 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > I met the devil, and he is me ( Doc/Icon) | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/21/2004 3:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | Contemporary revisionism is something that we all do, and that has always been done. (I used to bicycle "up-hill both ways" to school, when I was a boy.) Its anachronistic revision to read an issue into an author that they did not worry about when the wrote. I'm readin John Behr's "The Nicene Faith" (Finished his "The Road to Nicea") and appreciate that he separates out the mileau and issues that theologians like Origin, Athanasius, Basil actually had -- and hense how their challenges differed from each other. Later, people find the words they wrote and find great resource in them. Or, in the case of Origin, some of his writing got condemned (banned?) because of what later generations did with it -- all the while similar parts of it had other benefitial things done with them. (Sometimes works would get published under pseudonymns to keep this "straight.")
But, I was asking (wondering) whether Icon wasn't reading philosophies, world views (like the eastern religions that entered American pop-culture in the 60s, 70s, and 80s) on-top-of the text, using the text for clothing for a belief that is in place before even going to the text. (I've often heard of religions saying "Here, we are Christian too -- Christ is a great teacher, etc...) If so its even more troublesome than Isogesis.
I appreciated Icon answering. But I'm not convinced in one direction, and can't know in the other.... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/21/2004 4:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
What I am suggesting is that Jesus allowed the man to take out his anger by killing the innocent pigs. It was the man himself who caused the pigs to go over the cliff.
Hello Icon,
Your interpretation of Mark 5:1-13 boils down to one simple question. What influenced two thousand pigs to rush off to their death? It’s amazing that the madman could get two thousand pigs to voluntarily run off a steep bank to their death. Was it a miracle?
Thanks,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:10 AM (GMT -6) | | sparknheart
Hello Icon,
Your interpretation of Mark 5:1-13 boils down to one simple question. What influenced two thousand pigs to rush off to their death? It’s amazing that the madman could get two thousand pigs to voluntarily run off a steep bank to their death. Was it a miracle?
Iconoclast
I believe that humans have this kind of power within them.
I believe that we display this sort of power only when acting out of total faith - faith around the size of a mustard seed.
Jesus said that if we have faith the size of a mustard seed we can say to this mountain, "go jump into the sea" and it will be done for us.
I believe this to be literally true. I believe that we have vast power that we are not tapped into because of our disunity with God.
We have all heard of people suddenly having the strength to lift a car off of one of their loved ones.
We have all heard of poltergeists doing incredible things and "demon possession" causing humans to do extraordinary things. I do not believe that these are literal spirits. I believe that these are manifestations that people themselves are causing unconsciously. This happens in times of great emotional distress. It is most common among adolescents - especially very troubled ones. Who of us has not experienced these kinds of things although usually on a smaller scale?
Jesus told Peter to come to Him on the water. Peter jumped out of the boat and started walking on the water. Was this a "miracle" or simply a demonstration of the power that us humans have? The answer lies, in my opinion, in the fact that when Peter started losing faith he started sinking. Thus, it was not by Jesus personal power that Peter started walking on the water. It was by Peter's personal faith that Peter walked on the water. Yes, it was Jesus' personal power that rescued Peter when Peter's faith faltered.
Now, where did Peter get this extraordinary faith to do this? Jesus called it out of him by first showing him it was possible and then by presupposing that Peter could do it too. But notice that even after Peter was actually walking on the water - even after he has incontrovertible proof that he could do it - he still lost faith - why? Because our conscious mind simply refuses to believe. Having great faith is not about conscious ascent, this is required but it is not enough - it is more about turning off the conscious judger within and allowing the holy spirit to become one with our subconscious - with our whole being.
The man had the power to send the pigs to their death because:
1. He was operating out of great emotional distress.
2. Jesus was in contact with the man's whole being - with his subconscious. (this is why Jesus asked the demon's name - he was gaining permission to speak to the man's deep subconscious which was fragmented into multiple personalities - "legion")
3. Jesus presupposed that the man was capable of sending his anger - his fragmented angry subconscious agents - into the pigs.
