Is the DEVIL real?

That is pretty much what I just said about looking at it as just a story. If it's ALL just symbolism then that is logical, but to claim to follow Christs teachings and consider satan a metaphor for evil and not an actual being... not so much. I'm not asking anyone to take christianity seriously. I'm only pointing out the flaw in this methodolgy.

Satan is a main character in the bible, tough turkey if you don't like it. That is the christian story, there is an enemy of your soul, the devourer, who to this day approaches the thrown to bash you before God by pointing out your sins. It's not a metaphor. In fact there is a bible verse that clears this up. I have been struggling to find it but the gist of it is that basically rejecting the existence of satan is rejecting the reality of God also.

Then you could say that this verse is also a metaphor. This brings me back to my original post. By the time your done picking and choosing what is comfortable for you, what you end up with is a new religion of your own design. Why bother calling yourself a christian if you don't subscribe to the meat and potatoes of christianity. Metaphorically speaking of course

 

I guess the thing is, it's kind of like asking if God's real. If you met Him, would you believe that what you'd met was the Devil?

I think the Devil is the word we give to a concept we need - to express that something is wrong quickly, without going into the long rambling reasons as to why.

And I'm sure there will be plenty of people who think it's indefensible to not tell a child precisely why it's wrong to steal (in the face of the "whyyyyyy???" logic of the average five year old), going extensively into the mechanics of structuralism, altruism and so on, and that suggest that something exists which probably doesn't is unequivocally a form of child abuse. But those people probably believe in a shit-ton of fairy stories without even knowing it.

 

What, Christ can't use a metaphor now?

 

Ahh another convert to metaphorism. I embrace all philosophies and religions even brand new ones.

 

Sadly I'm

1) not a convert
2) not particularly persuaded that Christ's ideas were any better than mine
3) pretty sure that metaphors have been around for quite a long time.

 

I'm pretty sure you need to read my posts again.

 

Define "need".

 

More word play, eh?

 

Not really. I've made my position fairly clear, and if it comes to it, I'm on the side of the Christians. I believe that Satan is as good a label to put on "evil" as any, and I'd rather that such a label exist than see all actions judged solely by their consequences (because then it's only wrong if you get caught).

 

As the saying goes, "the Bible should be taken seriously but not literally". I don't think Satan is referenced "from one side of the Bible to the other." He made his debut in the Old Testament (Job) relatively recently, and is probably Persian in origin. Of course, there was the snake in Genesis and Lucifer, with whom Michael fought. Satan is the "Adversary" or "Accuser" in Job, apparently working at the time as a kind of public prosecutor in the Divine bureaucracy. Eventually, these figures were conflated into a personification of evil. But I think they are all metaphors--and should be taken very seriously! I do look at the whole thing as a story about good and evil. That's what it's all about! What could be more real, true and important than that!

 

Metaphor is an ill chosen word here, really. It's more like how Moby Dick is a symbol. Satan is a symbol of that which is cruel, sadistic, degenerate, sinful...

To me, if you're prepared to pontificate about whether things in the Bible actually happened (whether you think they did or didn't) you're missing the point.

Well, that is what it is, dude. And again, I mean that whether it's true or false. Even the Bible is to be taken literally, there will still have been some process of discerning what is relevant in writing it. To cite an unwholesome source: if Jesus never went to the toilet in the Bible, do we assume that he never went to the toilet ever? Of course not. So it's reasonable to assume that the Bible is a composed work. Even if we believe everything that happened in it happened, that doesn't mean we aren't free to interpret it; we're just interpreting history rather than fiction.

 

Now you're talking. Do you realize though that we are saying nearly the same thing. Our main difference is that I fail to see the logic in CHRISTIANS interpreting satan as merely a symbol. His character is directly responsible for man's fall from grace and the ongoing war for man's soul. If it were not for satan, then man would not have sinned and there would be no need for salvation and so on.

This is a religion of spirits and miracles, think about it... an all knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent being created the heavens and the earth and hell. Sacrificed his only Son 33 years after his miraculous,virgin birth, then raised him from the dead and he floated into heaven after visiting his friends a few times following his resurrection. Now believers have the luxury of salvation and life after death in heaven, a spiritual paradise. This leads me to my problem. When you reduce such a main character as satan to symbolism then shit man, the whole thing comes unraveled. Satan is TOO BIG a character in this story amongst other supernatural characters to be dismissed as a symbol without diminishing the other characters resulting in the whole thing being meaningless and unworthy of faith.

I can totally grasp him as a metaphor/symbol if you are NOT a christian. I have heard of AIDS being referred to as "The Monster" or "The Ninja" and it consumes people and could be personified in the same way that evil could be. I'm fine with satan being only a symbol to non christians.

 

I've noted Mothman, that all you really want people to do is to truly realize that there are Sides to be taken.
At the risk of Total Condemnation and being picked apart to heck (HA) and back, all of y'all know that I believe in God and therefore, yes, I Most Certainly believe in a literal entity known as satan, lucifer, beelzebub, among others. He was the Most Beautiful angel, and known as the Bearer of Light.
Truly your words seem inspired,
You know the word, yet in the Bible, I recall that it is Pointed out that even the devil knows scripture. Wasn't that when Jesus was being tempted?
Now I do feel you believe (Smile); I guess I'm just interested/curious to hear...(..

 

Never mind, I hear chewing garlic will keep him away.

