Oakspear

You would think that this applies to Satan, but do we think that because we already know this verse? If we take this verse literally, then the only ones literally in Eden would be God, Satan, Adam and Eve. But could it be a figurative reference to the King of Tyre? No matter who this is talking about it's figurative. Someone pointed out that no man is ever called a "cherub". But is Satan called a cherub anywhere else. What exactly are the cherubs? Are we predisposed to think that this refers to Satan because that's what we were taught?

Isn't that attitude what got you put on moderater queue last time? Wordwolf gave you some good advice a while back on how to conduct arguments, I'd take it if I were you. So...anything to contribute? Or are you just gonna sling mud?

Why is that a problem for you? I, for one, don't always have my bible in the same room as my computer. Dancing & I see things very differently (usually), but give him credit for using specific verses to back up his opinion. Better than your usual smart-@ssed comments that assume that everybody either accepts your interpretation of the bible or is an idiot. Yeah, so? Allan...PFAL tinted glasses...again, what's your point? Have anything to contribute?

The section in Ezekiel is a little harder to dismiss as not referring to the devil: but look at this context It may or may not be talking about the same person here, Tyre & Tyrus are the same, but Prince & King are 2 different words in Hebrew, so we may be talking about 2 individuals in Tyre.However, the prince is accused of thinking that he is a god, but God emphasizes that he is a man. No more time right now, but this could argue for the following section not referring to satan at all, but to the puffed up view of the King of Tyre about himself, hyperbole again.

Okay with me I was looking at that section in Isaiah again, where the name "Lucifer" is used. If I recall correctly, Isaiah was written just before Israel was defeated and carried off to Babylon. A prophecy of the future: God's not going to allow the captivity to last forever. Up to this point, I don't see where there is any reason to suppose that this is anything but the king of babylon we're talking about. This is where (IMHO) one has to decide whether this section is literally talking about the Babylonian King, or Satan. One way or another figurative language is being employed. This could be referring to how lofty a spot the king of Babylon fell from by way of hyperbole, or literally to Satan. Although at the time that this was written there was no other verses to to back up Satan falling from heaven (In Job he still has access to heaven) There is nothing that I can see in these verses that solidly indicates that this is talking about Satan. When was it decided that this did refer to Satan? Was it ever viwed that way in pre-Christian times? Did the Church Fathers view it that way? In short, was that section always looked at as obviously referring to Satan, or did that position evolve?

You get extra husband points for that one

Sunesis, that's uncalled for. First, who is calling those who believe the bible idiots? It's not a large thread, and about 1/3 of the posts are jokes about the devil in a blue dress or playing a fiddle in Georgia :blink: so they shouldn't be hard to find. Bramble and I gave our opinions from a pagan POV, Abigail from a Jewish POV, Wordwolf gave some good reasons for his POV. Everybody appeared to acting civilly Speaking just for myself, I don't consider the bible believers idiots, I just don't believe what you do. But you chose to paint other posters as those speaking forth flowery (do you imply emptiness with the floweriness?) And no, I don't, from my POV have a decision to make. I don't have to decide to follow either a god or a devil that I don't believe exists. This doesn't have to be a fight, it can be a discussion.

From a non-God-inspired bible POV, when the different books of the bible were written, what was going on at the time, who Israel was in contact with, and what points the different writers were trying to make is all important. Throughout most of the bible evil happens without any help from a devil. In Job you have the aspect of the tempter/accuser, who is evidently on speaking terms with God, then a couple of sections in books, one which immediately precedes the captivity and one that is deep into it, that are just kinda thrown into the mix, then all of a sudden he's all over the place in the gospels. I'm sure that my fellow posters who subscribe to biblical inerranct can make it all "fit"...somehow, I find cultural influences and attempts and reconciling different aspects of theology just as reasonable.

By who? (whom?)There's a variety of opinions here. I myself don't believe in a literal devil and believe that the biblical references to him (it) are an attempt to reconcile conflicting attributes of God. But that's just me. That being said, I think if one were to take the view that the bible is inspired by God, then it is clear that not onlly are the verses in Ezekiel and Isaiah referring to literal flesh and blood men, but they are also figuratively referring to the being known as Satan/The Devil. You give some good reasons for thinking that they refer to the Devil, and I mostly agree with you. You've thought it through. I can't speak for any other poster, but I ask questions from a skeptical POV to encourage people to THINK. This may be a stupid question, but is there an actual Dictionary of Misinformation or are you poking fun at someone?

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus!

Thanks for the panties...and btw...I am from Southern New York

Maybe the "obnoxious New Yorkers" got sent there as WOWs and couldn't afford to leave. No, you said That "rudeness" - part of our culture Where's my panties? I want to wad 'em

Flavah? I got yer flavah right heah! (New Yorker in exile in Nebraska)

Sidney is about 60 miles from the Wyoming border, and about 12 miles north of the Colorado line in the Nebraska panhandle. Kearney is cloer to the center of the state.

Satan in Judaism: http://www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html

Since I am not one of those who believe the bible literally, I'm not going to try to make the Devil "fit".I see the bible as a collection of writings by people trying to make sense out of their spiritual experiences and to somehow make it all hang together. Some of it may have been sincere efforts to share their experiences with others, other parts seem more like partisan pamphlets, putting down the views of opposing camps and pushing their own agendas. Devil theology appears to me to be a way to make sense of the very real fact of suffering and evil in a world presided over by a loving God.

