Billion + believe in Satan. Should all schools be mandated to teach Creationism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is an opinion, not proof. And extraordinary proof is required.

I don't know that your premise is correct. One, it doesn't seem to be the case that you can't start of with an assumption. In fact, unless I am gravely mistaken, along with observation, that actually where you start off, with science or just about anything else.

If you're trying to prove something right or wrong, you first have to have an hypothesis TO be proved right or wrong.

So there's that. It's valid enough, in other words, to start with an opinion, and then see if the opinion is justified in light of evidence.

For your Koran, mentioned in the post before this one, one possible "testing" question, and one which seems reasonable enough to me:

What do nations that follow Islam, that follow the Koran as the basis of their laws, customs, habits, practices, etcetera, what do they look like? How do they function, especially compared to societies that follow the Bible as a major or even the major basis of their functioning?

In other words, if the book the religion is based on says,
"In this day and age, do x,y,and z"
and you do so and get what was predicted and good results ...

I find it telling that the biggest charge people lay against Christians is that they don't practice what they preach.
By contrast, people actively fear some Muslims precisely because they DO practice what they preach. No less a figure than Richard Dawkins is willing to give some ground on this particular point, and earlier in other threads I posted a clip corroborating that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

I find it telling that the biggest charge people lay against Christians is that they don't practice what they preach.
By contrast, people actively fear some Muslims precisely because they DO practice what they preach.
No less a figure than Richard Dawkins is willing to give some ground on this particular point, and earlier in other threads I posted a clip corroborating that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
7 min 14 sec
(the deadly penalty of apostasy in a Muslim country)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3:35
"I would be thoroughly in favor of education in the Bible as literature.
You can't understand English Literature without the Bible.
You can't take your allusions ...
This IS a Christian country, historically it's a Christian country,
You can't understand English History or English Literature without a knowledge of the Bible ...

By the way, I should say, the act of collective worship, I don't approve of it, but nevertheless:
The Christian religion ... is benign by comparison ...
The penalty for apostasy in the Christian religion is not death.
There is no penalty for apostasy at all in the Christian religion.
The Christian religion is comparatively benign, and we should respect it as such." -- Richard Dawkins
4:33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't know that your premise is correct. One, it doesn't seem to be the case that you can't start of with an assumption. In fact, unless I am gravely mistaken, along with observation, that actually where you start off, with science or just about anything else.

We did that. I showed you an observation. The observation was that the bible’s claim to being the word of God is not unique.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If you're trying to prove something right or wrong, you first have to have an hypothesis TO be proved right or wrong.
So there's that. It's valid enough, in other words, to start with an opinion, and then see if the opinion is justified in light of evidence.
For your Koran, mentioned in the post before this one, one possible "testing" question, and one which seems reasonable enough to me:
What do nations that follow Islam, that follow the Koran as the basis of their laws, customs, habits, practices, etcetera, what do they look like? How do they function, especially compared to societies that follow the Bible as a major or even the major basis of their functioning?
In other words, if the book the religion is based on says,
"In this day and age, do x,y,and z"
and you do so and get what was predicted and good results ...

I’m not following you. You first must address why the bible’s claim is not unique.

How do different cultures explain the fact that they all have books that claim to be the word of God? Could it be that each culture needed something, like law and order, and they each found a similar way to express this? A book would have been a good way. But a book must have some kind of authority, so claiming that the book was the word of God would give that book the authority it needed to function. This work has been done. May I direct you to the writings of Joseph Campbell?

No human knows what he looks like but he once was the most favored of God's angels and it's been said that he was the most beautiful of all of them. His influence (along with the other fallen angels'😉 is why the world is in the bad shape it's in. But, there are forces for good (the loyal angels) who are in a constant state of spiritual warfare with them to combat their influence on humanity with their own influence.

Originally posted by Star428
No human knows what he looks like but he once was the most favored of God's angels and it's been said that he was the most beautiful of all of them. His influence (along with the other fallen angels) is why the world is in the bad shape it's in. But, there are forces for good (the loyal angels) who are in a constant state of spiritual warfare with them to combat their influence on humanity with their own influence.

I have read the stories. How do you know that this isn't just mythology? As far as I know, there is no physical evidence to support these stories.

