I feel you might be being a little harsh on those churches now- most official religions have abandoned the idea of a "holy" war for some centuries. The idea of a "just" war, however, is retained.
A little harsh? Polite euphamisms do not reflect reality. The conscept of Holy War is as real in the Christian cause today as it is in the Jewish and Moslem cause. The "just" war is a Holy War. The Zionist Jewish people reestablished the State of Isreal in the name of God. The Molems declared Holy War or Jihad on Isreal and all the Western Allies who supported Isreal. The declarations of Jihad are inforce today except in Afghanistan and Libya where by threat and military action they have been withdrawn or anulled. The Christian Crusades of the past were replaced by campaigns by the the French and then the British in WWI to restablish a Christian presence in the Holy Lands. The partition of the Holy Lands including the State of Lebenon was established as maintaining a Christian presence in the Holy Lands. Then oil was discovered and opened up a new can of worms as the religious conflicts heated up in the 20th century. There was a movement in the west both militarilly and politically to control the oil, but that clearly failed by the 1960s. After the Arabs nationalized everything they then sold the oil to every one including Isreal during the Middle East wars. The oil continued to flow as the wars raged. The greatest and most militant of advocates of Holy War among the Arabs came from Saudi Arabia, which still openly sells oil to Isreal. In the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq many Christian religious leaders, US generals and the President made very strong religious statements concerning the cause of the war. From the Islamic side it was clearly a war of Jihad against Isreal and the Christian allies.
Just a little interesting fact I felt like posting. The official Muslim stance on Satan or Lucifer or whatever you'd like to call him is that, Satan was one of the Seraphim, an angel of the highest order, and indeed the highest of that order second only to God, and God told all the angels to lve only him and all was good. But when God created humans he said that they must be loved also. Satan believed only God was fit to love, so God cast him down. I've always liked this explanation better than the CHristian one. BTW, I don't believe in the Adversary. "Evil" is a different way of looking at things (as opposed to good) and is a result of freewill.
I've always been a fan of the Gnostic concept that "evil" is only the lack of divinity. THIS is an old idea, stretching back into the distant past. Think on it for a little while, and I think a person will be able to come to the conclusion that, without evil, life as such would not exist. If everything were already perfect, what would motivate us to do anything? How much of who we are is dependant on our experiences in life? Every one of our dreams is a result of the idea that there is somehow something lacking in our lives. I suppose a person could argue that God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree, and did nothing to stop the Serpent from telling them of the tree, because that single act generated the beginning of reality as we know it. That person could further argue that, as time marches on in the world, humanity pulls itself (at an admittedly glacial pace) upward, back towards God. I think the fact that people are allowed to openly denounce the Church that once held an iron grip on society would support this. The progresses in technology, human rights and general decency... Matter is "evil" because it isn't God. This (as the Gnostics would tell you) is why God acts through subordinates, employing ridiculously circuitous plans when most people seem to be expecting a big glowing hand to descend from the sky. In any event, I remain of the opinion that chaos and evil are entirely necessary for this existence. No small number of Eastern traditions (count Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism among them) would agree, and then put forth the goal of overcoming these mundane "evils" to rejoin the Source, etc. The thing that God is supposed to love so much about Man is that he is the only creature that is both matter and divine, a view further corroborated by those same Eastern traditions, and just about every religion I've had the opportunity to study. Even your average Joe Sixpack can see that Man is capable of great beauty AND great horror, as history itself practically screams. So, after my chest-beating on the Soap Box... my opinion of the Devil is that he is the personification of ignorance and 'evil', baiting those willingly led astray and acting as a sort of spiritual gravity to keep Man down and thus perpetuate the great-yet-slightly-flawed kingdom of the Universe... not unlike (more mental masturbation) the Eastern concept of the ego.
