Explaining The Bible Part 1: Angelology, Satanology, Demonology

[Railazel]

Fair enough, but there are a lot of Christians who do believe that there is an physical Satan who controls evil forces in this world. All I was pointing out was that a lot of people have views that are contradictory to yours

Oh, I know that very well. I've talked to many a Christian about Satan including a pastor. All of them thought that I was speaking nonsense.

I believe that you shouldn't have to scare people into being decent, moral people. I also don't think hell is some kind of burning torture, something from Dante....which I suspect is where the church adopted that idea from. I'd rather think of hell as an absence of god's grace or some kind of distance from god. That's what I think, and that's that.

Actually, your view is highly agreeable as most see Hell as the absence of God. I, too, hold that view. I also hold the view that Hell is just a form of purification rather than punishment.

Plenty will, so long as you bear in mind that older people do often hold the view of 'they're just a child who knows nothing' or 'been there done that'. But also bear in mind that you do not know everything, no one does, but there will be people alive longer who have studied and know more; and that people will sometimes disagree with you, no matter how much you argue your point. It is just how life is.
Take each discussion as a learning experience, a chance to grow, and not one to win an argument or ram opinions at people.

I shall heed your advice.

But it does exist, and that is why there are so many denominations of Christianity, and other religions. Humans can't agree on even the basics of religion, so they form their own groups, their own religions and divide themselves. It's not surprising really.
Christianity was seen as nothing more than a cult back in the time of the Roman pantheon worship, and now look at it, all because people decided to be subjective and decide to believe what they wanted.

I see your point but it is dangerous for us to believe in different things when concerning matters that we all should agree on. No two Christians should have two different theologies. While I understand it exists, I just pray that it ceases to.

Isn't that being subjective? Surely there should only be one meaning to that commandment, the popular one about having as many children as possible in accordance with the practicality of the time being to increase the small population.

I wouldn't call it subjective... Liberal would probably be a better term since I'm just drawing multiple meanings from the fact that God didn't put a defined limit to how much we can multiply. Even though, more than likely, it was just simply referring to baby- making.

However, your assertion runs counter to the idea that God created humans with free will. What was the point of that if god wanted people to just submit? That's a pretty twisted logic other wise. So, have free will, but you can only use it to submit to god.
Surely people should practice their own free will responsibly within the guidelines and commandments outlined by their church in order to live a good and moral life. It is far better than to just do nothing and think god will provide, even if they do nothing and set no goals for themselves.

Actually, that's a complex question but the point is that we should be humble, acknowledge that everything is given to us, and that we need to improve ourselves to be worthy of the gifts that we have. But regardless of whether we work hard for it or not, God's will will be done. If he wishes to give us blessing, he will give it to us. If not, then not.

But that's the point. Yours is another view amongst billions in the world. It's is no more or no less trusted than the next person, or someone who is actually a biblical scholar, and even they have differing interpretations on how the bible should be understood. No one view is right or wrong, and that includes yours.

As an objectivist, I disdain this remark, but it is true no right or wrong exists as long as no one can prove that their view is right but, even if your's is right, there's no guarantee people will be convinced. It's the ultimate reason why God can never reveal himself because how many of us will actually believe he is God?

We know, and yet look how many do it. They also don't wash themselves either as stated to do in Leviticus.

Jesus was a Jew, he didn't eat pork, yet Christians do. Back in the day, I can see the practicality of that....however, I'm a pescatarian anyway, so I'm sure I'll evade hell by pork if that even exists. :tongue:

It says women can't wear clothes like men, but we do.

Things change. Back in the day, those things would've meant instant hell or some other punishment, but these days, it just depends on which church you attend. It seems like men make the rules these days, not god.

I blame conformity.

