Originally posted by sonhousestill, it bears to investigate the origin of 'satan' starting from his humble beginnings as the spirit of evil intent in humans to evolving into a full blown evil, lying, deceiving, seditious enemy of biblegod individual.
Still, the fact remains all this talk about 'satan' is much ado about nothing since there is no such being, it is all part of the mythology made up by man, christian or otherwise.
while the early pre-christ christians (possibly the essenes) were working to helenize judaism, they found that it lacked this evil counterpart to the chief deity that existed in all the other pagan religions and they wanted to partake... so satan became a full fledged individual person.
Originally posted by RJHindsthere are no such drawings in science. you must have found that in a creationism website.
Even mythology is based on some truth. Take the mythology of evolution for example: Science books sometimes show drawings of the progression of a chimpanzee evolving into a man. The only truth in this myth is the beginning drawing that shows a chimpanzee and the ending drawing showing a man.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritsuch a failure, considering that Job is one of the oldest books in the Biblical cannon, we find Satan there, tempting, maligning, hurting Job in all manner of ways, you need a Bible study like all get out my man!
still, it bears to investigate the origin of 'satan' starting from his humble beginnings as the spirit of evil intent in humans to evolving into a full blown evil, lying, deceiving, seditious enemy of biblegod individual.
while the early pre-christ christians (possibly the essenes) were working to helenize judaism, they found that it lacked this evil c ...[text shortened]... agan religions and they wanted to partake... so satan became a full fledged individual person.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiesuch a failure considering that the book of job is poetry and satan is an allegorical representation of the adversary, a personification, not a specific being named satan.
such a failure, considering that Job is one of the oldest books in the Biblical cannon, we find Satan there, tempting, maligning, hurting Job in all manner of ways, you need a Bible study like all get out my man!
you should start that bible study now, you really, really need it. badly.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wasn't trying to debate with you robbie. As I said, I'm not interested in your brand of "point-scoring" discussion, I was merely pointing out your misapprehension. If you wish to continue believing that Buddhists believe in some version of satan that's fine, you go right ahead.
and yet here you are, the one claiming you are correct, ironic really.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI am not trying to score any points, nor do i have a brand as you wrongly assume, for
I wasn't trying to debate with you robbie. As I said, I'm not interested in your brand of "point-scoring" discussion, I was merely pointing out your misapprehension. If you wish to continue believing that Buddhists believe in some version of satan that's fine, you go right ahead.
one, i did not author the statement that early Buddhism had both a literal and a
conceptual understanding of a satanic agency, now you can either accept the fact that it
did, or you cannot, either way, the fact remains. What I find quite interesting is the
lengths that our Buddhist friends have gone to, in order to distance themselves from
these historical roots, why is it so hard to accept both a literal and
"psychological"interpretation of Mara, I cannot say.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritthat its written in poetic form is irrelevant, so were the psalms and they are
such a failure considering that the book of job is poetry and satan is an allegorical representation of the adversary, a personification, not a specific being named satan.
you should start that bible study now, you really, really need it. badly.
considered inspired, that its an allegory is your proviso, not mine, again an
irrelevancy, for your statement was and I quote,
still, it bears to investigate the origin of 'satan' starting from his humble beginnings
as the spirit of evil intent in humans to evolving into a full blown evil, lying,
deceiving, seditious enemy of biblegod individual
clearly as far as the Bible is concerned, Satan has always, from the earliest times,
been portrayed as lying , deceiving and an enemy of God, one only need to read
and understand some of the earliest books of the Biblical cannon to know that this is
true. Now while i expect your ego to writhe against this, it remains, irrespective of
whether you accept it or otherwise.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiecomplete and utter nonsense.
let's break up the nonsense:
"that its written in poetic form is irrelevant, "
wrong. obviously you don't understand poetry.
"so were the psalms and they are considered inspired"
irrelevant. the psalms don't portray satan as an evil individual person, nor in any allegorical way.