Which all adds up to - the man had the faith of a mustard seed and said to those pigs - go jump into the sea. Just like Peter had the faith of a mustard seed and was able to walk on water.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | billzbob
But, I was asking (wondering) whether Icon wasn't reading philosophies, world views (like the eastern religions that entered American pop-culture in the 60s, 70s, and 80s) on-top-of the text, using the text for clothing for a belief that is in place before even going to the text. (I've often heard of religions saying "Here, we are Christian too -- Christ is a great teacher, etc...) If so its even more troublesome than Isogesis.
I appreciated Icon answering. But I'm not convinced in one direction, and can't know in the other....
Iconoclast
We all bring worldviews to our interpretations billzbob. You do and I do. The problem is that our worldviews are themselves a product of our interpretations. Thus to try and rationalize interpretations based on worldviews is trying to rationalize worldviews themselves. This is unfruitful.
Jesus said that we will know them by their fruit - not by their worldview. The fruit is what the worldview produces not the worldview itself.
Out of our worldview we behave, we act. Out of our behavior, our action we produce fruit, we produce results.
I am putting forth a worldview that is based on all the convergent evidence from all my experience and my learning. This worldview implies behavior which implies results - which implies fruit.
Thus, I think a fruitful attack on what I am suggesting would be to either show how my evidence is mistaken or to show how what I am suggesting has negative implications for our behavior and thus for the results one would produce acting out of that worldview.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kublai Khan
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
But, I was asking (wondering) whether Icon wasn't reading philosophies, world views (like the eastern religions that entered American pop-culture in the 60s, 70s, and 80s) on-top-of the text, using the text for clothing for a belief that is in place before even going to the text. (I've often heard of religions saying "Here, we are Christian too -- Christ is a great teacher, etc...) If so its even more troublesome than Isogesis.
Mr. billzbob, Mr. Iconoclast has come up with an interesting idea that deserves consideration.
(The results appear to be the same to me.)
Why do you critique his methodology?
If you found the approximate value of a root using Newton's method and a Chinese kid found the same (or better) value using an abacus and some method you didn't understand, you'd critique his methodology?
I'd be, "damn, how'd he do that?"
"Necessity is the mother of invention but curiousity is the fuel that drives the motor of... well, curiousity is important, too." -- Mom
"Arrest the usual suspects." | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon: Thus, I think a fruitful attack on what I am suggesting would be to either show how my evidence is mistaken or to show how what I am suggesting has negative implications for our behavior and thus for the results one would produce acting out of that worldview.
Bill: I'm only guessing as to methology. And NOTICE that I said I "can't know." I wonder. I don't pretend to know.
But I do fear that you irrode (sp?) and might continue to irrode even the basis for our salvation in Christ's dying on the cross and resurrection. (Reduced to mere metaphor, or more likely a demonstration, rather than accomplishing what the Church says was accomplished.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/21/2004 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
Contemporary revisionism is something that we all do, and that has always been done. (I used to bicycle "up-hill both ways" to school, when I was a boy.) Its anachronistic revision to read an issue into an author that they did not worry about when the wrote. I'm readin John Behr's "The Nicene Faith" (Finished his "The Road to Nicea") and appreciate that he separates out the mileau and issues that theologians like Origin, Athanasius, Basil actually had -- and hense how their challenges differed from each other. Later, people find the words they wrote and find great resource in them. Or, in the case of Origin, some of his writing got condemned (banned?) because of what later generations did with it -- all the while similar parts of it had other benefitial things done with them. (Sometimes works would get published under pseudonymns to keep this "straight.")
But, I was asking (wondering) whether Icon wasn't reading philosophies, world views (like the eastern religions that entered American pop-culture in the 60s, 70s, and 80s) on-top-of the text, using the text for clothing for a belief that is in place before even going to the text. (I've often heard of religions saying "Here, we are Christian too -- Christ is a great teacher, etc...) If so its even more troublesome than Isogesis.
I appreciated Icon answering. But I'm not convinced in one direction, and can't know in the other....