(I stopped reading after page five). This is what I believe on this issue. If we take as a given that God is omnipotent and can intervene as he desires then what I think makes sense of this issue is not that God needs Satan for himself but needs Satan for there to be humanity and the superiority of their being. Through Satan there was introduced the possibility of sin into our reality. If it were not for him, surely we would have never suffered the original sin for it was him who convinced Adam and Eve to engage in such action. Before this sin, it can be said that humanity was as any other being. In a way, they were mindless and purposeless for they had no will because there was nothing which opposed their actions, there were no values for there was no need for such in the perfection of the Garden of Eden, there was no need for creativity and the ideas of virtue because Adam and Eve had already reached perfection and, quite importantly, there did not exist the threat or possibility of death. Without these concepts and realities, humanity was unable to enter a process in which it could develop and become virtuous for there was no such thing as adversity at the time. Without adversity, beautiful human creations such as poetry and all other arts, would be impossible. Adversity introduces the concept of glory into our world. It is adversity what permits us the possibility to choose to endure. Adversity shows us another side to life; a darker path, that of defeat, which can be displayed in many formats from which the most terrible would be corruption. We are not glorious when our life is easy and simple. We are not glorious when we are rich and thriving. What makes anyone glorious is those times when facing life's problematics, that sometimes seem overwhelming, and then choosing to endure to perhaps then prevail instead of giving in and let the self be maybe tainted by corruption. So adversity introduces glory or better, human glory. Without such glory, humanity would not have a point to being. The point to living is in broad terms, to endure because enduring brings in the possibility for glory which after more analysis would transform into something else, the possibility of virtue. There are two kind of virtues; innocent virtue, and lets say "purified" (could not find a better word atm) virtue. Through innocence anyone could be virtuous and that was what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were virtuous because of their innocence. Anyone can have that kind virtue. When we are children we have it. But having that kind of virtue is not truly important and in fact means little to our humanity. It doesnt have part in what makes us human and because of that we must leave childhood and embrace adulthood because in adulthood we enter in the prime of our humanity. Now not everybody can be virtuous after facing of life and all its difficulties. It takes real mettle to prove oneself in that arena. (that is why suicide sucks. Those who commit suicide surrender themselves and display utter weakness). We have the choice to surrender and give up or to keep on struggling so that at the end of the day we prove that even though all the crap we had to pass through we are still clean of guilt and corruption, still virtuous even though we are now longer innocent. In such way we prove ourselves to God. It is that possibility that makes us human and makes superior to other beings. That choice allows us the idea of virtue which in turn enables us to become artists and poets and glorious. Without it, we would be forever innocent and by such, never human. Satan represents the choice of defeat. God allows Satan to be because humanity needs him to be human and later to prove itself to God. Had Satan not introduced Adam and Eve to sin, humanity would have remained in innocence and in my eyes, insipid. In my eyes there is no merit in virtue without adversity. God, by allowing Satan to be around and tempting us to surrender, gives us virtue that has merit. If Satan had not introduced Adam and eve to sin, humanity would not have come to be. So I think God needed Satan so that he could complete part of the process in the creation of us. Of our humanity.
An interesting angle of things Avidaniel. It sort of links to a theory (purely of my own making) that Jesus and Lucifer are representations of one single being. Like two sides of the same coin. Lucifer represents termoil, anquish, our inner demons or probably more closely ~ fear. Jesus (or rather the stories that are told) represents the conquering of this fear. You could also relate fear (in a very broad sense) to ego. Afterall many of our little hang-ups and fears are more due to our concept of self (or lack of it) than actual physical threats. This perhaps could be highlighted by the story of how Jesus wanders through the dessert (often referred to as hell) and is taken high on a mountain. Here he is offered a number of "temptations" all of which directly relate to ego.
