I had a conversation with some one about…..If Satan was Gods “evil double”. Now didn’t Satan and the other fallen angels fight the arc angels, then God sent them to be the keepers of hell? Where hell is the keeper of the evil. Is Satan the source of evil, or is man the source of evil? Will Satan come and spread his evil over Gods people, or will we bring our own evil upon aware selves?
Evil is intrinsic in humans (along with good) and especially evident in those who use the word often in reference to other persons or groups, and was certainly manifest those who first invented elaborate ghost stories to torment and control the gullible.
No... it's taxes... plain and simple... you can't steal half of someones money and say that isn't evil
why did god put evil in humans? Couldn't he/she just have stopped after filling them up with goodness?
i thought the source was Original Sin. we are all born sinners. because Adam SCREWED UP!!! or something like that...
EVIL...is a word we use to describe an event. And you will find that in different countries the definition of evil is very differnet. I believe it to a bi-product of ones upbringing and of course society. It is pure crap to think that someone (With no mental illness) is born evil and capable of evil acts without outside influnece.
I believe there is no such thing as evil, everything happens for a reason, psychopaths kill be because they are psychopaths, men kill other men/women through jealousy, rage bitterness etc. All "Evil" acts are the product of society not the possessed hand of the devil!
Interesting question but SATAN must be the force of evil by definition so let me assume a different approach. When somebody asks such a question i automatically ponder upon their objectives. My guess is you seek reassurance. Sorry if i am wrong. But i will reply on that basis with a rational that best gives me assurance. Now it is imperative that we first grasp a uniform defintion of evil before we possibly ascertain its source. I firstly negotiate the definition of life and conclude that to LIVE optimumly one must obviously be both completely good and productive. Would you then not agree that EVIL would be opposing this and therefore both bad and degenerative. (excluding accidents) So we may say LIVE backwards is indeed EVIL (punn intended) and this then forms a natural corrollary and that is to say one that was productive and good is one who LIVED as opposed to those acting degeneratively or backwards may be deemed DEVIL. For this to be true the human drive to live on a larger than self scale must represent GOD and the human drive to degenerate on a larger than self scale must represent SATAN. Although a humans drive may be an intangible entitiy we all know it's there so what makes a human drive lets make a word up for it shall we say ummmm .... spirit. Now satan and god can only exist if that spirit has intelligence, Does it? I assume that it does have an intelligence because of the existence of remorse. Most people know the consequences of their actions yet they still commit acts they will regret therefore an intelligence of an alien dimension must have been in play.
greattt.. so i have to suffer cuz of some dude who screwed up ages ago? :bugeye: based on what parameters? are you makin a deliberate assumption to make your theory work? there is no evidence of an intangible entity within humans.. at least i haven't encountered it... okk... again... its an assumption no one can anticipate the outcome of every single action they take.. there is always room for uncertainty and risk... not everyone regrets everything they do... there are ppl who will do anythin to acquire power, wealth etc at any expense...
From a strictly sunday-school perspective, to be evil is to go against god's will. Thus both people and satan can be evil. Satan will presumably be evil most (or all) of the time, but is not the source of evil. God did not put evil into people; he put free will into people. Our free will allows us to do as we like, good or evil. How does the apple in the garden fit in? The 'tree of knowledge' from which Adam and Eve ate an apple caused them to become aware of the difference between good and evil, and thus responsible for their actions. This was the first instance of a human going against god's actions, thus it is referred to as 'original sin.'
Evil in humans God did not fill humans with evil, he filled them with free will. Free will is easily tempted to rebellion. The evil nature of humans was birthed in this rebellion. Now humans have to continually work, to fight against this evil nature, in order to produce good. Humans still have a free will, but it is quite contaminated with the evil nature. Let's just call it evilution. The force which causes each succeding generation to be more wicked and rebellios than the last. Satan is not the sole cause of all evil in the world, nor is the rebellios human nature. They work in tandem. Satan got the ball rolling, with the first temptation. Then the evil nature was born within the human race, and lust and greed rushed right in. Satan still tempts, but the evil nature of humankind, does most of the work.