As a side, I'm now thinking about the group of Christians who believe in original sin.
So, if babies are automatically going to hell from the moment of birth, what is the point in having children if one believes in original sin?
One is not only gambling with one's own salvation, but the salivation of someone who does not yet exist, who would never have had to get out of original sin had their parents not procreated. After all, one can't give original sin to something that does not exist.
This also makes me wonder: if god is omniscient, then god knows who will avoid instant hell brought about by original sin and who won't, even before that person is born. It's an odd thought...

There's been some doubt cast on the doctrine of Original Sin. Arguments can be summarized as the doctrine being born from a misreading of Genesis and contradictory notions found in the Bible.

 

[Dante's Stalker]

There is no one way to interpret it. People can read the same passage and then draw a completely different conclusion. Having said that, it is bothersome when there are different denominations going to war with each other because each side believes that the same passage means something completely different to each side.

To interpret certain books in the Bible accurately, you need to keep in mind the author of the book, who they were, where they were from, their age and gender, their family background, their personality and character, and also the time in which the book had been written. To then keep all of this in mind whilst reading the book, you will get a clearer and more accurate interpretation of events and things that were said.
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - they all tell the story of Jesus, from different perspectives. The same story but with different highlights. One of them said Jesus carried the crucifix alone on His back. Another said that Jesus had stumbled under the weight and Simon had gone to His aid to help Him carry it all the way.
WHAT? HOW DARE THERE BE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BIBLE?!
Well, who knows? Maybe the one guy just didn't see Jesus collapse because he was trying to get through the blood-thirsty mob, but the other guy did see because he was right on the edge of the mob? It doesn't take a genius to try figure out why one would recount something that the others neglect to mention.
As for Revelations and Genesis, well God said 'do not lean on your own understanding of these things'.
But people, y'know? :facepalm:They don't always hear Him when He speaks.

Demons are actually the name of spirits in Roman myth to explain mental illnesses and some diseases. They, also, are used to explain enlightenments or increases in knowledge and reasoning. Demons were adopted in New Testament vocabulary as symbolism for mental illnesses.

In conclusion, Angels are a canonical entity in the Bible. However, Satan and demons are not. They were born from paganistic views that had seeped their way into the early Church. Any mention of them in the Bible is generally symbolic.

I've no idea where you've done your research on this but I have never come across anything even relative to that. In the book of Enoch, it's the angels (the fallen) who enlightened mankind. That was part of the package deal when Adam and Eve decided they wanted to know more stuff and ate from the wrong tree. Satan's 'angels' were keeping their side of the deal. Lucifer was God's most beautiful angel - whom then got a big head because his fellow angels were in awe, and he managed to DECEIVE a host of angels because he wanted to be the one handing out orders. Whether the other angels knew they were tricked to turn against God I guess is irrelevant. Either way, they fell out of God's grace (which is why they are called fallen angels) and God cast them onto the earth. Whatever goodness they once had, was gone. Disconnected and discharged. I'd think that in time they probably became more and more like the demonic we know today.
Hence why fallen angels are demons, thus demons are real (I can't fathom the concept of believing angels exist but demons don't?)

Demons are not symbolism for mental illness in the New Testament. If this was the case, then why would Jesus 'speak' to the demons? Why would the demons be afraid of Him? Why would they tell Him that it is not yet their time to be sent into the abyss? Why would Jesus exorcise a bunch of demons from one person, send them into a herd of pigs that then jump off a cliff into the ocean?
Why would a mentally ill person who has never met Jesus before, know who He is right away, and how would they know these vital details about the judgement of devils? More over, why would a pack of nearby pigs suddenly go awol into the sea right after Jesus orders the mentally ill person to be freed?

In modern day yeah we've got the metaphor of 'fighting our own demons', but not in Jesus's time.

 

[V]

However, your assertion runs counter to the idea that God created humans with free will. What was the point of that if god wanted people to just submit? That's a pretty twisted logic other wise. So, have free will, but you can only use it to submit to god.

This is my whole problem with this and other religions.