In the spirit of the topic: I feel that there is a value in teaching these kind of storied, but not as fact, and not isolated. There are many great stories like this that should be taught. For example: There are wonderful stories in Hindu mythology that have been ignored by western culture.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Most would probably say Lucifer IS Satan, and I myself find no good reason to argue differently.

The name Satan comes from Shaitan, right? That figure is originally an angel under the service of God who tests humans, he never fell from God's grace like Lucifer did in abrahamic tradition. I think Islam believes the same? I can't remember of the top of my head.

In my opinion, this tradition alone is a good reason to divide the character Satan from Lucifer. Very little is left of the rightful Shaitan when we say the word Satan though.

Originally posted by Bentley
The name Satan comes from Shaitan, right? That figure is originally an angel under the service of God who tests humans, he never fell from God's grace like Lucifer did in Abrahamic tradition. I think Islam believes the same? I can't remember of the top of my head.

In my opinion, this tradition alone is a good reason to divide the character Satan from Lucifer. Very little is left of the rightful Shaitan when we say the word Satan though.

Actually, if Wikipedia can be trusted to give reasonably accurate general info, the Islamic version of Satan is a fairly close parallel to the Christian one:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iblis was proud and arrogant and considered himself superior to Adam, since Adam was made from clay and Iblis from smokeless fire. For this act of disobedience, God cursed him to Jahannam (Hell/Purgatory) for eternity, but gave him respite until the Day of Judgment, after Iblis requested it.[12]

Iblis obtained permission from God and vowed that he would use this time to lead all men and women astray to Hell. In this way, he would prove humanity's inferiority, and justify his act of defiance.

For refusing to abide by the will of God, Iblis was cast out of paradise, and thereafter he was called "Shaytan" (Satan).

He said: "Give me respite till the day they are raised up."
(Allah) said: "Be thou among those who have respite."
He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:
"Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)."
(Allah) said: "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.
—Quran sura 7 (Al-Aʻraf), ayah 14-18[13]

Although God grants the request, he also warns Satan that he would have no authority over his sincere 'ubūd or 'servants'.[9]

"As for My servants, no authority shalt thou have over them:" Enough is thy Lord for a Disposer of affairs.
—Quran, sura 17 (Al-Isra), ayah 65[14]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_%28Islam%29

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
This question has been plaguing me for the better part of a year now, and perhaps for far longer: Assuming the Bible to be true, what WOULD Satan look like? In fact, assuming the Bible is true, what DOES Satan look like? Is there any evidence for him or his influence?

Originally posted by Star428

... after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names. Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names ...

Indeed. In fact, arguably and specifically:

Anointed Cherub. Abaddon. Adversary. Apollo. Apollyon. Beezlebub. Deceiver. Destroyer. Devourer. Devil. Dragon. Eosphorus. The god of this world. The King of Tyre. Lord of the Flies. Lucifer. Morning Star. Peter. Phosphorus. Slanderer. Son of the Morning.

Doubtless I've missed a few.

The bulk of the names listed above are easily found in most Bibles.

I've bolded some of the names that appear particularly relevant to this discussion. The names that go COUNTER to our conventional view of Satan as some horned-head, evil-looking, cloven-footed Pan-demon from Dante's inferno.
It might be a good idea to have a page where ordered Biblical verses are included here for reader reference. It simply cannot be stated enough that Satan does not look like or come in the guise of Satan on most occasions.
People looking for Satan to appear as a monster likely won't see obvious indications until it's too late. The Bible alludes to this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. 11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011&version=AKJV

Originally posted by Star428

... after Lucifer was kicked out of heaven he became Satan, the devil. Same being. Just different names. Technically speaking, Lucifer=angel and Satan=devil.

Satan also has been called many other names ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Indeed. In fact, arguably and specifically:

Anointed Cherub. Abaddon. Adversary. Apollo. Apollyon. Beezlebub. Deceiver. Destroyer. Devourer. Devil. Dragon. Eosphorus. The god of this world. The King of Tyre. Lord of the Flies. Lucifer. Morning Star. Peter. Phosphorus. Slanderer. Son of the Morning.

The format of KMC is not actually all that good for sharing information.
I'll probably need to write at length in a variety of ways to make my points clear.

Overall, the reason I responded concerning GreatestIAM is that I DON'T think that he is alone in giving a slanted view or view of God.
In fact, I would contend much of popular culture and religion and society does.