Lucifer, is but another facet of the Ultimate Source, Chaos, the Void, or whatever the hell you like to call it. Same with every god, goddess, etc, etc, etc, . . . . all facets. But I won't go into that here. Anyways, about my view on Lucifer, as I choose to call him. Whenever I call upon his name, whether for an invocation, etc, etc, it is always because I respect him. I have read both Muslim and Christian interpretations of his "downfall" and I believe that from doing so has not made me hate him, but rather respect his decisions. I call him Lucifer, the darkest of Angels, the Archangel of Pride. Why? I see nothing wrong with pride, personally (don't even get me started w/the 7 deadly sins and get into moral arguments plz). He could've given in to God's will and stayed in Heaven. Yet he chose to rebel, to try to start a revolution. He believe in his own ideals. He did not bow down to God simply because God created him and told him to love him. Did God not give Lucifer free will? Yes. And Lucifer excercised it. Lucifer was a risk-taker, and was willing to sacrifice his heavenly position for a cause he believe himself, whether it was selfish to begin with or not. He knew that God was more powerful. He probably knows he will lose. But did he give in? No. He perservered, until this day. Mabye he is evil, mabye he does tempt. But so does God, IMO (even tho i don't believe in the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, i'll say yes for hypothetical reasons). Whether good or evil, Lucifer commands respect. Respect for following his own will, respect for having guts to speak his mind. I care not if he tried to overthrow God. There is nothing wrong with seeking power, especially if that person was prideful enough to command EVERYONE, WITH free will to worship him or BE TORTURED ETERNALLY. What a nice, fundamentally logical brain does God possess.
I really don't believe the story behind the Devil and Adam and Eve to be an evil thing at all. To figure out why, read the Greek myth when Prometheus stole fire from Zeus and gave it to the human race and compare that with the aforementioned story. There's quite a stark contrast in the atmosphere between basically the same actions taken my Lucifer and Prometheus.
HearWa an excellent comparison. Much the same idea, but from a different culture. Infrazael your comments echo what I was saying about ego. (Rather than steer this off topic, feel free to PM me in regards to this)
I see what you mean Judderman. However, it is difficult to place both Jesus and Satan as the same being. They represent absolute opposites and so should not be one. Satan is beyond pardon. However, this kind of punishment is not to be interpreted as the punishment we as short-lived humans may suffer. What happens is that Satan is the incarnation of corruption and surrender. Were these to be pardoned, they would lose their absoluteness, and then such concepts as virtue and glory would lose their concrete nature because they would also become questionable in their absoluteness. Jesus and Satan must remain seperate so that what they represent can remain invariable and absolute. Were they to be the same, then some perhaps incongruent and contradictory mixtures would arise. Such would be something like the possibility of virtue through corruption and the proposals of moral relativity; concepts that roam in our human minds but that only lead to confusion or to nothing at all. I believe Jesus and Satan might exist as one within us because we often juxtapose and intermix the concepts they represent. Yet, I also believe that as beings, because of their absoluteness in the message they seem to communicate, they cannot exist as one.
Hm. . . I must take exception to that statement. I can set up an experiment in the lab with the exact same initial conditions every time, and yet, still have it come out differently every time it's run. This has to do with quantum mechanics. Now, I'm not trying to imply any connection between free will and QM (there isn't even free will in QM), but lets use the one as a metaphor for the other, since they seem to work similarly. Lets say I set up an experiment in a particular way, and it can have any number of outcomes - the outcome is truly random. Then in the future, I build a time machine to go back in time and tell myself what the outcome was, so I actually know what the outcome is before I do the experiment. Does that mean I set it up to have that particular outcome? No. The particular outcome is independant of how I set it up initially, even if I know how it's going to turn out. The same must be true with free will, or it's not free will.
People often tell me that "God knew that will happen, therefore there is no free will." which is a statement that isn't taking everything into account I feel... God knows everything not because everything is predetermined, but because he is outside of time. It's perfectly logical to know everything in advance if you aren't restricted by time, is it not ? Technically God isn't all powerful as he's not got control over my decisions, nor over yours. I don't believe God is all powerful within our physical dymension because if he was, that would make him a sadistic a5s. The idea that God has predetermined everything will suggest that I have no responsibility for my actions. Which isn't correct. I'm certain everyone will agree with me that I am responsible for my actions. This leaves only two options. God doesn't know everything in advance, or God does know everything in advance as a result of being outside of time. I also believe that 'Hell' as it is defined in the minds of most Christians these days is incorrect and doesn't fit in with the idea of free will. "Hell" is defined as it is these days as a way to frighten people into trying to get to "Heaven". It sounds to me like something that would be used in the Crusades. If Hell is as aweful as some would suggest, then God doesn't love us and has given us free will, but was a bad sport about the whole thing, "Fine be like that.. your choice.. NOW GO TO HELL!!". I think Heaven isn't how people picture it either. I see Heaven as another life like we have on earth, in the presence of God, which makes it more complete as we are in the presence of the God that we were originally planned to be with. Earth and the physical 3D life we live now is almost in between. We do not have a pure presence of God, but we do not have a complete lack of it either. Hell is not a place of punishment. It is painful only in the sense that it's lacking the presence of God (which you put urself in as a result of free will) and the pain of Hell comes from the knowledge that you wish you had the presence of God (as its built into your system) and there is no longer any hope of getting that need of God's presence. I do not believe God is sadistic and would send people to a lake of fire Hell if he loved them. Hell is merely a place that you go as a result of not choosing to go to the opposite place. Heaven and Hell are similar but one has God's presence and one does not. Just my personal thoughts on the matter
People came up whit the idea of the devil so God could keep "existing". If there is no devil there is no use any more for a good god.