God creates flawed being -> God punishes flawed being for being flawed

or

God creates free will -> gives beings with free will the 'option' to choose between his rules and a place designed to make said creatures suffer so greatly there's barely a choice to make

Makes no sense to my human brain other than to conclude that there is no choice to make, no will that you're free to use because the choice is loaded; if this is supposed to improve us it's only a straightforward path of following orders that were given in the first place, like training a dog that crapped on the carpet. God does not want human beings to know more than what he wants them to know, or he would never have punished them by casting them out to begin with. The only improvement to be made is to follow orders, and to apparently make up for the flawed nature that he decided to give you in the first place. Which isn't improvement, it's just returning you to the state you were in to begin with, a reaccepted supplicant. (Unless you consider a few thousand years of suffering to give perspective, but... what's the point of perspective if you can't use it freely, again).

I'd much prefer to believe in/follow Jesus as a man who loved everyone and knew that love was constructive than the above. That makes a whole lot more sense to me.

I'm not Christian but I get Jesus' point and I agree with it. I don't get the Old Testament god's point, though. At all.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

I'd say there's a great deal of good reasoning behind the complexities inherit in Christianity, and pretty much every other religion and/or spirituality.

I was baptized Catholic at the age of 3, but left at the age of 13, because I could no longer connect with that view of deity, or the rules that were set in place.

End result, I became Eclectic Pagan, and have been building, discarding, and rearranging my beliefs for the last decade.

From the research I've done, there are some explanations in regards to Christian demonology, holidays, and interpretations of Satan.

I know this might offend some, and this isn't my intent, but I view Christianity the same way I view any other mythological system: it's interesting, it has its good points, bad points, legitimate points, and points that no longer hold water, in this day and age.

Now, some of the demons you find in the bible are variations of daemons, spirits, deities, and the like from other belief systems. In short, I think this boils down to perspective. Satan's appearance going from one form to another, while it can be explained as him being a powerful entity capable of altering his shape, actually can be traced to some of the aforementioned entities, as well.

For example, the whole horned, cloven-footed thing: it's believed that this form was adopted by benevolent Pagan gods, such as Cernunnos, Pan (okay, not always so benevolent; he had a wild, dangerous nature, too), Baphomet, and so on.

I'm not sure how much of this is correct, and how much is based in some form of bias; but for the most part, it's a consistent theme I have found in my reading.

This also goes along with the adaptation of holidays. When Christianity came into being (I know, this contradicts the Old Testament, but bear with me) they and the Pagans of old co-existed. For those who wished to convert from one faith to the other, the Christian holidays would either fall on, or in close proximity to, the holidays the Pagans already celebrated (these are often found in the forms of the Solstices and Equinoxes). In short, they did it to make it easier for people to adapt to the change.

This is in no way meant to devaluate Christian beliefs; on the contrary, I see all belief systems as legitimate. Despite their many differences, it is remarkable how many similarities they bear, as well.

I do have a question for any and all who are willing to answer: I find myself very interested in Angelology as of late, and I was wondering if anyone could recommend some highly detailed reading on the matter?

 

[Angel]

Your point regarding early Christianity and Pagans is correct - the Celts especially are prime examples of this. Even as early as the time of Paul there were hybrid versions of Christianity going around for many reasons...after all, changing your entire belief system, not to mention concepts of class, race and equality, does not happen easily.

 

[V]

Yeah if you were going to graft a religion into a place then rather than replacing the indigenous celebration and festival times you make them coincide to ease the transition, Easter coincides roughly with spring and fertility rituals of pagan origin, Christmas with Yule, etc. And yea, the horned pagan gods thing. As I said earlier, "Satan" as we know it is a mashup. A very long-reaching one. . .

EH REBEL YOU ALREADY SAID THIS ;_; dang. I wanted to show off.

 

[Railazel]

I've no idea where you've done your research on this but I have never come across anything even relative to that.

http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/zjc3.html
http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebs...ies/Angels_and_Demons/satan_brief_history.php
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/02/the-absence-of-satan-in-the-old-testament/

Just to name a few sites.

