Are satanists theists ...

Originally posted by kirksey957
You know, I can't help but wonder if there is a relationship between Christians finding their faith on the internet and your short-lived, but very good and well-intentioned spiritual autobiography thread. Let me try saying it another way. I hear a lot of Bible "ideas" in these forums but don't always hear a lot of life experience.

... and many threads of yours are tragically as short-lived.

Spirituality does poorly in the spirituality forum, where bible debates and bad science reign.

Originally posted by David C
You're saying that 'ideology' is synonymous with 'god'? That is to say, people who tend toward evolutionary theory and naturalism worship it as a 'god'? The statement that Money was their god implies that money is a god? And here I was, thinking all along, that god implied some sort of supernatural overlord/creator. I'm glad you cleared that up.

Hot chicks in short skirts are god. Praise be!

This is what I referred to in another thread when I wrote that fundy xians will often misrepresent their beliefs to win arguments.

Now if theism is belief in at least one god, and god is anything (virtually anything can be worshipped, idealized, or followed), then by Jove we're all theists.

If on the other hand, one takes a more conventional notion of a god as a being with self-awareness and tremendous power over the universe, then some are theists and some are atheists.

So yes, Joe Lick has won the game of words. Reset the goal posts with the aid of Webster's, and you can damn well show about anything you like. For instance, Joe's definition of god means nearly every person (xians included) is a polytheist. Certainly we all have idealized some one else from time to time. Are not children to follow their parents' teachings and example? I have a feeling ole' Mr. Lick gonna have some more Webster's to share.

Yes, Joe Lick will go to any length to win a battle of words. Even if it means emasculating his own superstition. In an attempt to one-up the non-believers, poor Joe has trivialized the nature of his own deity to the level of manure or tupperware.

And if people worship, idealize or follow evolutionary theory in their lives then their god is more than likely humanism or some derivative and all that goes with it.

According to your Webster's-approved definition, evolutionary theory would be this person's god. I know it's hard to make stuff up on the fly (especially when you're insincere about it), but do try to be consistent.

Thanks.

Originally posted by royalchicken
Yes, there is hope for him, but there is more hope for his students, so stop telling him not to give homework 😛.

As far as I am concerned he can give as much homework as he likes, but not to me .... 😉

Originally posted by telerion
This is what I referred to in another thread when I wrote that fundy xians will often misrepresent their beliefs to win arguments.

Now if theism is belief in at least one god, and god is anything (virtually anything can be worshipped, idealized, or followed), then by Jove we're all theists.

If on the other hand, one takes a more conventional notio ...[text shortened]... vers, poor Joe has trivialized the nature of his own deity to the level of manure or tupperware.

This is hilarious. You have an issue with someone using English definitions for the terms they're using in debate! Despite your obvious resentment for rational debate, at least one thing you said was true.

Christians do sometimes have other gods. And that is why the idea behind the first commandment (have no other gods before me) is still very relevant today. We are still very prone to putting other things in our lives ahead of JHVH, and those are (Biblically) gods that we need to leave behind.

Originally posted by telerion
In an attempt to one-up the non-believers, poor Joe has trivialized the nature of his own deity to the level of manure or tupperware.

The whole post was well-presented, but this last sentence expresses most clearly my initial thoughts when I read Joe's post, except that my thoughts were more abstract than faeces and plastic.

Bravo!

Originally posted by joelek
This is hilarious. You have an issue with someone using English definitions for the terms they're using in debate! Despite your obvious resentment for rational debate, at least one thing you said was true.

Christians do sometimes have other gods. And that is why the idea behind the first commandment (have no other gods before me) is still very relevant ...[text shortened]... things in our lives ahead of JHVH, and those are (Biblically) gods that we need to leave behind.

Mr. Lick,

I am glad that my post warmed your heart so. Please do take the following bit of advice to heart: While one is free to define words as one chooses, it is wicked to extinguish the substance of an argument with verbal ledgerdemain.

One should always be sincere in their beliefs. Did you not know that the Word of the Lord cannot be founded upon a lie?

Why not stop serving Satan and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ today?

Originally posted by joelek
The best definition I could find on www.dictionary.com is

[b]One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

That's the idea I was using in my statement. Although I might replace one with something or someone, since even the example given is speaking of money -- a thing.

Everyone has someone or something ...[text shortened]... ut the capitalization is intended to mean the God of the Bible, YHVH, as revealed in Scripture.][/b]

Everyone has someone or something that they worship, idealize or follow.

I don't.

Worshipping is stupid. Everything gets old at one time or another and just like things in nature, old things die. Idealizing is equally futile. To follow is perhaps the most natural human behavior, but I've often found that at certain points in life you just cannot follow something to the letter. You must think for yourself and make your own decisions.

However, you cannot worship or idealize yourself since you would soon discover that you're not at all special. To follow yourself, well, you do that because it's hard not to, so that's not really the same as following the path of a God, is it?

Being atheist is to not have a God. If you idolize someone/something and allow your whole life to evolve around this entity, then you have a God. Being atheist is to have a truly free mind and to allow others to think for themselves. I don't think atheists can be called God worshippers in any sense of the word.