So where did he come from? Or is your point that "Satan" was not created as an evil being, but became that way? I understand that God didn't directly create everything that ever was, but that he created the raw material out of which everything consists. I don't think that a biblical case can be made that Satan evolved, or was born, or was built from angel parts by other angels, therefore, despite there being no verse that "lists" Satan as a creation from God, God created him. (note: I am using "Satan" for both his fallen and pre-fallen state. I'm not convinced that the "Lucifer" of Ezekiel is referring to Satan) Well, that's one meaning, and certainly its literal one. Figuratively it can mean the unseen abode of God. Okay, I won't argue with that Well, that's the "gap" theory, which is not universally accepted. I'm not seeing how this fits in to your point. Hmmm...no it's not. While the English word "replenish" means "to fill again", the Hebrew word from which it is translated does not. Well, anyway, the bible does say that God created evil:Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

You think maybe there were things not included in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? If you stick with biblical literalism, God created everything, including Satan and all that he was/is. Satan rebelled and as a result we had a focus, or even a source for evil. But according to Pond So that the existance of evil is part of God's plan.If evil's existance is part of God's plan, then Satan didn't really have a choice, did he? God was counting on Satan to rebel. Sounds like a setup. Nice guy, this God fella :unsure: Seems to me that with free will every single person would have the ability to choose to love and obey God or not. There would not be a need to have a focus or personification of that lack of love and of disobedience. You don't need a devil to have evil. You need a devil to take the heat off of God for all the evil that does happen on his watch.

Allan: You read the posts again The problem that the "The Rationalist Society" (you make that sound like an insult <_< ) has with the whole scenario is not that the Devil became evil by his free will, but that he now is unable to exercise that free will to be other than evil.

johniam: We were in a small town as well. Sidney, Nebraska for 6 months, population about 5,000, Kearney, a college town for the rest, closer to 20,000. During my own WOW year (1980-81) there wasn't much of a dropout rate. One Corps couple left about a month in, but everybody else in Nebraska stuck with it. About half were in a WOWvet program the next year, and all of them stuck it out. I didn't have much to do with WOW's again until the last year of the WOW program (1993-94?). Lincoln and Omaha each started out with 4 families of four people each. I believe that by the end of the year there were a total of three WOW families, a couple with 5 people absorbed from other groups. If I remember correctly there were four people, 2 couples, who were gone within a month. One family in Lincoln lost 3 out of 4 people. Every time we saw the WOW's there were less of them.

Gabriel is described as delivering messages, but I don't recall where the bible says that he is the leader of all the messenger engels as TWI taught, I don't believe that he is described as an archangel. Michael is decribed in at least one place as an archangel, but does that make him the leader of all the angel wariors? satanism: http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm

I've heard of 8-string basses - I believe Geezer Butler of Black Sabbath played one when I saw them in 1977 - it looked like the strings were doubled sorta like a 12-string guitar - but nine strings - holy crap! Do you need to have an extra knuckle added to get your fingers around the neck on those things? (I don't know why I haven't joined in on this thread before)

In the Old Testament you barely hear about the devil. "The Serpent" is mentioned in Genesis and is not heard from again except in a few places. In Job "Satan" appears to be one of God's poker buddies or something, with access to God's presence. Ezekiel mentions a "Lucifer" (translated from halal, shining one, I think) which may or may not be referring to Satan. Wierwille (and others) have taught that Satan is referred to indirectly throughout the OT, but IMHO this is a supposition. Wierwille on occassion would announce that a usage of "lord" was refferring to "the lord of this world", when "lord" was translated from jehovah, which clearly means God. IMHO the invention an adversary to God was influenced by some of the dualistic religions, and a need to theologically justify the existance of evil. The rebellion in heaven doesn't make sense to me either. Did Satan not know that God was all-powerful? What exactly was he trying to do? make himself all powerful? When you think about it, it doesn't make much sense, does it? Generally Wiccans and other pagans do not believe in a central personification of evil, or an ultimate source of all evil. We don't deny that evil exists, or even that there are malign spirits, but I have never heard of a Wiccan or other pagan who believes in "The Devil".

Let me clarify something: that's not a real schedule, but in order to get your 20 hours of work and 48 hours of witnessing in, you're committing 12 hours a day to those 2 items alone, if you sleep only 6 1/2 hours, then you have only 5 1/2 hours for everything else in your day including cooking, eating, showering, getting from point A to point B, studying da Word, etc. The "schedule" was meant to illustrate how impossible it was to really do the program. Three of us in our group worked closer to 30 hours per week. I worked in a nursing home for about half the year and worked 7 days on and seven days off; the way the schedule was written I would have four 8-hour days one week, and 3 the next, but the days off from week one would be Thursdat, Friday, Saturday, and the next week Sunday - Wednesday...sweet! Our fearless leader couldn't keep a job. At one point he got a "job" putting in a lawn for our landlord in exchange for reduced rent. What he really did was sleep late, smoke cigarettes, and hit on the wives of guys who were in jail over in the trailer court, or go over to other belivers' to watch t.v. When the landlord found out he demanded a refund of all the months of rent reduction that he had given us. Since our leader was now out of work, the other 3 of us had to come up with the money. All along, since the rent reduction was considered his share of the family fund, we were giving him money for cigarettes and other incidentals out of the family fund, since he wasn't actually getting a paycheck. Double wammy. We witnessed when we felt like it, which became virtually "never" as the year drew to a close.