I appreciate your explanation...but it is so far above how I think, the words I use... Sorry, I know that I am not a theologian here. If you do explain things to me, please keep them as simply put as possible, with simple examples...ones we can all relate to. There are times when I really wonder if I'm kidding myself trying to keep up with these threads. I'm learning, but it's like the epistemic distance thing...one step forward - two steps back.
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/21/2004 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | JoAnne, the answer was the second paragraph. It seems that Icon takes elements of Bahai, Tao, etc. and finds Christian stories to convey them. Whether that perception on my part is true or not, that is what I was meaning. How many religions try to claim Christ. (Just about all of them.)
Start with the Cross. Don't try to make the cross fit other things.
Resist embracing inventions. Find out what the Church as all along said about the Cross.
Ever read Christian History Mag. that Christianity Today puts out? | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/21/2004 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
JoAnne, the answer was the second paragraph. It seems that Icon takes elements of Bahai, Tao, etc. and finds Christian stories to convey them. Whether that perception on my part is true or not, that is what I was meaning. How many religions try to claim Christ. (Just about all of them.)
Start with the Cross. Don't try to make the cross fit other things.
Resist embracing inventions. Find out what the Church as all along said about the Cross.
Ever read Christian History Mag. that Christianity Today puts out?
I've never read Christian History Mag. I agree that the cross is central, but also believe in the priesthood of the believer. I think you do too. If I wasn't open to listening to my friend, and exploring the open view - I would have missed out on a lot.
I'm trying to understand Iconoclast's perspective, without jumping to my own conclusions. I don't expect to agree with everything, but I do expect to learn. I guess I'm rarely disappointed here, because I come from a not so theological perspective. As questioner so elequently put it...I'm not in the same boat as the "theological taffy pullers."
I've learned some of the lingo though, and that could be a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands 
I would be called heretical in my church for exploring, let alone embracing, the open view. ("Mum's the word") How about that...a theology that you have to keep "under wraps" for fear of condemnation.
Oh, the things we Christians do to each other!
A closet OV-er 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/21/2004 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob It seems that Icon takes elements of Bahai, Tao, etc. and finds Christian stories to convey them. Whether that perception on my part is true or not, that is what I was meaning. How many religions try to claim Christ. (Just about all of them.)
Hello billzbob,
Why do you care if he takes elements of Bahai, Tao, etc? Do you fear for Icon's salvation? Is there not at least a speck of good in most religions?
1 Tim. 4:4
Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it. We may receive it gladly, with thankful hearts.
Peace,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
The man had the power to send the pigs to their death because:
1. He was operating out of great emotional distress.
2. Jesus was in contact with the man's whole being - with his subconscious. (this is why Jesus asked the demon's name - he was gaining permission to speak to the man's deep subconscious which was fragmented into multiple personalities - "legion")
3. Jesus presupposed that the man was capable of sending his anger - his fragmented angry subconscious agents - into the pigs.
Which all adds up to - the man had the faith of a mustard seed and said to those pigs - go jump into the sea. Just like Peter had the faith of a mustard seed and was able to walk on water.
Most excellent Iconoclast,
Your reference of Peter walking on water was a great illustration used to sustain your premise. I will continue analyzing all related threads used to support your hypothesis. I find this to be a very interesting discussion, thanks.
Shalom,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne
If the satan is metaphorical, then weren't Job's friends correct in saying that it was something Job had done that brought this upon him (a judgemental stance)?
Iconoclast
Everything that happened to Job is what is called "natural evil". And yes, it is true, that God created a world where natural evil befalls people. But natural evil falls both on the wicked as well as the righteous. It has absolutely nothing to do with being righteous or wicked at all. Thus, Eliphaz is incorrect.
Job's troubles did not occur because Job sinned. The heavenly scene (whether ha-satan is literal or not) makes this clear.
In my view, natural evil is a product of entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynamics - which says that things go from a state of higher order to a state of lower order). I think it is clear that God created a world with entropy as a fundamental law and thus we experience natural evil. Why any particular natural evil befalls a person is governed by chaos theory which basically says that it is just way too complex to really determine what the heck is going to happen next.
