God releases Satan ? Why God allow Evil to exist?

  • Thread starter Saint
  • Start date
  • #1
402
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.

Why like that?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Also, why was the devil allowed to exist in the first place?
 
  • #3
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
I think the basic idea is that the devil was initially an angel with free will. This angel used its free will to disobey God and so was banished.
 
  • #4
Zero
IT IS A FAIRY TALE!!

Whew!!

See, in a fairy tale, you have to have the good guy and the bad guy. In the Bible, without a super-powerful bad guy, the 'God' character, being all powerful, would have to take the blame for evil as well as good, so a second characher was created. It still doesn't make sense to the nonbelievers, of course, because a critical look would show that an all-knowing, all powerful being would have to be psychotic to create its own enemies...unless it is, as I said, a fairy tale.
 
  • #5
2,225
0
Originally posted by Saint
The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.

Why like that?
Because without somebody to tempt us to do wrong (or bad), then it would not "expose" us to our weaknesses, and we would not inquire (of God) about how to grow beyond it, "spiritually."
 
  • #6
402
0
According to bible, God wants everone to believe in Jesus and saved, but Satan wants people to disbelieve God and sin.
If without Satan's influence, there should be more people to believe in Jesus and do less sin. However, God seems do not know this fact and allow Satan to work freely on people.

Isn't this ridiculous ?
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Saint
The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.

Why like that?
maybe after 1000 years he finally changed his lawyer....
 
  • #8
73
0
  • #9
Zero
Originally posted by Saint
According to bible, God wants everone to believe in Jesus and saved, but Satan wants people to disbelieve God and sin.
If without Satan's influence, there should be more people to believe in Jesus and do less sin. However, God seems do not know this fact and allow Satan to work freely on people.

Isn't this ridiculous ?
Yes, it is. I'll make an atheist out of you yet!
 
  • #10
6
0
The Revelation says, Satan will be jailed 1000 years, after that it will be released to confuse nations.
Maybe it was done so the world wouldn't be so goody two-shoe and boring? Conflicts is what makes the world so lively and fun.

The question I ask is why are we punished for following the evil that god himself has created? If this is so, shouldn't we be punish for following the good that he created also?
 
  • #11
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Originally posted by Zero
IT IS A FAIRY TALE!!
Probably a good answer...but it won't get people to think about their beliefs. :wink:
 
  • #12
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Originally posted by hypnagogue
I think the basic idea is that the devil was initially an angel with free will. This angel used its free will to disobey God and so was banished.
Right. But since the Bible shows that God destroys things which displease Him, why not a fallen angel too?
 
  • #13
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because without somebody to tempt us to do wrong (or bad), then it would not "expose" us to our weaknesses, and we would not inquire (of God) about how to grow beyond it, "spiritually."
Human nature is not enough? I don't think Judeo-Christian beliefs are such that all sin is due to a devil.
 
  • #14
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
  • #15
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
I continue to despair over seeing, on the one hand, diligence toward understanding science issues by members here, and on the other hand, such utter carelessness toward understanding the history of the God concept.

Tell me please . . .what possible excuse is there for sloppy scholarship in a science-oriented, public forum?

What I wouldn't give for some participation by members who've thoroughly studied the archeology, history, anthropology, literature, etc. of God belief, and who offer up for everyone actual, genuine, real informed opinions rather than the superficial knee-jerk opinionated crap prevalent here.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Originally posted by Zero
Yes, it is. I'll make an atheist out of you yet!
This is a charming sentiment. Too bad the position of atheism is just as logically flawed as the position of theism; belief in the non-existence of God has no more justification than belief in God. I'm all for questioning beliefs in the spirit of open discussion, but what amounts to nothing more than simple meme machines on either side of the equation are generally not very conducive to open discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
2,225
0
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I continue to despair over seeing, on the one hand, diligence toward understanding science issues by members here, and on the other hand, such utter carelessness toward understanding the history of the God concept.

Tell me please . . .what possible excuse is there for sloppy scholarship in a science-oriented, public forum?

What I wouldn't give for some participation by members who've thoroughly studied the archeology, history, anthropology, literature, etc. of God belief, and who offer up for everyone actual, genuine, real informed opinions rather than the superficial knee-jerk opinionated crap prevalent here.
Actually there are people discussing these issues intelligently, although some of us would rather fight it out in the trenches I guess? And hey, don't forget to tell Brian I referred you. :wink:

http://www.comparative-religion.com [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
2,225
0
Originally posted by Phobos
Human nature is not enough? I don't think Judeo-Christian beliefs are such that all sin is due to a devil.
If you understood the spiritual implications here, that all outcroppings of evil are due to man's ignorance, and that yes, the Devil is in fact man (gone to hell), then human nature would suffice.
 
  • #19
Zero
Originally posted by hypnagogue
This is a charming sentiment. Too bad the position of atheism is just as logically flawed as the position of theism; belief in the non-existence of God has no more justification than belief in God. I'm all for questioning beliefs in the spirit of open discussion, but what amounts to nothing more than simple meme machines on either side of the equation are generally not very conducive to open discussion.
Too bad you don't actually know what Atheism means, or you wouldn't have posted teh way you did.
 
  • #20
Zero
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I continue to despair over seeing, on the one hand, diligence toward understanding science issues by members here, and on the other hand, such utter carelessness toward understanding the history of the God concept.

Tell me please . . .what possible excuse is there for sloppy scholarship in a science-oriented, public forum?

