I 'know'---when in actual fact we have no proof---we risk sharing falsehoods and deceiving others. Wouldn't it be safer to say, here's my view but it may not be right as I have no direct proof only what I've heard and read from others.

In a court of law evidence must be supplied, we accept this as the appropriate system. Then why not with all other instances in life?

In relation to categorising/labelling. Some would say we have evolved as humans in learning to speak and write. But, have we really when that ability has caused so much harm? Instead of choosing to use it for good it is now mostly used to argue, deceive, divide, judge and harm.

Re: the Devil being organised and wanting unity. That could be deemed as true in that some demons are extremely organised in how they operate to make other's lives chaotic. And I can also see how they create unity by deceiving people into thinking and acting the same. This is where it goes back to taking advantage that many are likely to follow the largest group or so-called experts.

I think this could go under the flaws of the labelling system, where it is deemed only a certain group are organised and create unity. Whereas, in real life we see these are not group skills but individual. In that view we could say 'some' demons are very organised and so they have the roles that require that skill. Likewise in benevolent spirits.

You state that Satan is not real Astyanax because you haven't got the evidence to support that, that good reasoning and logic. But, others believe there is something malevolent as they have experienced it themselves. Might be something you want to park 'awaiting proof'.

The unseen demons are also said to be masters of deceit. Some may see that many things are now being inverted, e.g. Lucifer is the benevolent one. Psychopaths are of good value as they are great leaders and charismatic. Whereas, psychologists are now stating the opposite of empaths, labelling them antisocial because they are too sensitive. It would seem according to some so-called experts, good is now bad. Should we believe them and blindly follow or question them? This could be deemed as evidence that something malevolent has got a good grasp on this World and many in it.

Also, what makes an expert? Many deemed expert have only memorised and referenced the information others have told them is correct.

I'll leave it there as I'm not a big supporter of spending time online and we could go on forever. But, I thank you for sharing your views, I will be giving them some thought.

It's not a problem if it's all a lie.

We seem to live every day.

Edit: Perfection is what makes an expert.

Then there is the Grateful Dead line 'A friend of the devil is a friend of mine' which might be more relevant considering the earlier Gen when it was considered the in thing to subvert the predominant paradigm not necessarily devil worship. I think I have seen the devil real time in some people under the influence of drugs that make them liars. a reply to: RAY1990

a reply to: Aurora1

a reply to: HighEQ

*Pinches bridge of nose and sighs*
King James was the King of England & Scotland, the first king of the Stuart Dynasty, which succeeded the Tudor Dynasty in 1603. If you want to really split hairs, he was James I & VI, which is to say the first king of that regnal name in England and the sixth in Scotland, as the two were separate countries at that time. It's a bit complicated.
The King James version of the bible was created to address certain concerns regarding the first English-language translations of the bible, something that had previously been available only in Latin (some puritan versions used the word 'oppressor' instead of 'king' for example). A group of translators were given the job of creating a standard version of the bible, which we now call the King James Version. The King himself had nothing to do with the work of translation it.

originally posted by: Astrocometus

Only the secular would doubt who Dylan was referring to.

We can go thru the many musical artists, politcians even the vatican
and prove the devils existence by the many venues and personalities
that obviously believe worship and serve him. Sadly if you choose to
ignore what's right in your face? It can only be because you have decided
God does not exist. And you can't believe in one without the other.

Soon you won't be able to ignore the truth. That's just what time it is.

I missed your logic on this. So, you are saying that if others believe the devil is real then that is proof that he is real?

a reply to: HighEQ

Who is King James?

Making claims about the text of the Bible without even knowing who the King James associated with it was suggests either vast ignorance, overweening arrogance, or both. For charity’s sake let’s go with the ignorance, and call it innocence.

People put a lot of faith in the history 'we have been given' and the information others provide. What if everything is a lie? Referencing is a very clever system that keeps the same information regurgitated.

I study history and write books about it. In fact, you could call me a historian. I follow citations − what you call ‘a clever system that keeps the same information regurgitated’ − constantly in my work. I produce them, too, as part of my work. But you don’t need me to explain citations to you − anyone whose education has gone beyond high school understands that their purpose is to help scholars find source materials and to provide sources of verification for statements made in a text. They are certainly not intended to prop up some kind of ‘official story’. There is no such story: historians are always coming up with new ideas, or new angles on old knowledge. But not the kind of sensationalist stories the general public wants. Scholars rarely pay much attention to what the general public wants.

