The Binding of Satan

[Timothy Spurlin]

Then why not the Bible? The clay tablets, discovered at the Gate of Babylon, confirm the Bible account in the scriptures I gave. Why would the clay tablets be objective and the Bible not?

The Bible is the claim not the evidence. The Bible is not objective evidence.

The clay tablets exist outside of the mind. The tablets can be tested and peer reviewed.
Can the Bible be tested and peer reviewed?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

We have a long way to go on this and that is off topic
and some guy would start a conversation with me about that being off topic

View attachment 27219

Innocence is bliss - I leave that to you.

You brought up the seal right? Now you dodge the question about the seal.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

If you are not searching the truth then how will you find it?

Only those who thirst for the truth, skeptical than pessimists are the ones who are successful.

If you were skeptical you would question everything, even the existence of god.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 6000414, member: 65929"That's what I hear christians preach all the time.
Are you saying that you disagree?

Is the christian God you worship not loving, benevolent, etc?

Willing to allow those who would destroy mankind, and if possible, God's purpose for mankind, to just go ahead and do that?

Is Satan not evil?
Satan is a good entity?

I believe I was the one asking the questions. I'm not the christian here who believes any of this stuff, so I'm not sure why you are asking me about it...

I'm just saying....
The christian premise here is that god is just, loving, benevolent and that he cares about humans and wants them to be well.

And Satan, the devil, is evil, unjust and malicious and only cares about leading humans astray etc.

Are you agreeing so far? If not, what are you disagreeing with, exactly?
Again, you are the christian. You are the one who believes that this god and this devil are real - not me. I'm just going by what christians tell me.

So when I put these two premises together and then get told that god himself set satan loose on the earth....

That to me is like taking the worst imaginable pedophile rapist and setting him loose in a kindergarten, unsupervised.

That objectively doesn't sound like a very smart, loving or benevolent thing to do.

What I'm trying to point out is that terms like all loving, benevolent, evil, are subjective terms. So trying to demonstrate your point by concluding that this or that behavior of God or Satan, on those terms is pointless because you may not agree with them as far as what is good and what isn't.

I gave you examples of when Satan was "released" upon man. Job, after the war in heaven when he is hurled to earth and again after his release from the abyss, so that answers the question of would God allow it. Now you have to understand why he would allow it and determine whether or not you would agree with him being loving. And you may not agree. You may think he's still a monster.

So here is the reason. This is according to the Bible, and I know you don't believe the Bible, but this is what it has to say.

When the angel later known as Satan questioned Jehovah's truthfulness in telling Adam that he would die Adam made a decision to accept that and decide for himself what was good and bad. This was a challenge to God's sovereignty that was then presented, not only to Adam but all of his decedents to follow and the angels in heaven as well. It basically raised the question "Can mankind (and therefore the spirit creatures as well) decide for themselves what is good and what is bad without God?"

Jehovah God decided that it was only fair for this question to be addressed fully. He could have just killed Adam and started all over but that wouldn't have been fair. It wouldn't have been justice, and it wouldn't have allowed the question to be addressed. So he stood back and allowed mankind to address it. So mankind was like a family of people who live in an environment where God doesn't interfere with their experience, the system of their independence without God. This is why God allows suffering, and, of course, Satan's influence.

God did make some adjustments in order to fix the situation if mankind should choose to do that, and he recorded this in the Bible so people could come to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, religion has transmogrified that to a great extent but the real meaning of it has always been available to mankind.

He made a nation, Israel, to produce the laws of that nation so the people could understand, and also to produce a way out. The Messiah.

Now, some people won't have the opportunity to hear that explanation from Jehovah so there will be a resurrection of those people who have no access to the Bible. Those people will be informed of the situation while Satan is imprisoned in the abyss. Then he will be released once more to give those people the opportunity to reject God and follow Satan. But to their destruction. Then, after Satan and his followers, angelic and human are destroyed, as they chose to be, mankind will have the opportunity to live forever without Satan, sickness, ageing, death, crime etc. and all of the suffering that Adam's sin brought about.[/QUOTE]

Your god is monster, it created evil.
What objective evidence do you have that your god or Satan are real?

 

[Earthling]

No, I scoured that chapter and it is mentioned there, however the 'Time' this 'War' took place is not verified. If you have information otherwise, do let us know.

Revelation 5:9 talks about Jesus having been slain. The verse can only be about Jesus because no one else had accomplished the things it mentions him accomplishing. If you read the first 12 chapters of Revelation, even if you only understand a fraction of it, I would think it is apparent that certain things have to take place before Jesus fights the war in heaven with Michael. Including that Jesus has to die for our sins. I really shouldn't have to explain that.

Michael the Archangel is not Jesus. The non-Christian cult known as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that they are the same. The Seventh Day Adventists teach the same; but Michael the Archangel is just that--an Archangel, and Jesus is not a created angel.

Jude 9:
"But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

The Lord Jesus would not have to call on the name of anyone else in order to rebuke the devil because the Lord Jesus is God in flesh. However, we see that Michael the Archangel said, "The Lord rebuke you," thereby demonstrating that he is not the Lord.