 

I guess the question is, why be a Christian if you're only going to take the Bible as literally as any other book with a moral message. And I'm kind of with you on that. It seems foolish for someone to limit hirself to one text if they're only looking for spiritual inspiration.

 

the devil isnt real.. god isnt real. only the people who keep them alive in myth are real.


'religions exist as barriers to personal and social growth'

religious belief has also caused more conflict and war then any other ideology in the world, ever.

watch the second zeitgeist.

 

I can understand personal, but social? Most religions have a impetus towards community, and even when that community is exclusive of those of other faiths, is that really any more damaging than hanging out with people who like similar bands?

Some people argue that language is a form of child abuse, because it forces children to see meaning in words that only attain any significance through social reinforcement. And yet what could me more obstructive to social growth than the inability to make oneself understood or to understand others?

I will grant that religion can be limiting on a personal level, but no, socially speaking, shared belief is the one thing that makes humans able to be the tribal, social animals that they are. If you see that as a bad thing, fair enough, but be aware that there are many more "lies" that have similar characteristics to religion and serve similar functions. To single out religion (which people do even if you do not) among these for criticism seems unjustifiable.

 

you must be blind. don't you see groups of kids and people in general that pick on other kids and point fingers, shun them because they don't listen to the same music as them or dress the way they do? i do. and i've seen people of certain religions do the same thing even worse, to others, and myself.

i just think religion shouldn't even be talked about in social settings. this just isn't the case.

understanding is often preached by those who are "understood", but never lived up to.

i understand that i don't like people that talk about jesus a lot not because they are horrible people, but because they don't try and "understand" that other people understand differently and live their life without some guy that lives in the sky. that's a social barrier. they tilt their heads in confusion and then they get almost...angry. i also understand that not all people who believe in god are like this.

i wouldn't deny the fact that religion is damaging, a brainwashing mechanism, and a clusterfuck of self-deceit. that's just my opinion though.

what about unshared belief? what about "opposing" beliefs (i.e. "not theirs")? you just admitted that religion can be juxtaposed next to "lies that have similar characteristics to religion and serve similar functions"...and that is good in any way, shape or form, regardless? i understand a majority of society is full of people lying to themselves about a lot of things, but why would you want to continue to build on that?

to single out religions among these for criticism seems unjustifiable? why? how? i'd love to know. you must believe in god; you don't get much shit for your beliefs? you fit in nicely with most people? "in god we trust" is printed on the american dollar, don't know if you noticed but america is drunk off god. assuming that that's where you live.

 

do you mind proving this claim?

 

I do see them. And then I see them five or ten years older not giving a shit any more. People are social and tribal in nature. If you try and prevent them grouping around one thing, they'll group around something else. I'm all for social reform, but you do ultimately have to accept that it's the human animal you have to work with, and that you can't change how people act, you can only accommodate it.

But why not? Why shouldn't people discuss their beliefs and opinions, religious or otherwise? I think people should be free to discuss whatever they want to, be it the nature of existence or the nature of video games. In some way, religion is actually obstructive to discussion, because a religion is a cluster of assumption which the devout will obviously not want to go over over and over again. As the analogy runs, what else should people not talk about in social settings? Music? Art? Literature? Perhaps I should ask: what should people be discussing? What would be okay with you? I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but really, if people are discussing the meaning of existence, rather than some faggy boyband or piece of shit on MySpace, man, I'd love to see that.

I can see where you're coming from. In the US, religion is a factor in politics. In the UK, politicians are extremely wary of even mentioning a religious conviction, let alone using it as a vote winner. It's a massive cultural difference, and for that reason I can understand why American atheists are more outspoken and antsy than they are here. In the UK, really, most people are if not atheist then at least very ardently undecided.

Maybe it's different in the US, but here in the UK, possibly religious people recognise that they're on borrowed time to some extent. A lot of people don't like born agains in this country. Personally I've found them to be very nice people, and not unpleasantly judgmental. And I speak as an open homosexual. True, most of them mumble something about Freddie Mercury being quite cool, but to be honest, that's the best I get out of the secular too.

I would argue that it has also brought people together and provided impetus for great works of society that cynicism never will. Whether those things are good in themselves is a matter for philosophy. But I certainly don't agree that religion is any more damaging than a hell of a lot of ideas society has. Most wars we think of as religious are questions of territory, economics, etc., that use religion as an excuse or a tool for manipulation. But the idea that, for example, the America vs. Middle East conflict has at its heart anything to do with Christianity vs. Islam is a convenient façade to both sides.

Well, this is where you leave the domain of the strictly hypothetical, and just get into the practicalities of whether a belief has more positive or negative consequences. And that, to be honest, I'd be completely happy with. But see below.

Actually no, I don't believe in God, and I'm British so no-one else I know does either. I'm defending religion from blind, dumb atheism, and there's a huge amount of that around. Ideally, people should be good to each other without believing in supernatural entities. They should also be nice to each other without believing in justice, mercy, karma, etc. But they're not, and chances are, a fair chunk of them never will.

I'm saying it's unjustifiable for the obvious reason. People have died in the name of non-religion - look at Communist China, for example. People don't need religion to kill each other, people don't need religion to believe in things at the expense of human life, in the absence of evidence. I mean, seriously, ALL POLITICS is founded on notions that are every bit as unsubstantiated as the existence of a god. Why should all men be considered equal, when our advertising execs will show you statistics proving that all men are not equal? Why should we imagine that justice is a right, when all our laws of physics indicate that the universe is cold, hostile and indifferent?