In the book of Enoch, it's the angels (the fallen) who enlightened mankind.

The canonicity of the Book of Enoch is questionable. I, for one, don't believe it is because it contradicts what the rest of Bible teaches about Angels, the Flood, and the Nephilim.

can't fathom the concept of believing angels exist but demons don't?

There are multiple arguments to the non- existence of fallen angels mostly stemming from their nature and their relationship with God. To summarize, they are incapable of sin due to their spiritual nature, place in Heaven, and their intimacy with God as opposed to our distance from him and inability to perceive him.

Demons are not symbolism for mental illness in the New Testament.

Actually they are. The word demon comes from the word Latin word, Daimon, which is a spirit in Greek/Roman Mythology. Daimons can be either good or bad depending on their intentions. The good ones resemble the Angels in that they give knowledge, wisdom, and protection while the bad ones were said to possess people and lead them astray. Using Latin words to describe things wasn't uncommon for and, thus, using daimons to describe mental illnesses was normal.

If this was the case, then why would Jesus 'speak' to the demons?

Jesus wasn't talking to the demons neither were they talking to him. He was talking to person(s) who were ill.

Why would the demons be afraid of Him? Why would they tell Him that it is not yet their time to be sent into the abyss?

The first question actually points to some hypocritical notion of the doctrine of Demons such as their fear of Jesus now but not of him and God when they were in Heaven. As for the latter question, that's only in one of the accounts. In Matthew and Mark, they don't mention the Abyss.

Why would Jesus exorcise a bunch of demons from one person, send them into a herd of pigs that then jump off a cliff into the ocean? More over, why would a pack of nearby pigs suddenly go awol into the sea right after Jesus orders the mentally ill person to be freed?

That bears some inquiry since once exclude the demons the pigs become another matter. There are differing explanations concerning the pigs and, basically, the story of the whole. The most popular is that the pigs represent Roman soldiers. However, I don't like that explanation because it basically means that God sent a bunch of crazy people to go fight some Romans.

Why would a mentally ill person who has never met Jesus before, know who He is right away, and how would they know these vital details about the judgement of devils?

Just because he's mentally ill doesn't mean he's not informed. He probably knew enough about Jesus to know who he was.

 

[Dante's Stalker]

There are multiple arguments to the non- existence of fallen angels mostly stemming from their nature and their relationship with God. To summarize, they are incapable of sin due to their spiritual nature, place in Heaven, and their intimacy with God as opposed to our distance from him and inability to perceive him.

Jesus wasn't talking to the demons neither were they talking to him. He was talking to person(s) who were ill.

See, the thing is, I'm coming at this from a view point where I've studied and researched angels in the Bible to the point of obsession. There is a hierarchy of angels, did you know that? I don't have my notes on me but I believe there were seven ranks of angels - those who were given free will, and those who weren't, those who serve a different purpose to others. Some look like spinning wheels of fire, some hold the four corners of the world, some 'ride horses' and some appear as beings of intense light. Then you get the angels who you wouldn't know were angels unless they said 'hey, I'm an angel sent from God', hence the passage about people entertaining angels without realizing it. So, from my understanding and knowledge of angels, yes, some of them can and have turned against God. Angels are not drones. There was a reason why God chose Gabriel to reveal His plans to Mary and there is a reason why the arch angel Michael is an ARCH ANGEL.
To assume that they can't sin is to be ignorant. They choose not to sin. Just as the devil and his minions chose to rebel against God. Free will is not a grace God gave only to mankind, you know?