So why did God create a world with entropy which means that people suffer and die? I believe that entropy is a necessary consequent of Epistemic Distance. Epistemic Distance is the fact that we do not live in the presence of God. We have some "knowledge distance" or "lack of direct knowledge" about God, who He is, and what He wants. Okay, so why did God create us with Epistemic Distance? Why didn't He just create us to be creatures that lived eternally in His constant presence? I believe that answer to this is that once we are in the presence of God then "every knee shall bow" - whether we want to or not. I believe that it is simply impossible to choose against God when directly in His presence - His presence is simply too overpowering. So, what is the problem with this? Love must be chosen else it is not love. I believe that God gives us Epistemic Distance because He is giving us the most amazing gift of them all - the ability to love - we simply cannot have the ability to love if we do not have Epistemic Distance from God. Thus the greatest gift the creator can possibly bestow on His creature is to give the gift of being able to love - which means the gift of being able to choose love - which means Epistemic Distance is required - which means we have to experience entropy - which means we suffer and die.
Now most of don't think this is such a good deal at all. In fact, we accuse God of creating a big nightmare. Why, even if I am really good I still suffer bad things - why would a good God allow a good person to suffer - it is not right? This is the story of Job. And what does God then say to Job? He shows Job Himself and the vast complexity of the created order. At which point Job repents of His accusations toward God.
Jesus ultimately takes care of all these questions. By doing two things:
1. He proves that we are unconditionally loved by God - that we are not suffering and dying because we are really worms who should bow before a terrible god.
2. He shows us what love is. It is suffering and dying for another. It is laying down our own life. God doesn't just give us this gift and let us work it out for ourselves. He actually shows us that love is TOTALLY worth it to us by going through it Himself.
The worst thing is not to suffer and die. The worst thing is to not choose to love. Choosing to love means laying down our own life. And this is the greatest and most loving gift our creator could possibly give us.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne
It's late, but the question that immediately surfaces from this is: What is happening during prayer? Is prayer warfare, against real spiritual powers of darkness, or are we just agreeing with God, and altering our own patterns of thought/behaviour? Is prayer "bringing every thought captive"? Is prayer just great psychology? Or, all of the above?
Iconoclast
I believe that Prayer is all of the above.
How is prayer effective against spiritual forces? I believe spiritual forces are real systemic patterns of messages, attitudes and behaviors (like the 5 gorillas). When we pray we have the power to affect these things. Jesus said that if we have the faith the size of a mustard seed then you can say to this mountain, "go jump into the sea" and it will be done for you.
Of course, moving a mountain is probably multiple orders of magnitude less complex than seriously affecting some systemic pattern like world hunger or racism.
Ultimately to affect these system patterns it means influencing people. It means changing hearts and attitudes and sending out messages of healing rather than hate. Can we do this in prayer. I believe the answer is yes although I think that unless we are in a powerful emotional state (and thus strongly connected with God and our unconscious) our prayers tend to have smaller effects than bigger effects. It is a lot more powerful to let someone know you care about them by helping them out in some small way than it is to pray for them for days on end.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2004 7:13 PM (GMT -6) | | billzbob
But I do fear that you irrode (sp?) and might continue to irrode even the basis for our salvation in Christ's dying on the cross and resurrection. (Reduced to mere metaphor, or more likely a demonstration, rather than accomplishing what the Church says was accomplished.)
Iconoclast
My view is totally Christ centric. I am interpreting everything from the direct revelation of God that we have in Jesus dying on the cross for us. Specifically, that this means that we are unconditionally loved by the creator of the universe. That the ultimate revelation of God is Jesus Christ dying on the cross for us.
If my view in any way erodes this picture of God then I am saying it wrong.
Now, when you say "mere metaphor" I don't really know what you mean. If you mean that I somehow might be suggesting that God or Jesus dying on the cross is metaphorical then I am saying it wrong. I believe Jesus dying on the cross is as literal as it gets - God Himself, totally and fully, showing His unconditional love by dying for us on the cross.