What I wouldn't give for some participation by members who've thoroughly studied the archeology, history, anthropology, literature, etc. of God belief, and who offer up for everyone actual, genuine, real informed opinions rather than the superficial knee-jerk opinionated crap prevalent here.
Uh huh...for instance, most respected Biblical scholars laugh at the idea of taking the Bible literally.
 
  • #21
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...for instance, most respected Biblical scholars laugh at the idea of taking the Bible literally.
First of all, I have to apologize for my little fit, it had been a lonnnnng day.

However, you do make a point. It makes no sense for people today to relate to ancient myth as fact, especially myth developed by primitive, superstitious people, or the case of Christianity to accept any theology developed by popes, theologians, or even disciples.

When people sit around talking about God allowing evil, hell, heaven, sin, miracles, and the whole list of stuff people have made up or figured out, they don't even know if it is from the acknowledged masters like Jesus or Moses or the Buddha or whomever . . . or if it is myth or dogma or some pope's proclamation a thousand years ago, or Dante's Inferno . . .

For the most part, what started the major religions was an individual's personal experience. It is my opinion that that experience is the only thing worth investigating in religion, yet it is just about the last thing anybody, whether believer or athiest, is trying to understand or experience.

That is why I continue to complain about the quality of research and thought behind most of the comments in the religion forum.
 
  • #22
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Originally posted by Zero
Too bad you don't actually know what Atheism means, or you wouldn't have posted teh way you did.
From dicionary.com:
atheism
1 a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1 b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

disbelief
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

From Merriam-Webster:
atheism
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

disbelief
the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Atheism is the simply the philosophical stance of disbelief in God; in other words, it is the rejection of the existentence of God as untrue. There is a separate term for doubt or skepticism of the existence of God, without the distinct belief that God must not exist. It's called agnosticism.
 
  • #23
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When people sit around talking about God allowing evil, hell, heaven, sin, miracles, and the whole list of stuff people have made up or figured out, they don't even know if it is from the acknowledged masters like Jesus or Moses or the Buddha or whomever . . . or if it is myth or dogma or some pope's proclamation a thousand years ago, or Dante's Inferno . . .

For the most part, what started the major religions was an individual's personal experience. It is my opinion that that experience is the only thing worth investigating in religion, yet it is just about the last thing anybody, whether believer or athiest, is trying to understand or experience.

That is why I continue to complain about the quality of research and thought behind most of the comments in the religion forum.
Exactly, Les. I am no fan of religious dogma myself. But I do have issues with people categorically denying the existence of God, not because I am a believer in God, but because it is a simple fact of our society that the concept of God is associated with spirituality. While it is fruitful to examine religious dogma and all the unnecessary suffering and ignorance it is undeniably associated with, outright and blind rejection of God amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It does not logically follow that if one does not believe in God, then one cannot be spiritual. However, if we seek to rid people of any meaningful conception of God, we also damage their potential for spiritual growth simply because of the pre-existing ties in popular thought between God and spirituality. One who rejects God outright and develops a jaded attitude to all things religious is probably disinclined to give the notion of spiritual value and growth any meaningful consideration, because without further critical thought the chances are that they will accept their conditioned tendency to equate religion and God with spirituality itself. Such blatant disregard for the relevance of spiritual value and growth indeed makes itself apparent time and again in the attitudes of many of those who believe they are 'fighting the good fight' by attempting to dispell the popular hold of dogmatic belief. Unfortunately, such people conceive of themselves as battling a cancer when in actuality they are killing an entire organism. In their zeal to counter the superfluous doctrines and dogmas of religion they are missing the truly relevant and meaningful essence of the religious message.

I absolutely agree with you that the true spirituality must be actively practiced and experienced first-hand in order for the individual to have any meaningful grasp of its importance. This is why it is essential that we do not jade people to such an extent that they never give serious consideration to any spiritual practices, or worse, mindlessly reject them in knee-jerk fashion. It's no wonder why people concentrate on the fluff of religion without ever getting to the meat, and this is really the true cancer infecting contemporary religious thought.
 
  • #24
BoulderHead
Originally posted by hypnagogue
From dicionary.com:
atheism
1 a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1 b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

disbelief
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

From Merriam-Webster:
atheism
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

disbelief
the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Atheism is the simply the philosophical stance of disbelief in God; in other words, it is the rejection of the existentence of God as untrue. There is a separate term for doubt or skepticism of the existence of God, without the distinct belief that God must not exist. It's called agnosticism.
Atheism is much less than this, as reading a tad further down at the dictionary.com website goes on to explain;

atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

It is inaccurate to omit #2.

It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism......Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
- Dan Barker
 
  • #25
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,244
2
Granted that that one definition implies that one does not have to disbelieve in God to be an atheist (I didn't intentionally omit it, rather I didn't scroll down all the way). But every other definition cited points to atheism as a distinct disbelief in God. Further compounding the issue is that we already have another word to indicate lack of belief in God without outright disbelief in God, which is agnosticism. Why, if one holds the agnostic view, would one insist on calling oneself an atheist? All the primary definitions for atheism cite a definite disbelief in God; using the secondary definition when there is a distinct word that describes the same thing without ambiguity only causes confusion and misunderstanding.
 

Related Threads on God releases Satan ? Why God allow Evil to exist?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
186
Views
16K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
102
Views
8K
  • Last Post
9
Replies
200
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
82
Views
6K
Top