Maybe the answer is that God is not all good and the devil is really god undiscovered side or just answered inconsistencies in theology and the only way is to invent a God that is only good and nothing else. Reality stinks. A god with a split personality he better heal himself/herself or what ever it is energy etc. God god or just Bad real bad wishful thinking cannot alter a god that is "the devil" well at least in human judgement. That means god who what never heard about our fantasies about Lucifer and God being perfect. Makes it easier for the rest of us not to be perfect and strive for a fantasy of a perfect god.
Good point. This is where we are though (IMO). Morals are relative to the individual and their experiences. What I believe is moral and right, could be inconcievable to another. This brings us to the next idea. Virtue through corruption. Certainly the Buddha experienced similar aspects prior to dicovering the "middle path". He had everything, then he went to nothing. Neither worked for him. You could say that by truely testing your morals, by identifying what is really yours and what is "learnt", then you come closer to virtue. There are many schools of thought (the majority of which are misunderstood and abused) that state you should strip away these values and laws to find what you really are, to find your "true will". By finding your true will, you become closer to the divine, thus more virtuous. Even the term "virtuous" is an abstract and relative term, much like the valour and glory you mentioned earlier. I have said before I view the devil as a kind of quality control agent. My readings of the bible tell me that he has no real power, other than that you give to him. So if you imagine that you have spent your time becoming more and more "virtuous" or more precicely following God's will (which incidently I believe to be the same as our own true will), if he can tempt you, usually be appealing to your ego, then you have failed to meet the standard. This is where my criticism of some religeous people falls. For me it is not enough to follow a set of rules and hope for the best. You should challenge everthing that you know until you reach the truth. Then you will follow these rules because you understand them and appreciate them, not just because they are there. Perhaps this is now the purpose of the devil, if you believe it to be a seperate entity, a tool of God. The devil, due to his rebelious nature, causes us to ask "Why?". Thus only the lazy would just rebel for the sake of rebelling. Rebeling is only a good think when the rebel then understands the thing he was rebeling against and why he was doing it. Thus it brings us closer to our true will, not the will of our ego, or someone elses idea of will. True will is the will of God.
The devil is a problem of the human personality and not an external agent but an internal misperception of reality i.e. morality and good behaviour is an internal and not an externally driven and can only be contained by internal development of the human personality, giving reality to the lie of the Devil False beliefs that does not help a human to function and exists and is blamed as an external agent that is responsible for an internal personality problem. That is why self-discpline and love and compassion is the best form of Devil (false beliefs correcter) made to take responsibility for the development and evolution(the human revolution to be human and not just a belief system that is not consistent with being a human) within the human personality.