Also, when you say "mere metaphor" are you suggesting that metaphors do not point to powerful spiritual realities? I believe they do. To demonstrate look at what God said to Adam and Eve. He said that "in the day you eat of it you shall surely die." Now clearly this is metaphorical speech for they did not literally die on that day. They did, however, spiritually die on that day which is a powerful spiritual reality that God's "mere metaphor" pointed to.
Again, if you hear me eroding the message and power of Jesus dying on the cross because He unconditionally loves us then please let me know what it is you are hearing me say because I am saying it wrong.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/22/2004 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
So why did God create a world with entropy which means that people suffer and die? I believe that entropy is a necessary consequent of Epistemic Distance. Epistemic Distance is the fact that we do not live in the presence of God. We have some "knowledge distance" or "lack of direct knowledge" about God, who He is, and what He wants. Okay, so why did God create us with Epistemic Distance? Why didn't He just create us to be creatures that lived eternally in His constant presence? I believe that answer to this is that once we are in the presence of God then "every knee shall bow" - whether we want to or not. I believe that it is simply impossible to choose against God when directly in His presence - His presence is simply too overpowering. So, what is the problem with this? Love must be chosen else it is not love. I believe that God gives us Epistemic Distance because He is giving us the most amazing gift of them all - the ability to love - we simply cannot have the ability to love if we do not have Epistemic Distance from God. Thus the greatest gift the creator can possibly bestow on His creature is to give the gift of being able to love - which means the gift of being able to choose love - which means Epistemic Distance is required - which means we have to experience entropy - which means we suffer and die.
A thought. All of this thought only works if you assume that sentient, eternal non-corporeal creatures (ie angels/demons) don't exist. The existence of these creatures that exhibit sufficient epistemic distance to "fall" would be evidence that entropy leading unto death would NOT be necessary.
By the way, WHY do you not believe in angels/demons anyway? THAT would be a great thing to know. Why do angels/demons have to be metaphors. The Walter Wink idea of "powers" is a great idea (and a true one, I believe)...and the parapsychological explanation of certain weird phenomena is a good idea too. BUT, both these ideas can be held alongside a belief in sentient, non-corporeal, free-willed creatures. So why the disbelief in angels, then?
-------------
Iconoclast:
quote:
My view is totally Christ centric. I am interpreting everything from the direct revelation of God that we have in Jesus dying on the cross for us. Specifically, that this means that we are unconditionally loved by the creator of the universe. That the ultimate revelation of God is Jesus Christ dying on the cross for us.
I'd like to know what significance you give to these two things...
1) Christ's INCARNATION
2) Christ's PHYSICAL (as opposed to just spiritual) RESURRECTION
In your opinion, what is the theological signicance of these things?
Surely, they factor into your views on Christ. I know they do to the biblical authors.
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/22/2004 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
In fact, in my mind, the metaphysical questions are seriously complicated by the notion of a purely evil free-will literal entity called Satan who is warring with God. Why would God allow such a thing?
Could you elaborate on this? It's very interesting.
Q | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/22/2004 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid said:
I'll echo your distaste for Left Behind, but the Bible does say that Satan fell from heaven to earth.
Semeia:
So Sahid, does that mean that you think heaven is "up" and earth is "down"? Kind of a problem with the earth being round and all - although the writers of the bible certainly would have perceived the world as flat.
My point is that heaven being “up” is metaphorical speech. And that satan “fell” is also metaphorical speech. Up versus down is a physical concept (a source domain) that gets mapped to the target domains of More and Less, Better and Worse, In Power and Out of Power and so on. To “fall” is a metaphor based on the Up and Down metaphor which gets mapped as going from Up to Down – therefore More to Less, Better to Worse, In Power to Out of Power and so on.
Notice how we automatically understand the Up and Down metaphor and do not take it literally – how we automatically infer other more abstract meanings from it. But then, why do we insist that Satan is literal?
In revelation one could argue that the “satan” there was the ruler of the time (Nebachudnezzar? Doesn’t his anagram add up to 666?) and thus satan falling from heaven means that Nebachudnezzar would “fall” from power?
If one takes Satan falling from heaven to earth as a literal occurrence, one runs into lots of problems about what that could possibly mean.
