Satan and Hell

SteveB

Well-known member
Apparently you think it's obvious that in order to know who is or is not part of some narrative, you have to believe it's a true story.
Nope. But at the same time, I don't need to discount what I hadn't heard of before as a lie, right after I hear about it, unless I've previously established through experience it's deceptive nature.

So, I find myself wondering why you should start with arguing that Jesus isn't who he claims to be, when you have no knowledge.

A common sense approach would be to start with- you have no idea what it is, and then learn so you could make an informed decision about your eternity.

But that's absurd on its face. If it were true, then nobody would be able to say whether or not Julius Caesar was referred to in the Iliad unless they believed it was a true story.
Why would they need to assume anything other than a written text had basis in history?
(Possible good-faith response to this: "no, that's not the assumption I was making; rather, this comment was based on the truism that..." [followed by an actual, relevant truism]. Likely SteveB response to this: " 'Apparently'... Have you ever considered that what's 'apparent' to you is not apparent to me, and that is why I know Jesus while you are choosing to go to the lake of fire in order to avoid Him?" [followed by seven hundred words of irrelevant Bible quotations].)
Sounds like you have already decided that your lack of knowledge and awareness means that any experience you lack makes the experiences of others invalid, because there's nothing there which would make it valid.

As I recall, that's arrogant ignorance.

🤷🏽‍♂️
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You are the one who said I was an expert.
Sarcasm.

However, I do know that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel, and that is enough to defeat you in this discussion.
Curious.

So you don't actually like learning for yourself, even after the descriptions for the kind of research you need to do are given to you.

Well, I can't help you with this, but here's some materials that give the historical background of this issue.




This matter of satan, Lucifer, the kings of Babylon and tyre are not new issues. They date back millennia.

So, blaming me for just accepting what others think without question speaks more to your own intellectual laziness than mine.
If I had to detail everything I've learned over the past 44+ years, and where I learned it, and why I've come to believe it, you'd fall asleep in 30 minutes.
So, if you actually want to know, you need to learn.
Learn to read, learn to understand, learn to ask questions of actual experts, who have far more education than either of us combined.






Because I can read the Bible without believing it is true, and I can see that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel.
But apparently you don't actually know how to do any research to learn the background of why it's believed that satan is the serpent of Genesis 3, the satan of Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28.

Why is this? Did you lose your ability to learn and reason after you finished your education?

No I will not because it is not true.
Ah. So you know what you don't actually know, just because you don't want to know and learn?
You see.... it's things like this which make it so easy to disregard your claims as knowing more about the bible than those of us who are following Jesus.




And one reason for knowing that is the way Christianity twists its own sacred texts. Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel, and yet Christianity uses those books to support its view of Satan.
Curious thing about the Genesis 3 passage....

Rev 12:9 WEB The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Clearly you cannot support Christianity here. You know you do not have a leg to stand on, so can offer nothing to suggest I might be wrong.
Well, when I talk with people who have repeatedly stated they know everything and refuse to learn anything beyond what they believe they already know....
I'm not particularly concerned about it.

You're definitely doing a bang up job of demonstrating that my previous opinions of atheists being more intelligent and educated than myself was wrongly placed.

Because Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel.
I'm going to let you decide whether or not you will read the articles I linked above.

I'm hoping you disappoint me by actually reading them. Because at this point, it's become quite clear that you don't want to know anything beyond your present ideas. So I'm really looking forward to you disappointing me.

You can either turn a blind eye to the facts, and continue to embrace a religion that, to be frank, makes stuff up. Or you can deal with the very simple fact that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis, Isaiah or Ezekiel. If you continue to do the former, why would you imagine anyone will take you seriously, Steve?
I've presented the facts.
Do you actually want to know them, or does the idea that atheists loathe knowledge and understanding really sit well with you.





Rev 12:9 WEB The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
 

Komodo

Well-known member
When @The Pixie said that Satan does not appear in the Book of Genesis, Steve replied "yet you don't believe any of this, so why would I think you actually know what you're talking about." But now he denies that he was claiming you need to believe a story in order to know, for example, who does or doesn't appear in the story. In a way it's understandable that he would deny claiming that, because the claim is very obviously ridiculous. But his denial is also ridiculous, because we know very well that:

If somebody says, "you never served in the military, so why would I think you're in a position to criticize it," then he is claiming that you need to have served in the military to be in a position to criticize it;
If somebody says, "you're not a woman, so why would I think you know anything about sexual harassment," then she is claiming that you need to be a woman to know anything about sexual harassment; and, similarly;
If somebody says, "you don't believe Genesis, so why would I think you actually know who is and isn't in it," then he is claiming that you need to believe Genesis in order to know who is and isn't in it.

So Steve is making one indefensible claim in order to avoid admitting another of his claims was indefensible. This is a very typical plot development on The SteveB Show.

But at the same time, I don't need to discount what I hadn't heard of before as a lie, right after I hear about it, unless I've previously established through experience it's deceptive nature.
This would be an excellent reply if I had said, "you need to start with the assumption that Genesis is a lie." But I didn't say that. I didn't come close to saying it. Nor did I imply it, or suggest it. It is not at all an excellent reply to what I did say, which was that Steve was making the ridiculous assumption that you needed to believe a story in order to know anything about it. In fact it is not a reply at all to that. (Devastating answers to questions which were never asked, and failure to answer questions which were asked, are also common events on The SteveB Show.)