I agree entirely with you, Judderman. It is difficult for me to see any veracity or the merit in blind faith, which is greatly promoted in various religions. What is faith without doubt? I do not find the faith that does not question itself valid for it does not undergo a process. I find that kind of faith more akin with cowardice than with valorous will or, as you say, true will or the will of God, which, in my belief, must be achieved individually although some assistance to help with the inevitable confusion is welcome as long as its intervention does not sever the individuality in this process. Blind faith is cowardice in that it is by far the easier interpretation and takes little to no effort. This kind of faith is used to avoid the difficulty and obstacles, essential in the search to understand, and is also used, as said by Marx, as the opium of the people. This kind of faith is the one which makes it necessary for there to be fear. It can't survive without fear. It could be said that the devil is around, as you said, as a tool of God, to perhaps avoid this kind of cowardice. It allows merit in faith and allows humanity to maintain its superiority in its ability to mix the "good" in the ideas of a concept as complicated as "rebellion". We are given option and so are made human through it. We can doubt what is deemed as good by others and so perhaps rebel and yet make this rebellion productive and constructive when it takes us to find that very good but, this time, making it part of us because we found it ourselves as individuals and is no longer something we follow blindly. The concept of "evil" through the Devil allows us to doubt and differ to later come back and agree without doubts. We doubt to be sure so that later on, there is no longer a need for doubt. In allowing the Devil to be, God permits us to be ethic and in turn, to strive for the prevailing of what we conceive as good but only if we reach this autonomously. As happens with death, one must not fear Satan but understand his cause. This way, we can understand why we must choose to follow the other example, in Christianity the one Jesus, and have not doubts then when we identify the merit in our choice. If we fear Satan we are greatly limited. We wouldn't understand why we take the other path because we would be taking it out of fear and not out of real faith and will.
The concept of holy war is because the Muslim and christian or who ever belief that their Character as govern by their religion is superior to others, but they are not waging war in the name of god but in their own misconception of what is character, even non believers win wars. This progamda of believers winning wars was because non-believers did not have the tactics of war and information on previous battles, as this is always kept by the Religious defenders of the faith, weapons swords, training in wafare. Now this is available to any defender of any country regardless of faith, and psycholigal training of soldiers without the character of religious defenders of the faith as in a modern war this is useless and unprofessional basis to defend your country. Faith do not stop bombs or bullets or character religous basis has no place in war. There is no holy war as swords and horses, camels are a bit out dated as tools of the defenders of the faith. Who ever has the superior tactics and weapons this is the defender of the country and faith takes a back seat into church and mosque where it should belong. Leaver the battlefield to professional soldiers and not to religions fools without a prayer of surviving or ability to be a professional defender of their country. Leave the holy war in the churches and mosque to make these religious fools faces the reality of holy war upon themselves to be a better human being and maybe a professional soldier to stop any aggression from religious fools or defender of faith that is useless in modern warfare.
My belief on the devil. (I am a Methodist Christian) I'll just start with history. Lucifer was God's #1 ArchAngel. The most powerful Angel. Lucifer began to become self conceded and thought he was powerful enough to over though God. He rallied other angels around him and tried to over though God (I have no idea how that works though). God and the angels loyal to him beat Lucifer and cast him and his followers out of heaven. I am pretty sure this is before the creation of the world though because of the snake that tempted Eve and the passage talking about the one that would crush the snake’s head as he strikes at his heel. So now Lucifer became know here as the Devil and his fallen angels became known as demons. Now, Satan can only do what God says he is aloud to do. Evidence supports this when Satan had to ask God if he could go and inflict many bad things on Job. This also supports the idea that God often uses Satan as a tool. For the reason for allowing Satan was aloud to inflict illness and such on Job was God was testing Job's faith. But Satan will try as hard as he can to make you fail, but he still can only do that to within what God allows, and God will never allow him to do so much as to overcome you. It will always be within you means to defeat the Devils plans. Now earlier, I saw that a lot of people said, "Christians just say that he exist so they have someone to blame for bad things." This is entirely untrue. Well-versed Christians would all conclude that most bad things happen on this earth because of the free will of people. They decided to things that effect others and well, bad things happen.
God sound more like a war of aliens and one was defeated and landed on earth. You mean Satan work for God and does what he/she it is aloud to do. Ha Ha why does he/it she God not do it himself. A myth to explain alien warfare and and god that is just another alien, who by the way nearly got beaten by Satan (an alien being maybe) this would make more sense that a god to fight and cast a being with his army down to earth. More like a story to explain why the earth is made part of the moon and split from the earth. And of course other scientific evidence would probably put more light into the story, a God that goes to war with half his empire. It this borrowed from some ancient myth or some other sources, apart from the maybe laughable alien one well it could be even better than the old yarn of God.