Re: Evil in humans "Free will" is just a better sounding phrase for an "experiment" that has 50% faliure rate conducted by a "perfect" being. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No Satan is an anthropomorphization, a mythical or conceptual embodiment of a theoretic source of evil. In fact, the nature of the Christian construction of "Satan" is such that the Devil has no legitimate place in the theology; Satan is extraneous to the formula. It is only by limiting the knowledge and authority of God that the Devil finds any necessary place in Christian theology. While variations on the Devil are nearly as common as variations on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt among the faithful, the issue of the Devil bears both similarities and differences when compared to the issue of God Religions are, in essence, detailed allegories representing the sums of our ignorance. As a side note, this is a major reason why a religion can become obsolete with the passing of time, or, as we see in the case of Christianity, increasingly irrelevant. We no more understand the nature of Evil than we do the nature of Life. Certainly science gives us insight into both, but presently persist questions such as "Why are we here?" or "What makes goodness good?" Start with a simple question: "Why is murder wrong?" Here's the rule--only objective evidence applies. Why? Consider that we can all reasonably agree that murder is wrong. But who can tell you why murder is wrong without a heap of presumption? To wit: I am a pacifist, but I cannot guarantee you objectively that the peaceful route is truly the best for the species.° Of course, I operate under a global presumption, e.g. that we are all in this together, sink or swim. I fully realize that such considerations mean little to some.° So there is my assumption: that the benefit of the species is the judge of propriety, as such. So ask yourself why murder is wrong, and see how soon you run into an assumption. I, myself, am prone to say, "Because we can't have everyone running around cutting each other's throats all the time." And, of course, the obvious response to that is to ask, Why not? Moral relativism, of course, helps reduce the number of hitches one runs into when surveying the whole of Evil. But there can come a point when moral relativism can compel a self-conscious species toward its own extinction. Don't mind me; my latest disclaimer is that in Tiassa's Universe, all roads lead to nihilism. And so it is that Evil seems to be a nebulous concept; we can perhaps agree about how it affects us, but we cannot by any means agree on what constitutes Evil, and what Evil constitutes. So just like the "fire god", or, perhaps, the "Life God" of slightly higher development, the "Evil god" is merely a sum of our ignorance of something. And think of the fire god. Even into the 19th century, certain academic definitions of Life existed by which fire was alive. It has taken us much time to make that distinction; is it difficult to imagine that our human ancestors thought fire a living thing? Imagine relating to that thing. What at first seems ritualistic--build the stones and wood as such--is really the beginnings of a practical relationship, such as learning to build a fire. Propitiation of this living thing brings the gift of fire to your offering. It is nothing more than a form of abstract bartering. Life? Those gods which claim dominion over life are merely allegorical expressions of our ignorance concerning life. Evil? Why should the Devil not be the same? Satan is the word we use to describe what we fail to understand about Evil. This, of course, as opposed to Satan being the source of all Evil. As always, I recommend Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan, available in trade paper at your local university bookstore or via any number of retailers on the web. Notes ° species--The necessary digression can take ages. It should, hopefully, suffice to suggest that Life tends toward perpetuation of species; even in basic nature individual organisms will behave in a manner which reduces their chance of survival, a condition which seems paradoxical until one invokes species. Watching an old female walrus, beyond her most useful mating years, separate herself from the herd to draw off predators while the herd flees to the ocean ... anthropomorphically, 'tis a noble sacrifice. But in terms of an individual-centered consciousness, an absolutely daft move. ° considerations of species--A bright moment amid the tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia came on NBC, when anchor Brian Williams asked William Burrows, a contributing editor to Air & Space magazine, former newspaper reporter, and member of the faculty at New York University Department of Journalism, about one of the astronauts' ambition to go to Mars. Mr. Burrows pointed out that Mars is out of reach for technical and therefore practical reasons, but we ought to be looking at the moon. "No place in space is safe forever," he quoted, although I forget whom he was quoting. He took a couple of moments to stoke public support for the space program, using the space station and moon as platforms from which he could advocate the space program for the good of the species. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Satan, an imagined being? Your argument may have held some weight, had not Jesus the annointed come to earth, as a historical figure, to exemplify to us, what is the perfect good. He coming as God in the flesh, as He did. Showed us exactly how God reacts in a multitude of circumstances. We know that he exemplied God, when He stated that "I do nothing, but what I see my Father in heaven doing." We know that he is not referring to his earthly adoptive father, because he uses the term for father, that he used, when he spoke about being about his father's business, to his mother and adoptive father, while he was in the temple, at age 12. Jesus, the creator of all things that were created, told us, that Satan is a real being, and not the creation of some some overactive imagination.
Satan, an imagined being? Your argument may have held some weight, had not Jesus the annointed come to earth, as a historical figure, to exemplify to us, what is the perfect good. He coming as God in the flesh, as He did. Showed us exactly how God reacts in a multitude of circumstances. We know that he exemplied God, when He stated that "I do nothing, but what I see my Father in heaven doing." We know that he is not referring to his earthly adoptive father, because he uses the term for father, that he used, when he spoke about being about his father's business, to his mother and adoptive father, while he was in the temple, at age 12. Jesus, the creator of all things that were created, told us, that Satan is a real being, and not the creation of some some overactive imagination.
You're on You're on. Provide a primary source document from history demonstrating the historical existence of Jesus. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jesus a historical figure? First, since I suppose that the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament scriptures are off limits for this discussion, I will use the secular sources. Let's start with the writing of of Flavius Josephus, a Roman Historian, of Jewish heritage, for the time period that the Gospels were written. For those that don't know, that would be the time period of approxiamtely 60 to 70 AD. Josephus writes: The second mention of Jesus in the Antiquities (Book 20, Ch. 9, Par. 1). Now it is said that the elder Ananus was extremely fortunate...but the younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judgment. Possessed of such a character, Ananus thought that he had a favourable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinas was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabits of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from any further such actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced by these words, Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus threatening to take vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus' action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months and replaced him with Jesus the son of Damnaeus. - trans. Louis Feldman (Loeb Edition), modified by G. Goldberg The complete section on Pilate containing the account of Jesus. (Antiquities, Book 18, Ch. 3) 1. But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea. 2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. 3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Cornelius Tacitus Cornelius Tacitus,the Roman historian, (c55-c117). In his book Annals, which covered the history of Rome from the death of Augustus (AD14) to the death of Nero (AD69), he related the story of the Neronian persecution of the Christians. It narrated how Nero tried to blame the burning of Rome in AD64 on "the common people called Christians." He went on to explain that the Christians "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberias, had suffered death, by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate."