So, I find myself wondering why you should start with arguing that Jesus isn't who he claims to be, when you have no knowledge.
How exactly could you wonder why I should start with arguing that, when I didn't start with arguing that? I also didn't end with arguing that or middle with arguing that; I simply didn't argue that at all. I said nothing whatsoever about Jesus; I only said something about SteveB making an obviously silly assumption in his claim. (Steve being unable to distinguish between an attack on Jesus and a criticism of SteveB is yet another common plot development on The SteveB Show.)

The rest is just more catchphrases from SteveB Show re-runs ("Sounds like you... As I recall, that's...") and not worth bothering with.
 

puddleglum

Well-known member
Yeah, it is not like he will miss the sons and daughters that were killed, right? Their loss was "no more that a light momentary affliction".

When you rationalise murder so casually, you have lost the argument.

When Job is raised from the dead his children will be too. For a believer death is not final.

And the idea of Job gaining those "insights" without the suffering being inflicted in the first place... was dismissed out of hand, for some reason.

Suffering is the result of human sin. God uses the suffering which already exists to bring about good.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Curious.

So you don't actually like learning for yourself, even after the descriptions for the kind of research you need to do are given to you.
How have you concluded that from my post? What you mean is that I refuse to swallow your nonsense unquestioningly. And I never will, Steve. I will always question what you say, in part because you have been proven wrong so often.

Well, I can't help you with this, but here's some materials that give the historical background of this issue.

This matter of satan, Lucifer, the kings of Babylon and tyre are not new issues. They date back millennia.
Of course they do. Christians have been pedalling this nonsense for millenia.

Are you aware the word "Lucifer" does not appear in most Bibles? See for yourself:

How do you explain that Steve?

So, blaming me for just accepting what others think without question speaks more to your own intellectual laziness than mine.
So did you already know Bibles do not mention Lucifer? Why did you even mention him when modern translations omit him altogether?

If I had to detail everything I've learned over the past 44+ years, and where I learned it, and why I've come to believe it, you'd fall asleep in 30 minutes.
Just tell me how you have determined that Isaiah 14 is about Lucifer.

So, if you actually want to know, you need to learn.
Learn to read, learn to understand, learn to ask questions of actual experts, who have far more education than either of us combined.
A lot - all but the Christian evangelicals - agree with me. Include most of the web site you found!





Did you read those links? From the first:

Traditionally, the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 was interpreted as being Satan, with particular application of verses 12–14 to his fall from heaven. This interpretation has lost traction among scholars in the past two centuries with the rise of different approaches to Scripture.

From the second:

The word "Satan" (H7854) does not even appear anywhere in the books of Isaiah or Ezekiel.
...
Since the word "Satan" never appears in the entire book of Isaiah, this verse is open to non-Satan interpretation. E.g., Ellicott:

And

I would suggest that the concepts found in these chapters do not lend themselves to an interpretation that suggests Satan, but instead to the people that are specifically described, which is the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre.

From the third:

Ezekiel refers to an arrogant human ruler. The ruler in this passage exalts himself in pride and is cast down; the casting down is more explicit in the oracle earlier in the chapter (28:2-10).

Only the fourth, from "Enduring word", supports your view. This is an evangelical web site, as their mission statement makes clear, starting "Enduring Word exists to promote the work of Christian discipleship and evangelism worldwide..." I fully accept that evangelical Christians will agree with you. But those experts you mentioned, they agree with me, Steve.

But apparently you don't actually know how to do any research to learn the background of why it's believed that satan is the serpent of Genesis 3, the satan of Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28.
And apparently you could not be bothered to read the web sites you presented as supporting your position. At least I was prepared to do that!

Why is this? Did you lose your ability to learn and reason after you finished your education?
The evidence points to that being more the case for you Steve. I am the one who was prepared to read those four linked web pages.

Curious thing about the Genesis 3 passage....

Rev 12:9 WEB The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
As I showed in post #55, this is about a huge sea monster, a dragon with seven heads, the Leviathan. It is not about a snake.

Well, when I talk with people who have repeatedly stated they know everything and refuse to learn anything beyond what they believe they already know....
I'm not particularly concerned about it.
You seem to be describing yourself. You are so sure you are right, you did not even bother to read those links.

I'm going to let you decide whether or not you will read the articles I linked above.
I decided to read them.

I guess the question now is whether you will. Or do you think you know it all already?

I'm hoping you disappoint me by actually reading them. Because at this point, it's become quite clear that you don't want to know anything beyond your present ideas. So I'm really looking forward to you disappointing me.
You might like to look up what "hope" and "disappoint" actually mean. It makes no sense to hope for a disappointment.

I hope you will read the web pages you linked to. I am worried you will disappoint me and refuse to do so. Do you see how it works?

I've presented the facts.
You have presented your opinion that Revelation refers to the serpent in Genesis. No more than that.

I think you are wrong, and in an earlier post made clear why that is.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
When Job is raised from the dead his children will be too. For a believer death is not final.
So why is murder wrong? The victim will be raised again, just like Job's children.

Suffering is the result of human sin. God uses the suffering which already exists to bring about good.
Do you think Job's kids dying was the result of human sin?

Do you think cancer is the result of human sin?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Human sin caused the curse.
Why did human sin cause the curse?
Did Yahweh cause it to cause the curse, or did he design the system knowing that human sin would cause the curse?
Careful calling people fools, your neck is in the noose when you do it, atheist.
After having Psalm 14:1 thrown in my face for the past twenty-odd years, you people need to learn to give and take.
 
Top