Satanists however do worship an entity and allow their whole lifes to evolve around their God, so they are definitely not the same as atheists. One could say they're just as misguided as any other theist, wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by joelek
The best definition I could find on www.dictionary.com is

One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

Does this online dictionary tell you the origins of that sentence? I believe it originates in Karl Marx's discussion of Capitalism's fetishization of gold. Something all of us in the Western World should contemplate during our holiday season.

In light of recent discussions of Satan in these threads, I thought I would do some research into the word—and the concept(s) behind it—in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanach). The Hebrew word shatan—which often carries the definite article, ha shatan—can be translated as accuser, adversary, opponent. Outside the book of Job, Satan doesn’t seem play much of a role in the Hebrew Scriptures.
________________________________________________

Satan in the Hebrew Scriptures

There are 18 mentions of Satan qua Satan in the Hebrew Scriptures (NRSV), all but three of them in the first two chapters of Job, where Satan acts against Job with God’s consent, in order to test Job’s righteousness.

In First Chronicles 21:1 it says: “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.” This is interesting, because in 2 Samuel 24:1, in what appears to be a reference to the same event, it says: “Again the anger of YHVH was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.” (my italics) According to my one study Bible, “Samuel and Kings served as the major source for the Chronicler, though his copy of these books differed in significant ways from the text as we now have it in the Hebrew Bible.” (The Harper-Collins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version)

The other two references are in Zechariah 3:1 & 2. In this case, Satan stands as the “accuser” (as shatan here is translated by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 1985)* of Joshua the priest. An angel of YHVH rebukes Satan before he can even speak an accusation against Joshua.

The Hebrew word shatan appears as “adversary” in the following 8 verses. In most cases, the reference is to a human adversary.

Num. 22:22—an angel of YHVH stands in Balaam’s way as an adversary.
Num. 22:32—same angel as verse 22.
1 Sam. 29:4—the Philistines want to send David away lest he become an adversary to them.
2 Sam. 19:22—David, referring to the sons of Zeruiah.
1 Ki. 5:4—Solomon in a time of peace, facing “neither adversary nor misfortune.”
1 Ki. 11:14—Hadad the Edomite, raised up by YHVH as an adversary to Solomon.
1 Ki. 11:23—Rezon, son of Eliada, raised up as adversary to Solomon.
1 Ki. 11:25—Rezon again.

Other Hebrew words are sometimes translated as adversary, foe or opponent.

In psalm 109:6, shatan is translated as “accuser;” in verses 20 and 29 it is plural shat’nai: “accusers.” In psalm 71:13, the plural also appears.

All in all, shatan appears in the Hebrew Scriptures about 30 times; in about 12 of those cases, it refers to a human adversary; twice it is the role assumed by an angel of YHVH; and once it appears to be an editing replacement for the anger of YHVH. [The search was done in NRSV, and there may be a slightly different number in another translation—i.e., I might have missed another word that is used to translate shatan.]

Satan appears 35 times in the NT.

_______________________________________

The Case of “Lucifer”

Lucifer (or “day star” ) appears in the Tanach once, but I do not think it refers to Satan.

Isaiah 14:12. How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! (NRSV)

Heilel, here translated as “Day Star,” and as “Lucifer” in the KJV, means brightness (from halal, to shine, to be bright or splendid) and apparently could refer to Venus, the day or morning “star.” The Hebrew word is related to halel, which means to praise (as in halelu Yah!), to celebrate, to cause to shine, to make light; with different vowel-pointing, the same root can mean to be foolish, insolent or mad, to rave.

Since the poem in Isaiah in which the reference appears is a “song of scorn over the king of Babylon” (JPS), the most straightforward interpretation is that that is to whom the poetic reference applies. It is in later traditions that the “Day Star” becomes conflated with Satan as a fallen angel.

Similarly, the serpent in the Garden of Eden story.

________________________________________
Other “Devil” Words

The word devil does not appear in the Tanach, but appears 36 times in the NT. The word demon does not appear in the Tanach (but demons, plural, does twice); demon appears 21 times, and demons 28 times in the NT. Since the writers of the NT books were mostly Jews, I think this greater emphasis on the demonic is likely either simply a sign of the times, or due to hellenistic influences; that is, I doubt that it reflected strictly the worldview of those people who came to be called Christians.

_________________________________________________

The role of Satan (ha shatan, the adversary) seems to be multivariate and ambiguous, and not very prominent, in the Hebrew Scriptures, and seems to have developed late as the personification of evil. There are no references to Satan worship. In the Talmud, Satan seems to be generally a symbol for the yetzer ha’ra, the “evil impulse” in human beings, as contrasted to the yetzer ha’tov, the impulse for good. We must all wrestle with our own yetzers.

* Jewish Publication Society, Tanach: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text.

Originally posted by vistesd
In light of recent discussions of Satan in these threads, I thought I would do some research into the word—and the concept(s) behind it—in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanach). The Hebrew word shatan—which often carries the definite article, ha shatan—can be translated as accuser, adversary, opponent. Outside the book of Job, Satan doesn’t seem ...[text shortened]... i]Tanach: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text[/i].

Thanks Vistesd, I appreciate your research. Very interesting !

Rec-ed.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Thanks Vistesd, I appreciate your research. Very interesting !

Rec-ed.

Agreed. Nice to see some scholarship here.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Agreed. Nice to see some scholarship here.

Beat ya all to it - by hours.

Originally posted by Halitose
Beat ya all to it - by hours.

My rec's in there somewhere.