Sahid, the rest of this post is my general thoughts about the problems of satan being a literal entity and not a direct response to your post. It will undoubtedly feel inflammatory to people who believe in a literal satan. However, having never believed in a literal satan these are just my thoughts on what I would have to overcome to believe that satan is a literal entity. I apologize in advance if anyone feels dissed because that is not my intent. This is just what I would have to struggle with if I saw any reason to believe that satan was a literal entity.
Thoughts on satan as a literal entity:
If heaven isn't literally a place that one falls out of - just as the garden of eden isn't literally a place that one is cast out of (since humans occupy all of the earth - not to mention the little problem of the dinosaurs living and dying out millions of years before humans came along - not contemporaneously with them) then what we have is a metaphor of great significance and deep meaning.
If you go by what the story says, God did not destroy the garden of eden, he simply cast us out of it. But if that is literally true, then the garden of eden should still exist somewhere in Iraq. Maybe we should make that the focus of our search, rather than the weapons of mass destruction - we might be more successful!
One clue that satan is a metaphor is that the description of what satan is takes on dramatically different connotations depending on where it is used in the bible. In Job, satan is an upright sort of being capable of walking into the heavenly council (whatever that is - another metaphorical idea - do we really think God "meets" with his advisors to "discuss" the state of the world or a particular servant, and furthermore that he "takes a meeting" with Satan?!?!) and yet some argue that in Job satan is also the leviathan and behemoth. Satan is also described as a lion prowling the earth ready to devour. Or Jesus tells Peter, "Satan, get thee behind me." As literal concepts these don't make a lot of sense. They also do not seem to make a lot of sense as metaphors that point back to a literal evil entity.
If satan is a literal being, we quickly run into the Santa Claus problem. Either we have to say that satan is an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent being like God, which would be to subscribe to dualism, which I’m confident everyone here rejects. OR we have to wonder how it is that an individual, non-omnipresent being manages to influence the tiniest fraction of the evil that is produced in a world that is soon approaching six billion people. Where does he find the time? Let’s say he has a very efficient staff of demon elves to help him – who gets the focus of the big guy himself? Is satan like a mafia don, who doesn’t get his hands dirty by having others do his “hits” for him? Do only really important bad people have satan personally breathing down their neck, urging them to do evil? Does satan reproduce? Do demons reproduce? Do we have lots of satan, jrs. Running around? And do satan’s children rebel against him and do good? What does God do with those “children” of satan and his legions of demons who go through adolescent rebellion and turn to God? Did God send his Son to die for them? If not, why not? Does he not love them?
Do you know any kind of living being, other than God, who does not reproduce who lives for hundreds of thousands of years? If that is true, then the number of humans relative to Satan and his legions has DRAMATICALLY changed. How does the “ruler of this world” handle six billion people? If satan and his demons reproduce in order to handle the number of people populating the earth, are they all long-lived as well? Do they have to be raised up and taught how to sit on someone’s shoulder whispering evil desires and thoughts into their ears? Is there a demon school that teaches the dark arts – the finer points of getting people to cut each other off on the freeway, or to eat that tenth Krispy Kreme doughnut, or to rape, murder and destroy? If there isn’t, then are demons just “born bad”? And does satan and his demons care for and love their offspring?
If satan is still around after all these eons, does that mean he is an eternal being? How could he not be? We’re talking fifteen billion years for the earth alone. Or if we want to stick with satan being around just for the human population of the earth (ignoring his role that some would ascribe to him concerning “natural evil”), we are still talking a hundred thousand years or so. Even for a young earth creationist, satan would have to be four to six thousand years old.
If satan is literal, then he is very, very old. But if God shortened the lifespan of people on earth after Noah, presumably because people got kind of out of control with their hardened hearts and bad behavior, and God occasionally wipes out people with a flood or the complete destruction of certain cities – as a kind of do-over because things got so bad – then why in the world (or in heaven, for that matter) would God leave the supposedly MOST EVIL BEING free to run amok with his beloved creation? Did satan eat of the tree of life? Did God get outwitted by Dr. Evil?