Nonsense. First of all Jesus isn't God in the flesh. He was created by God. Secondly most Bible scholars, dictionaries, encyclopedias agree that Jesus is Michael, see the recent post of mine with references to that effect. (Link)

 

[Earthling]

The Bible is the claim not the evidence. The Bible is not objective evidence.

That isn't going to be any more logical if you repeat it enough. It's like you have a chain or crank on your neck that, once pulled or cranked, causes you to say that.

The clay tablets exist outside of the mind. The tablets can be tested and peer reviewed.
Can the Bible be tested and peer reviewed?

The Bible exists in the same place the tablets do and can either one of these be tested and peer reviewed? I don't see why not, you tell me.

 

[Earthling]

Your god is monster, it created evil.
What objective evidence do you have that your god or Satan are real?

Uh, that it created evil?

The Bible is the best source. You say it makes claims, well, examine those claims. Just be aware that most of the explanations Jewish and Christian sources have to offer are not very good. They are confused by tradition which is heavily influenced by ancient Greek philosophy and pagan nonsense. Hell, immortal soul, trinity, cross, Easter, Christmas, the rapture to name a few. Which if you think about it, is the majority of their teachings.

 

[MJFlores]

You brought up the seal right? Now you dodge the question about the seal.

Gonna dodge it but I will walk on by, with a song from Seal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I'm trying to point out is that terms like all loving, benevolent, evil, are subjective terms

I don't think so.

For example, this sentence will immediatly strike you as wrong:

"A loving and benevolent parent rapes his children".

. So trying to demonstrate your point by concluding that this or that behavior of God or Satan, on those terms is pointless because you may not agree with them as far as what is good and what isn't.

I gave you examples of when Satan was "released" upon man. Job, after the war in heaven when he is hurled to earth and again after his release from the abyss, so that answers the question of would God allow it. Now you have to understand why he would allow it and determine whether or not you would agree with him being loving. And you may not agree. You may think he's still a monster.

So here is the reason. This is according to the Bible, and I know you don't believe the Bible, but this is what it has to say.

When the angel later known as Satan questioned Jehovah's truthfulness in telling Adam that he would die Adam made a decision to accept that and decide for himself what was good and bad. This was a challenge to God's sovereignty that was then presented, not only to Adam but all of his decedents to follow and the angels in heaven as well. It basically raised the question "Can mankind (and therefore the spirit creatures as well) decide for themselves what is good and what is bad without God?"

Jehovah God decided that it was only fair for this question to be addressed fully. He could have just killed Adam and started all over but that wouldn't have been fair. It wouldn't have been justice, and it wouldn't have allowed the question to be addressed. So he stood back and allowed mankind to address it. So mankind was like a family of people who live in an environment where God doesn't interfere with their experience, the system of their independence without God. This is why God allows suffering, and, of course, Satan's influence.

God did make some adjustments in order to fix the situation if mankind should choose to do that, and he recorded this in the Bible so people could come to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, religion has transmogrified that to a great extent but the real meaning of it has always been available to mankind.

He made a nation, Israel, to produce the laws of that nation so the people could understand, and also to produce a way out. The Messiah.

Now, some people won't have the opportunity to hear that explanation from Jehovah so there will be a resurrection of those people who have no access to the Bible. Those people will be informed of the situation while Satan is imprisoned in the abyss. Then he will be released once more to give those people the opportunity to reject God and follow Satan. But to their destruction. Then, after Satan and his followers, angelic and human are destroyed, as they chose to be, mankind will have the opportunity to live forever without Satan, sickness, ageing, death, crime etc. and all of the suffering that Adam's sin brought about.

Sounds like you are just defending the obvious monstrocities.

I don't really care off course because, as you say, I don't believe any of this nonsense.
But I heavily object to calling such a monster "all loving" and "benevolent".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But good and bad are subjective. They depend upon your own interpretation of what is good and what is bad.

Not in this context.

Good evidence is evidence that is independently verifiable.
Bad evidence is evidence that is not independently verifiable.

I'm not talking about "good or bad music" or whatever.
I'm talking about objective standards of evidence.

Okay, then the question becomes, do those claims stand up to the objective evidence

Indeed. And the answer is "no".

Some things you can't prove you but you have to have faith in. Like love, money, the rising of the sun.

No. Love and money objectively exist.
The rising of the sun does not require faith either, when you understand deterministic forces like gravity and the rotation of the earth.

All these things are based on very objective evidence.
No faith required.

Faith is what you need to accept something as true, when you have no evidence.

Some historical tomb aside from the Bible

What about it? Still have no idea what you are talking about.
Which tomb and how is it relevant to the point here?

And let's assume as an act of the purest optimism that no one is saying science is infallible.

No need for any such thing. Look, you insinuated that people are saying science is infallible. All you need to do to support that statement, is by pointing those people out. Can you? Or were you just making stuff up?

Again, I know of nobody who says or believes such a thing.
Do you?