If Satan is, in fact, "the god of this world", as the Bible says he is,
if he was, in fact, able to give Jesus all that he offered when he tested him in the desert,
if he is the Prince of the power of the air,
if he was, in fact, with us from Garden of Eden times to the present
if Christians do, in fact, struggle with principalities, and rulers,
then, how could it possibly be otherwise?

Satan's influence should easily be the equal or superior of world figures like a Muhammad Ali, or a Barack Obama, or a Michael Jackson, or the Pope.
He should appear and be popular and revered. He should be virtually ubiquitous.
In fact he should have SEVERAL incarnations and avatars.

But he should, of course, be DISGUISED.
Few if any should ever realize that Satan is and what his true nature is.

I'd be interested in hearing your take on that assertion.

If you disagree with this argument, based on what is written in the Bible, especially, I'd be interested in knowing why.

It's not a good sign when people start replying to their own posts. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

It's not a good sign when people start replying to their own posts.

Why are you pretending that your mind is open to anything being said by anyone in this thread?

But your behavior is directly relevant to the thread topic at hand.
You're asking for suggestions that what the Bible says is true?
I think people are beginning to see some things for themselves.

I notice that recently the poster named "Breno" for instance, called you out on your own religious stance. Interestingly enough, though he identified himself as atheist, he called you out on BIBLICAL grounds:

Originally posted by Breno

Oh come on man! This (Nichiren Buddhism) crap is just as bad! You don't need much faith to believe in God but for this stuff it's par with mountain moving

"If you wish to free yourself from the sufferings of birth and death you have endured since time without beginning and to attain without fail unsurpassed enlightenment in this lifetime, you must perceive the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings. This truth is Myoho-renge-kyo. Chanting Myoho-renge-kyo will therefore enable you to grasp the mystic truth innate in all life." (WND, 3)

Sorry to be blunt

Originally posted by Breno

In fact, I doubt there is little much difference between chanting Myoho-renge-kyo and whipping yourself up into a self induced frenzied delirium of euphoria,
as there is in a Christian getting himself in the spirit and babbling away in tongues.

And! What are you opening yourself up too when you're in that state of suggestion? You want to be careful mate!
Even in the bible it says that the devil appears as an angel of light. You don't need this foolishness to be a decent person and live your own unique and remarkable life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Chanting is a form of meditation.
I find meditation too difficult, because I have too much going on in my head. Chanting allows me to impose order onto my thoughts, and gain the same result as meditation.
It is not a "self induced frenzied delirium of euphoria". It is a calm, quiet place were I can be at peace ...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=597286&pagenumber=9#post14982961

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%204&version=KJV

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't know that your premise is correct. One, it doesn't seem to be the case that you can't start of with an assumption. In fact, unless I am gravely mistaken, along with observation, that actually where you start off, with science or just about anything else.

If you're trying to prove something right or wrong, you first have to have an hypothesis TO be proved right or wrong.

So there's that. It's valid enough, in other words, to start with an opinion, and then see if the opinion is justified in light of evidence.

For your Koran, mentioned in the post before this one, one possible "testing" question, and one which seems reasonable enough to me:

What do nations that follow Islam, that follow the Koran as the basis of their laws, customs, habits, practices, etcetera, what do they look like? How do they function, especially compared to societies that follow the Bible as a major or even the major basis of their functioning?

In other words, if the book the religion is based on says,
"In this day and age, do x,y,and z"
and you do so and get what was predicted and good results ...

I find it telling that the biggest charge people lay against Christians is that they don't practice what they preach.
By contrast, people actively fear some Muslims precisely because they DO practice what they preach. No less a figure than Richard Dawkins is willing to give some ground on this particular point, and earlier in other threads I posted a clip corroborating that.

in other words... that's not really a solid experiment to me.

Originally posted by red g jacks
for the sake of argument... what if you performed the same comparison hundreds of years ago when the caliphate was on top and christian europe wasn't doing so great..? why are today's results more relevant than results from the past, and who is to say that today's results are the way things are going to stay into the future?

in other words... that's not really a solid experiment to me.

Great post Red 👆

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

Gnostics believe that the serpent of the garden, ie Lucifer, is actually a being who was concerned with the enlightenment of man, wisdom, hence the name "Light Bearer".
The Bible is, in the Gnostic view, a sort of twisted propoganda form of the "real" story of God and Satan (ie Lucifer).
Hence, light is dark, black is white, good is evil, etcetera.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Gnosticism is not Luciferianism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm

Shaky, the link you yourself provided corroborates what I said initially:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake: Some Gnostic sects honored the snake. They did not view the snake as a seducer who led the first couple into sinful behavior.