Another problem with satan being a literal entity is that he is described as the enemy – but what does God ask us to do to our enemy? God asks us to LOVE our enemy. Jesus even shows us how to love our enemy: by laying down our life for him. Does that mean we should lay down our life for satan? If satan were a literal being it seems that God is asking us to love him. But who would subscribe to that? On the other hand, if satan is a metaphorical concept that means to have an adversarial spirit against God, then of course we shouldn’t “love” that.
If we try to deal with all the problems of satan as a literal being (the Santa Claus problem, the age problem, the offspring problem, the demon-to-people ratio problem) by conceiving of some kind of all-encompassing monster that surrounds the earth, we quickly run into additional problems, not the least of which is that the bible doesn’t offer that picture. For a single entity to have access to all the thoughts (we DO think of satan as influencing people’s thoughts) of all the people on earth, it would have to be a creature of enormous proportion, capable of encircling the earth and influencing evil action not just here in St. Paul but simultaneously in every corner of the earth. Christians everywhere say they “feel satan’s presence” at different times. Is he everywhere? If he is, then how is this different from a science fiction B movie situation, of some kind of monster globbing on to the earth in ways that defy credulity? Is satan a big giant cloud reading our thoughts and influencing us? The creature from the black lagoon, rising up from the deep to torment us? Is he embedded in the earth all around us? Does he look down on us from above? Is he a parasite or a bacteria living inside of us? Is he a ghost who is so big he is everywhere? When someone says they feel “attacked” by the demonic – is it an actual monster with its fingers around their throat? My friend says he saw a green demon sitting on his chest. Can satan manifest himself in different shapes according to one’s fears? Is it like in Schwarzenegger’s Predator where the enemy can be invisible or visible at will?
Is satan a spirit like God? Or is satan a spirit like an angel? Obviously no one will want to say that satan is like God, because that leads to dualism. But unfortunately, only a spirit like God would be capable of being in six billion places at once, for eons of time. Only a spirit like God could possibly do and be all the things satan gets credit for.
And that leaves us with an enormous problem concerning WHY God would allow a free-will being the lifespan and omnipresence that satan apparently has? If satan is resolved in his evil (his heart completely hardened and made up) then why does God just leave him be? Didn’t he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because there was no more hope of love? Didn’t God destroy the world with a flood because of the “fullness of their iniquity”? Wasn’t satan around at that time? Isn’t he described as completely evil? If he is a literal being, why has God allowed him free reign over the earth? I mean, Eve just bit a little apple and paradise was over for her. Satan is given credit for the greatest evil the world has produced, but God just lets him live on and on? Would you let a completely hardened, fully evil pedophile take care of your beloved children? For the simple reason that you gave the pedophile free will and now don’t want to take it away?
One could argue that since God lets murderers and pedophiles run free here on earth in order that some may choose love, that he is doing the same in the spiritual realm with free-will spiritual beings. The problem with that, though, is that here on earth one does not have unlimited time – we all die and are eventually choosing for God or against God. We eventually have to choose to be with God or separate from God. God does not let a person with a hardened heart wreak havoc for a thousand years. So why, if satan is completely evil and set against God – an adversary of God – why would he be allowed to reign free from the beginning of age until the very end?
Another problem with satan as a literal entity is the question of what does satan get out of the deal? I understand what people get out of doing evil on earth. People get power, money, possessions, domination, control, etc. Now in the end it doesn’t turn out very well, because those rewards are temporary, but nonetheless it is easy to see what drives people to do the things they do. People do not see the long view. They do not fully comprehend the result of their actions. They are not fully connected to God so they do not understand the eternal results. They see their temporary gain and go for it not knowing the full consequence, not knowing God.
