Summations Only

Modulous writes:So what damage do I do if I tell them Zeus loves them and Hercules laboured for them and if they would believe in him that he would give them a wonderful life with him in a place called Elysium one day?
Now if I am wrong and there is no Zeus, Hercules, Elysium or Tartarus and they live a happy, fulfilled, contented life helping all those they can and harming no one along the way.When they die they are buried and then nothing.Please explain the damage I have caused to them.

Coyote writes:And what about the Rigveda?
How do your points #1 through #4 also apply to that document?

Modulous writes:Some Abrahamic religions require being tortured in permanent fire unless a person accepts the validity of a specific human sacrifice.

Anyway, your post highlights something that interests me enough that I tried to find a way to make it on topic. I went to Exhibition Islam when it came to Manchester. Some of the exhibits were rather fascinating, old Qur'ans, and various things from Islamic history including old scientific equipment and of course I had the chance to speak with an Imam and a variety of Muslims while in a Mosque.They sound exactly like Christian apologists. They claim to have the superior evidence, they claim they can prove the Qur'an is the word of God and so on and so forth. The standard of their evidence for these claims is the same as the kinds of evidence I've seen Christian apologetics come up with their own beliefs. Archeology, writing style, accurate scientific claims being made centuries before science made them and so on and so forth.What strikes me is that when the other religion does it, its deceptive mush. When the religion that you just happen to believe is true does it - you could be saving the very souls of children so it is justified even if it turns out to be false.This strikes me as a similar, perhaps related though not identical, kind of mindset that is required to believe that evolution and the devil might be connected in some way or that any science that contradicts the plain reading of a religious claim must be something to do with 'atheists'.Naturally, you will say something like 'but my evidence is better!', but really Buz - I have no stake in whose evidence is 'better' whereas you clearly do. And both have appalling standards of evidence that don't lead to the conclusions that those that tout those evidences are trying to make us believe they do. Naturally you will protest, but so do they.

Percy writes:I said that Satan was one of the gods in whom Christians believe.

Percy writes:.......you believe in God, Satan and the angels. There's no difference of any substance.

Rrhain writes:I believe Percy is doing the "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" method of reasoning. And, indeed, it makes sense: If Christians treat the devil as having qualities X, Y, and Z which we normally attribute to gods, then it necessarily follows that the devil is a god, no matter how much Christians would like to devalue the power of the devil. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.Theists often have a hard time with evil as a primal force the way they do for good. They want a sort of "separate but equal" attitude about it so that they can have their focus of good triumph over it. This is one of the unique facets of Scandanavian theology: The bad guys win.

Percy writes:As I told you the first time, it means there's a contradiction in your Bible, since in the very first commandment God makes explicit reference to other gods that he prefer man not favor over him.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Percy writes:Buz, it doesn't matter what names your Bible uses to refer to supernatural beings. It's the nature of things that matter, not the names. The question is, do those supernatural beings have pretty much the same qualities as, say, the pagan gods of the ancient Greeks. As I've shown, they do.
So you can refer to heaven's lesser gods as angels, and the ancient Greeks can refer to Mount Olympus's lesser gods as gods, but they're pretty much the same thing.The real difference of opinion is between you and ICANT, who believes that God is the ultimate source of evil.

Percy writes:But I think you're still hung up on vocabulary.

Percy writes:And you're wrong about angels not engaging in war. The devil is an angel, and according to Buzsaw he's engaged in a war with God himself for the souls of men.

7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels; 12:8And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 12:9And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

Rrhain writes:Buzsaw responds to me:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As per my message 190 perhaps you would evaluate my comments in that message as to why I think it does not make sense that god who claims the status of the one and only god created other gods. That is just not what the Bible teaches or what Christians, by and large believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Because they are stuck in a contradictory theology. They ascribe traits to the devil that we would normally ascribe to a "god." But because they have also insisted that their "god" is all-powerful and with dominion over the devil, they then have to deny that this other entity is legitimate.Now, I'm all for allowing people of a certain theological/philosophical viewpoint define the words that describe themselves. For example, atheists claim they do not have religion, that is a lack of belief, not a belief in lack, and I can respect that. And I certainly respect the claim of many Christians that god and the devil are different (though there are some that claim that god is actually an evil being and still others that claim that god and the devil are the same), but there needs to be consistency. To grant the devil all that power and then claim that no, it isn't real is to be inconsistent.To use a pedestrian analogy, it's kinda like the problem in Nightmare on Elm Street: In the original movie, the heroine lives because she learns that Freddy only has what power you give him. Refuse to give him anything, and he is powerless......except that they immediately contradict that in the final scene and never bring it up again in any of the sequels.You don't get to have it both ways: Freddy cannot be this amazingly powerful menace that is independent of you while at the same time being only capable of acting at your demand.The devil cannot be this powerful menace that is independent of god while at the same time being only capable of acting at his demand.

Rrhain writes:Huh? Not at all. Does the phrase, "separation of powers" mean anything to you? We have only one President, but he is not in charge of everything. There are two other, co-equal branches that are independent of and can easily overrule the President.

Incorrect. First, there is only one Chief Justice. Second, they are not Presidents. They are Judges. Take legislation. If the Congress passes a bill, the President can veto it if he doesn't like it. Congress can then override the veto. If it comes before the Supreme Court, they do not have the ability to strike it down simply because they don't like it the way the President can. The only power they have is to compare it against the Constitution and see if it flies. If it doesn't, then it gets invalidated.That isn't Presidential power. That's Judicial power.

This is the conflict in Christian theology: They want there to be both a separation and a dominion of powers. They need the devil to be independent of god and yet somehow controlled by god at the same time. How could evil be sourced in god, who is only good? Ah, evil comes from the devil, ergo, the devil is independent of god.But that means the devil just might win! We can't have that...only god can win in the end, therefore the devil is somehow constrained and controlled by god. But that means the devil isn't independent of god and thus the merry-go-round spins again.

But surely you agree that different people have very different understandings of what the Bible says, do you not? If everybody agreed, why aren't we all Orthodox?

Then why is there the devil? How can he have any power of any kind at all? He is ascribed powers and abilities that we clearly define as "god-like." Thus, he would qualify as "a god." But you immediately fall for exactly what it is that I described: A need to de-legitimize the devil.

Straggler writes:Were the Greek gods actually gods, or not, by your definition?If the Greek gods were indeed "gods" then on what basis is Satan not a god?
If they were not gods then, according to you, the ancient Greeks were atheists.Which is it?