Was Satan wrong to demand equal rights in heaven?

wellwisher said:
Satan was originally the left hand man of God. As Lucifer, he was the morning star involved in creation. As creation evolves, Lucifer evolves and becomes Satan, who is still the left hand man of God. The easiest place to see this is the book of Job. In this book, Satan tries to get God to punish Job, as a test of Job's faith. God listens to Satan advice and takes away Job's good fortune and bringing Job piles of bad fortune.

Job accepts his new fate and remains faithful. Satan believed Job only loved God because Job was well off in life. When Job proves otherwise, not knowing about the test, God starts to question the motives of Satan. Satan still has a lot of control, in heaven, but there is falling out between Satan and God.

Satan was still in Heaven at the time of Jesus. In bible tradition, Satan is not thrown out of heaven until the bible prophesies of Revelations, which was written decades after the death of Jesus. Something to ponder is, if the end of time, describe by revelations, has not yet happened, that means Satan is still in heaven. If Satan was already out of heaven, that means the prophesy are completed, because once out of heaven Satan has only a short time until he is sealed.

Revelation 12:7-12New King James Version (NKJV)
Satan Thrown Out of Heaven
7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”
Click to expand...

Who made the serpent talk if not Satan?

She, in Vatican art, could not speak without supernatural help. Who took her over to make her speak?

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
What is your answer to that great question? I would say that that is a fair representation of Job and his answer should have been that if a God were actually in charge and doing as you say then as Job indicates, that God would be quite the satanic prick.
Click to expand...
QED.
 
Greatest I am said:
Thanks for agreeing.
Click to expand...
It was not agreement.

"QED" stands for quod erat demonstrandum, a Latin term meaning "the above demonstrates what I stated." I posted that you do very little other than attack religion using leading questions, and posted a question so ludicrously leading that only you would post something like it. You not only agreed with it, but actually thought it was "great" - thus demonstrating what I stated.
 
Greatest I am said:
Religions, as they exist today, I agree.

A church to appease our natural desires of fellowship will not. I think that that is why atheists are starting up their own churches. They recognize that most of us are sheep and sheep need the fellowship of the herd.

I tend to agree and promote that atheists continue to open such churches.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
.
I wish they wouldn't call them churches.

.
 
akoreamerican said:
satan wasnt asking for equal rights, he was asking for more rights then he deserves
Click to expand...

That is a she unless you think men have women's breasts. Go see Michelangelo's Eden picture in the Vatican collection to see them.

How do you know that she wanted more than she deserved and why would she not deserve them?

Regards
DL
 
akoreamerican said:
jesus was a son of god till his transfiguration, when he became one with god so he was male
Click to expand...

Yet Yahweh was androgynous to the Jews.

Jesus has to be judged on his morals just like all the archetypes.

Care to engage on a moral level?

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL
 
akoreamerican said:
god did not torture his son. the people did. and to blame god for what people did is what you are doing
Click to expand...

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Can God choose to have Jesus killed without deciding who will kill him?

No he cannot. If one piece is preordained in a mosaic, then all pieces are.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Yet Yahweh was androgynous to the Jews.

Jesus has to be judged on his morals just like all the archetypes.

Care to engage on a moral level?

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
.
And no 1 can die for me without my approval.
And what great sacrifice was it to finally do what he came to do then go on to live happily ever after in paradise.

.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
.
And no 1 can die for me without my approval.
And what great sacrifice was it to finally do what he came to do then go on to live happily ever after in paradise.

.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Christians have believed garbage from the day the decimated the Gnostic Christians. The thinking part of Christianity.

We are back and they have been slowly going down for quite a while now. Islam will follow them soon as people are fed up with destructive and immoral religions and their imaginary Gods.

Jesus preached to seek the living God and not the dead ones in books and spiritual people are opting for that and not the misogynous and homophobic ones.

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top