"clearly as far as the Bible is concerned, Satan has always, from the earliest times,
been portrayed as lying , deceiving and an enemy of God"
wrong again. satan is never portrayed as a lying, deceiving enemy of god in the old testament.
as far as the bible is concerned, satan took on an identity of a specific individual who is portrayed as a lying, deceiving enemy of god in the new testament.
in the old testament satan appears in;
1 chronicles where he (obeying biblegod's instructions) incites david to take a census
how do we know satan was obeying biblegod? because of 2Sa 24:1. we learn it is actually biblegod inciting evil in david.
he also makes an appearance in job where he takes on an allegorical accuser, and he's quiet friendly with biblegod here. they're really chums. again, he can do nothing but solicit biblegod's permission to do evil onto poor job, so once again it is biblegod who actually inflicts all the evil on poor job, just so he can come in with his heroic closing speech!
finally, satan appears in zechariah, where he is standing at biblegod's right hand side! as an accuser. he is then rebuked, but this by no means establishes satan as an enemy of god, a liar or deceiver. this thing is in your imagination.
"one only need to read and understand some of the earliest books of the Biblical cannon to know that this is true. "
when one reads and understands the earliest books of the biblical canon, they will come to the agreement that you are hallucinating.
"Now while i expect your ego to writhe against this, it remains, irrespective of
whether you accept it or otherwise."
i expect your over-inflated ego will be unable to accept the full reality of your complete failure here. nevertheless, the validity of my claims remain irrespective of your acceptance or denial.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo it was a political decision to make Judaism palatable to the rest of the known world at the time.
still, it bears to investigate the origin of 'satan' starting from his humble beginnings as the spirit of evil intent in humans to evolving into a full blown evil, lying, deceiving, seditious enemy of biblegod individual.
while the early pre-christ christians (possibly the essenes) were working to helenize judaism, they found that it lacked this evil c ...[text shortened]... agan religions and they wanted to partake... so satan became a full fledged individual person.
Originally posted by sonhouseson house will you explain to the above, what your post with regard to Buddhism and
So it was a political decision to make Judaism palatable to the rest of the known world at the time.
its acceptance of both a literal and conceptual understanding of Satan means, he
seems to be in denial.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are making the mistake of thinking of Buddhism as a monolithic religion. It is most certainly not. Some Buddhists might think of a literal being named Satan or Maya or whatever, that does not mean you brand ALL Buddhists with that label.
son house will you explain to the above, what your post with regard to Buddhism and
its acceptance of both a literal and conceptual understanding of Satan means, he
seems to be in denial.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou're the one in denial. there is no one called satan in buddhism.
son house will you explain to the above, what your post with regard to Buddhism and
its acceptance of both a literal and conceptual understanding of Satan means, he
seems to be in denial.
you're confusing this guy with satan.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/iconsofbuddhism/a/mara.htm
it's simply a demon who challenges buddha by temptation. the proto christians liked this story so much they incorporated into their mythical christ character. but they failed to understand that buddha was defeating his own evil intent and in doing so, he found enlightenment.
Originally posted by sonhouseI have made no such mistake and i resent the assumptions that have been pervasive
You are making the mistake of thinking of Buddhism as a monolithic religion. It is most certainly not. Some Buddhists might think of a literal being named Satan or Maya or whatever, that does not mean you brand ALL Buddhists with that label.
throughout this thread. No one is talking about branding anyone anything. Whether
some Buddhists think of a literal Satan or not, the fact is, that historically it was
accepted that there was a literal satanic agency.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritno one is saying that there is someone called Satan you pure straw merchant selling
you're the one in denial. there is no one called satan in buddhism.
you're confusing this guy with satan.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/iconsofbuddhism/a/mara.htm
it's simply a demon who challenges buddha by temptation. the proto christians liked this story so much they incorporated into their mythical christ character. but they failed to understand that buddha was defeating his own evil intent and in doing so, he found enlightenment.
strawberries on strawberry Sunday near strawingham, the fact is, that there was
historically a literal equivalent not just a conceptual understanding, so hard for you to
accept, why, i have no idea.