Rather, they saw him/it as a liberator who brought knowledge to Adam and Eve by convincing them to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus to become fully human.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Why are you pretending that your mind is open to anything being said by anyone in this thread?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
But your behavior is directly relevant to the thread topic at hand.
You're asking for suggestions that what the Bible says is true?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I think people are beginning to see some things for themselves.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I notice that recently the poster named "Breno" for instance, called you out on your own religious stance. Interestingly enough, though he identified himself as atheist, he called you out on BIBLICAL grounds:...

Originally posted by Breno
I read through it. A tad hypothetical though

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you assume that the bible is true then you must assume that people of the past had access to information directly from God. If that is true then you must answer one over powering question: Why is the bible true, but other books that claim to be the word of God are not true? For example the Koran, the Sutrus of Buddha, and the Vedas. There are many more. Therefore assuming that the bible is true is an extraordinary claim. According to science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by red g jacks
for the sake of argument ... who is to say that today's results are the way things are going to stay into the future?

The Bible itself says that things are not going to stay the way they are now in the future.

Originally posted by red g jacks
why are today's results more relevant than results from the past?

I didn't say they were.
You would need time enough for Christian practice to be codified into the Bible that we know today before you can judge how a nation or community that follows Biblical principles fares versus others, though.

And, of course, time enough for Biblical reading and practice to be adopted by large numbers of people.

Originally posted by red g jacks
for the sake of argument... what if you performed the same comparison hundreds of years ago when the caliphate was on top and christian europe wasn't doing so great..?

I'd be interested in precisely such a comparison, but it would need to take into account what was just written above. You first need a word of God in the hands of people TO be followed and define that place as a Christian nation/community/ what have you before it can be judged as one.

Also, don't miss the pertinent point made in the previous post, the main charge against Christianity is that people DON'T practice what they preach.
You haven't done anything to disprove the Bible if no one actually follows what's written inside, and you've certainly done nothing to challenge the premise that WHEN followed, the results are better than those obtained by any OTHER book claiming to be the word of God.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shaky, the link you yourself provided corroborates what I said initially:...

Your characterization is that Gnostic is evil, and that is not true. They do not worship Satan. They simply believe differently then you. Grow a little religious tolerance and stop calling everyone who doesn't believe like you, evil, or going to hell.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The Bible itself says that things are not going to stay the way they are now in the future.

I didn't say they were.
You would need time enough for Christian practice to be codified into the Bible that we know today before you can judge how a nation or community that follows Biblical principles fares versus others, though.

And, of course, time enough for Biblical reading and practice to be adopted by large numbers of people.

I'd be interested in precisely such a comparison, but it would need to take into account what was just written above. You first need a word of God in the hands of people TO be followed and define that place as a Christian nation/community/ what have you before it can be judged as one.

Also, don't miss the pertinent point made in the previous post, the main charge against Christianity is that people DON'T practice what they preach.
You haven't done anything to disprove the Bible if no one actually follows what's written inside, and you've certainly done nothing to challenge the premise that WHEN followed, the results are better than those obtained by any OTHER book claiming to be the word of God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your characterization is that Gnostic is evil, and that is not true. They do not worship Satan. They simply believe differently then you. Grow a little religious tolerance and stop calling everyone who doesn't believe like you, evil, or going to hell.

There's a point at which stated distinctions do not make much of a difference.

Lucifer APPEARS differently than Satan for most, but, if they are, in fact, the same being ... ?

Also, I don't recall saying GreatestIAm is evil.
Or telling him he would go to hell.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so in a nutshell, what are you saying exactly? that christian europe didn't follow the bible correctly back in the day but now they do? you're going to have to keep it brief with me since my attention span on this topic is pretty limited tbh. i'm not saying that to be rude but if you start giving me lengthy bible lessons i will probably tune out, just being honest. but i am curious what message it is that today's christian nations follow that they didn't back then and how that has been the deciding factor in their overall success? cause i probably have different ideas about why the west is doing better than the islamic world atm.

Free market? Open economy? A monopoly on technology and higher education? Better food and establishment in productive countries? More talent at stealing?