All historical records contain a great deal of myth, legends, half truths and lies, as well as religious beliefs and claims.

Not "all" of them, obviously.
But sure, there are those that include such things. For example, quite a few of the records concerning Julius Ceasar depict him as some kind of demigod, or descendent of gods.
I don't think anyone believes that.
But we do accept that he invaded Gaul with his legions and conquered it.

So, why do you think it is, that we accept his conquest campaigns actually happend, but not his divinity?

No, I was simply asking a question regarding what basis scientific speculation had for concluding the lifespan during David's time was a great deal less than what David said it was.

Common sense.
And actual records instead of religious myths.
Whenever we find tombs of pre-modern medicine times, they almost never contain remains of advanced ages.

I believe what you dismiss as a religious story, out of ignorance, is actually true.

And you believe that religiously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, people don't believe them now for the same reason they weren't likely to then. Because they are unbelievable. People are, generally speaking, just as superstitious today as they were then so all sorts of claims are made which no one believes and for good reason. They are most likely false.

Right. But yet, you believe exactly such claims from 2000+ years ago, stemming from a time where superstition was the common order of the day...

Because the Bible explains that these supernatural occurrences were performed for a reason and that they would end.

But the bible is just people writing down their claims.... Claims that when made today, you wouldn't believe for the reason you gave above.
So this is not a justification. You're basically just saying that you believe them, because you believe them.

I keep asking you what difference does it make?

A lot. The difference is that there are no contemporary and independent records. No corroborating evidence. Such evidence is very important in historical science. Especially when it concerns extra-ordinary claims.

No history is infallible. If I showed you a reference to Jesus that was pretty specific that you may not have heard of, that mentions his brother by name, would you then accept Jesus was real? No! What's the point? It's moot. Forget about it. If you insist I can give you the seven or so historical references and you can dismiss them for whatever reason you like and we can move on. But why waste our time?

If you consider it a waste of time to properly justify your beliefs, that's all on you.

Well, that's a surprisingly good point, but my point was we are not talking about the people who were contemporaries of Jesus and historically significant.

Indeed we aren't........

Correct, but there's two things for a skeptic to consider there. 1. Whales and squid were once supernatural

No, they never were supernatural.
Just like the sun was never supernatural.

People might have believed that, but that doesn't make it so.
Another important point here, is that you can't know what is true until you actually know.
So when claims are made, like "pontius was real", such claims require justification.
Then when justification comes, the claim is accepted.

That's how reason works.

and 2. Science can't test the supernatural so you can't say for sure from a scientific perspective that God isn't real.

You also can't say for sure that extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable 7-headed dragons don't exist. So that doesn't really mean much.

 

[nPeace]

If all you have is subjective, then it's from your mind. Objective exist outside of the mind.
Why do theist claim to have evidence, but never produce it.
The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Why do you say the Bible is a claim, not evidence?
Is the Bible in someone's head, or mind, and not tangible?
How do you view the history on Hannibal of Rome, or Cleopatra of Egypt, or the Incas? Do you view them as claims? What about the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus? What is evidence to you?
Is what is written in stone different to what is written on papyrus, or leather?
Do you believe the Cyrus cylinder, Moabite Stone, Babylonian Talmud, and Samaritan Pentateucht, etc., to be just claims, not evidence?
What are you really saying?

 

[nPeace]

Bad evidence is subjective.
Good evidence is objective.
.

What? I mean... Pardon me?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Satan must be very busy with all that working for god as Ha-Satan as the obedient and loyal angel that he is by day and rebellious hell raiser as the Devil by night where he works against god and seeks to corrupt his creation by night. Christians should let him have a break so he can focus on the tasks the Jews gave to him first.

 

[nPeace]

So your saying you have no objective evidence?

I don't hear her say that, but you are asking for objective evidence for God,Satan, and Jesus?
Objective evidence for God - creation
Objective evidence for Satan - evil
Objective evidence for Jesus - historical records

Ask me about these further. Right now, I can't go into details, because today I am off... no, not off my rockers. Off for the day.

 

[nPeace]

The clay tablets would be objective evidence.

Aha! So why are papyrus scrolls, not objective evidence?

 

[nPeace]

How do you know which religion is the right one? How do you know which god is real?

The same way you know anything else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Satan will not be fully bound until the church forces him to recognise the sentence that was passed against him at the cross.

Why would he do that? Rather, why would he not stand with his followers to bring Jehovah to trial for his crimes against the angels and humanity?
Satan will never be bound, because you cannot bind the spirit of a human who is free. And as long as their are humans who promote pleasures of the flesh and living a life of empowerment, fulfillment, and freedom, Satan will be with us, unbound, spreading the fruits of knowledge and fires of power to humans. Since time immemorial we have been drawn to it, and until the final breath of Homo Sapiens we will value and cherish it.

 

[nPeace]

What proof do you have that Angels exist?

Proof? What proof do you have that life evolved from a common ancestor?

All of Christiany is cults, each church is it's own cult.

What proof do you have of that?

 

[nPeace]

What proof do you have that the seventh seal was opened?

What is this?