Satan is just as powerful as God

Hmmm... that's odd. There's a long paragraph there.

Just keep trying to read it until you start seeing words.
Free your mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are schizophrenogenic,

buddy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and what do u belive in? mediine woman

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From a sociological perspective, I have always been partial to the theory that Satan as the adversary of God arose when the Jews came into direct contact with Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian exile. In that religion the God of Good (Ahura Mazda) is directly balanced by a god of evil (Ahriman). Some Jews, in an effort to synthesize the religions--and in an era when tightly controlled doctrinal arbiters were rare--took the angel Satan (who is reasonably clearly not the banished enemy of God in the Old Testament, and is not in the Jewish faith generally) and elevated him.

They also decided to limit his power, in a way that makes little sense if God is good, since God could crush Satan and his evil without effort instantaneously if He wished...meaning that he must want Satan and his evil in the world.

It is possible, if one believes, that Satan, rebel or not, is still largely following God's original plan for him, by testing the faith of men. Perhaps God is too soft-hearted, and decided that He needed a free-willed and independent Ha-satan to do the job right, and given free will Satan turned to evil himself.

Personally, even in my most Christian moments, I don't believe in Satan as the enemy of God.

 

Stop that. The CO2 concentration in the bag is increasing and being taken in with the next inhale breath.

The reason you feel strong urge to breath has nothing to do with needing O2. Your irresistible urge to breath is due to CO2 building up in your blood, especially the blood in the brain. Thus the longer you breath into that bag the MORE strongly and deeply will you breath - i.e. bag will increase your hyperventilation urges.

 

Unless memory fails me, M*W grew up in West Virginia, as I did. (I think we exchanged quite a few posts more than a year ago on this.) Thus it is highly likely that she believes in helping, never hurting, others and enjoying what life has to offer, as I do. But when she logs on she can answer for her self.

 

I skimmed enough to know an argument was being made that is detached from actual reality.

 

Fun is a form of pleasure. Your brain's pleasure center is quite objective.

"Subjective" means that which exists solely as a mental construct (i.e. there is nothing external to your mind that corresponds to it).

You'll have to demonstrate that as the evidence says otherwise.

That made absolutely no sense. How does reality being objective prevent it from being experienced?

If it's consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

 

MJ is such a ho-bag.

 

Objectively define "good" and "bad". It shouldn't be hard at all if they exist.

 

I know lots of things that exist that are hard.

..."Heads" for example...

 

Your asking me to prove that not everything is objective...

Prove to me that everything is objective!!!


You have confused the meaning of subjective. It is derived from the subject, the experiencer of the objective...

 

It doesn't work that way.
You have the burden of proof as you are claiming something exists outside of normal measurement.

You must demonstrate your claim.

 

That's true. At the same time "good" and "bad" are more common; thus, should have ample more evidence for their objective existence.

 

What Neverfly said.

You're definitinon is very incomplete. Here is the evidence:

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/su/subjective225350.html

"Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own consciousness, in distinction from external observation; ralating to the mind, or intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or material excessively occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal states. "

 

CrunchyCat insinuated, though didn't flat out say, that everything in reality is objective. Jozen Bo was asking him to prove this claim. Therefore, unless I'm mistaken about CrunchyCat's claim (and if I am please correct me), CrunchyCat has the burden of proof on him to prove that everything is objective.

 

You're wrong:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2518740&postcount=25
JB stated that it wasn't, and CC asked for evidence...

 

CrunchyCat is perfectly fine flat out saying that everything is objective.

It is not necessarily the case that making a claim alone requires the burden of proof. Although it often happens to work out that way...

It's that a claim that is Outside of observation requires support.

 

I see so CrunchyCat is on the fence as to whether subjectivity or objectivity exist at all. Does that mean that CrunchyCat isn't sure if he exists himself? What a crazy experience life must be for him!!

 

I don't see how you get that from CC's questioning of JB's statement that reality isn't objective.