But presumably, if we take yet another characterization of satan in the bible, satan was the angel of light – the highest angel of them all. He knew God and obviously knew God’s omniscience and omnipotence. He had not only met God face-to-face, but hung out with God as his archangel. So why would satan think he could win against God? What does it mean in a literal sense to say that satan fell? Is it really possible that the highest angel that God could create, the so-called angel of light, also happened to be so completely stupid that he thought even after hanging out with God that he could somehow win against God? I hope no one argues that this is similar to people rejecting Jesus, God in human form. It is not the same thing at all. Humans do not experience the full power of God. When that happens “every knee will bow”. Humans have varying levels of belief in God, and even those who believe most fervently do not see God clearly. But satan supposedly was God’s highest angel. Could it possibly be true that satan is simply really stupid and decides to spend a hundred thousand years trying to undermine the Creator whom he knows to be omnipotent? And if satan’s realm is earth, and he is invisibly covering, roaming, walking, stalking, as some huge, invisible, all-encompassing predator for thousands upon thousands of years – what is he actually getting out of it? Is he like a vampire, drinking the spilled blood of millions? (Is that literal – is he in the earth soaking up the blood and ashes?) Is he a physical/spiritual being who has sexual organs and he is present (everywhere at once since these things happen simultaneously around the earth) when someone is raped and murdered and he actually gets an erection and an orgasm from that? Some believers believe that they have been raped by the devil – but how could that be? Does the devil have thousands of penises that can surround people around the earth who feel oppressed and attacked by the devil? Is it possible that what people are experiencing is an actual individual spiritual entity?
And if he is not “everywhere all at once” then a person’s chances of interacting with satan at any point in their life would be astronomically small – so miniscule that the idea of praying for protection against satan would be a ridiculous endeavor. One would be much more likely to be struck by lightning or win the lottery or appear on the Oprah Winfrey show than they would of interacting with the devil.
I could go on and on, because satan as an individual, real, spiritual entity makes no sense to me – it reads like a badly written B movie – with all the inconsistencies of your average vampire/horror/science fiction flick.
But if one views satan as simply ha-satan, the adversary: any adversarial, accusatory thought or action that ultimately gives rise to all the evil in the world, the inconsistencies quickly melt away.
If satan as an entity were so important, it seems to me that when Jesus taught us to pray by giving us his example of prayer – the Lord’s prayer – that satan would have been mentioned. But when Jesus taught us to pray he showed us to ask God to “forgive us our trespasses, just as we forgive those who trespass against us.” If Satan is an entity, a free-willed being, then God clearly asks us to forgive him his trespasses. But elsewhere in the bible we are asked to fight against satan. This only makes sense if satan is not a being, an external enemy, but rather an enemy from within: our own lack of faith; our own accusation against ourselves, each other, and God.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/22/2004 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia:
quote:
Is he a physical/spiritual being who has sexual organs and he is present (everywhere at once since these things happen simultaneously around the earth) when someone is raped and murdered and he actually gets an erection and an orgasm from that? Some believers believe that they have been raped by the devil – but how could that be? Does the devil have thousands of penises that can surround people around the earth who feel oppressed and attacked by the devil? Is it possible that what people are experiencing is an actual individual spiritual entity?
You're not a fan of hentai…now are you? 
-------------------
Semeia:
quote:
If satan as an entity were so important, it seems to me that when Jesus taught us to pray by giving us his example of prayer – the Lord’s prayer – that satan would have been mentioned.
Semeia, I did a little check up on something. The term "poneros" in Greek; adjective neutral singular genitive [important point] for "evil, wicked. Translated as the "evil one" by the NRSV. When you look at where this term is used you get some interesting places:
Mat 6
9 “Pray then in this way:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And do not bring us to the time of trial,
but rescue us from the evil one.
That's the Lord's Prayer. The same terminology is used by Jesus here…
Mat 13: Parable of the Sower
18 “Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path.
…
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!
Wow. Jesus is really on this "evil one", huh. Now, Paul also uses this language, but we'll just stick with Jesus. How about that? Jesus even says the word "devil!"; If I remember correctly…ah, yes…
John 8
38 I declare what I have seen in the Father’s presence; as for you, you should do what you have heard from the Father.”
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40 but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. 44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Wow. Who is this mysterious person that Jesus speaks about? This "father of lies". Interesting.
Tell you what. How about you give us a way to mythologize these bits right here? I know that would help me a lot. Particularly the John 8 passage. Thanks so much!
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
| 228 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|