What makes an expert?

Have you never acquired any skill of any kind? If you had, you would already know the answer to the question you are asking. If you haven’t, go and ask a friend who is a star athlete, a whiz on some musical instrument or a real hotshot at Grand Theft Auto what an expert is. Get your answer from the horse’s mouth.

***

If people know the Bible has been changed many times and even translations could be incorrect why refer to it at all as a reliable source?

To oversimplify massively, the people who ‘know the Bible has been changed many times’ (that’s not exactly what I said but it will do) and the people who refer to it as ‘a reliable source’ are not the same people. The second lot (like you) don’t believe what the first lot say. They prefer to believe those who tell them that the Bible is the Holy Word of God. They have never heard of non-religious Biblical scholarship, never wondered about the obvious contradictions in the Bible. Most of them haven’t even read the text − as we have seen many times in this thread.

***

Wouldn't it be best to take this approach with everything? Unless we can see it, hear, touch it etc. ourselves we should not believe it?

What makes you think your own five senses are the best judge of what is true and real? Any traffic cop will tell you that if you listen to three eyewitnesses describe an accident, you’d think they’re describing three different ones. And we all know how our senses can be dulled or duped by optical and other illusions, by drugs, alcohol or illness, strong belief, strong emotion, mental illness, etc, etc. Besides, you have only your personal, limited knowledge of the world on which to base your judgement of these things, because if you don’t accept anything except the evidence of your senses as true, you can’t ever improve your judgement through education. You’d be caught in a bind of ignorance and cynicism from which there is no escape.

What you are doing, although you may not realise it, is wilfully rejecting all the benefits that came with the invention of writing. You want to go back six thousand years.

psychologists have shown that

You use this phrase a lot, don’t you? I think what you really mean is ‘I believe that’ or ‘I read on the internet that.’ Psychologists notoriously say a lot of different things, and different psychologists say contradictory things, and by the time what they all say gets dumbed down to grade-school level for internet consumption they could be saying just about anything. If you want to make your claims credible and effective, don’t tell us that ‘psychologists have shown’; use the citation system referred to above. Or if it is an internet source, simply provide a link to the source (as I have done in my own posts above). That’s the ATS method in any case.

Re: the Devil being organised and wanting unity.

Did I say that, or anything like it? I did not, neither did I imply anything like it.

You state that Satan is not real Astyanax because you haven't got the evidence to support that, that good reasoning and logic. But, others believe there is something malevolent as they have experienced it themselves. Might be something you want to park 'awaiting proof'.

How long do I have to wait for this proof? Until I die? I’m sixty-five years oId, kid, and I’ve travelled. I used to be quite interested in the occult when I was younger. I have watched sanyasis walk over beds of coals and everyday Hindu penitents suspend themselves in mid-air from hundreds of hooks passed through their flesh. I have seen Sufi dervishes sharpening swords to gash themselves with (I didn’t stay to watch the gashing). I saw these things, not from paying seats in some auditorium, but close enough to frenzied devotees to touch them, actually to be jostled against them in a crowd and splashed with their blood. I have also watched Christian exorcisms, or what were claimed to be exorcisms. I have watched non-Christian exorcisms (aka ‘devil worshipping’) too, rites in which the ‘demon’ is bribed with offerings and flattered, not threatened, in order to make it leave its victim alone.

The lady in my profile picture is a friend of mine; she handles live, venomous snakes as part of her spiritual practice and sleeps in the ashes from Hindu cremation-grounds, which is why she sometimes looks the way she does in the picture. Yet in all my years I have never seen any proof of the existence of either deities or demons. What I have seen is the incredible, seemingly unlimited human capacity for hysteria, self-delusion...and transcendence. It is an amazing thing.

I wish you liberation through knowledge.

Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Love is very important.

a reply to: Unharmed

I like your style, but I disagree with the first part. The second part I do agree with − it’s a precondition for getting Christ’s method to work in any case, plus we could all use a bit more brotherhood. And sisterhood, obviously. In fact, lots of sisterhood. Obviously.