Also, considering you know which encounter in the Bible I'm talking about regarding Jesus chasing demons out of a person: this was not a parable. This was an event that a disciple/scholar witnessed and recorded. There was no need to talk in riddles, there was no need to use symbolism in that text. If it were, why are all the other events not done in the same way? In which case we could completely disregard the entire New Testament as nothing but the riddles and ramblings of someone going senile. Jesus told parables, very clearly, but not His disciples. I don't believe Jesus spoke to someone who was simply ill (this event in particular states that He chased demons from the person, NOT healing the sick of which there are plenty of accounts), and I don't believe that they were referring to the Romans as 'pigs'. That's such a modern day age thing and not the right way of interpreting the text. Besides that, if it were the case, it would be an action contradictory to who Jesus was. Jesus stopped Peter from slicing and dicing up one of the Roman soldiers who took Jesus to be crucified. So if He did that when He knew He was going to be killed, why would He have a bunch of soldiers leap off a cliff?

And also, Satan was mentioned in the old Testament. But he's only mentioned when and where necessary. Otherwise it would take away from God and Jesus and people would be more focussed on this rebellious spirit than anything.

And truth be told, I haven't read the entire book of Enoch. I got bored a quarter of the way in. But there are other books and places, other people who are schooled in the Bible, who took a keen interest in angels and if I can find any of it, I'll be sure to post it here as references.

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

Yeah if you were going to graft a religion into a place then rather than replacing the indigenous celebration and festival times you make them coincide to ease the transition, Easter coincides roughly with spring and fertility rituals of pagan origin, Christmas with Yule, etc. And yea, the horned pagan gods thing. As I said earlier, "Satan" as we know it is a mashup. A very long-reaching one. . .

EH REBEL YOU ALREADY SAID THIS ;_; dang. I wanted to show off.

I...I'm sorry....^^;

I didn't mean to steal your thunder; forgive me?

@Dante's Stalker If and when you find those notes on angel hierarchy, I'd actually be interested in reading them. For some reason or another, I never did get to learn much about them while growing up. It was always vague, just snippets...

 

[Railazel]

There is a hierarchy of angels, did you know that? I don't have my notes on me but I believe there were seven ranks of angels - those who were given free will, and those who weren't, those who serve a different purpose to others. Some look like spinning wheels of fire, some hold the four corners of the world, some 'ride horses' and some appear as beings of intense light. Then you get the angels who you wouldn't know were angels unless they said 'hey, I'm an angel sent from God', hence the passage about people entertaining angels without realizing it. So, from my understanding and knowledge of angels, yes, some of them can and have turned against God. Angels are not drones. There was a reason why God chose Gabriel to reveal His plans to Mary and there is a reason why the arch angel Michael is an ARCH ANGEL.

I am fully aware of the hierarchy. I don't see in a positive light since its origins have can be traced in the Book of Enoch. However, I don't see it necessary for anyone to leave it from their doctrine neither is it necessary to include it (especially since most of the ranks of the angels (the principalities, powers, thrones, virtues, and dominations) have very few verses to their name in the Bible).

To assume that they can't sin is to be ignorant. They choose not to sin. Just as the devil and his minions chose to rebel against God. Free will is not a grace God gave only to mankind, you know?

Free will isn't a gift God gave us but that's a different argument altogether. With that said, there's no reason for the angels to be able to sin because they, too, wouldn't be created with the ability to sin and are in a state of being where sinning wouldn't be an option.

Also, considering you know which encounter in the Bible I'm talking about regarding Jesus chasing demons out of a person: this was not a parable. This was an event that a disciple/scholar witnessed and recorded. There was no need to talk in riddles, there was no need to use symbolism in that text. If it were, why are all the other events not done in the same way? In which case we could completely disregard the entire New Testament as nothing but the riddles and ramblings of someone going senile. Jesus told parables, very clearly, but not His disciples. I don't believe Jesus spoke to someone who was simply ill (this event in particular states that He chased demons from the person, NOT healing the sick of which there are plenty of accounts), and I don't believe that they were referring to the Romans as 'pigs'. That's such a modern day age thing and not the right way of interpreting the text. Besides that, if it were the case, it would be an action contradictory to who Jesus was. Jesus stopped Peter from slicing and dicing up one of the Roman soldiers who took Jesus to be crucified. So if He did that when He knew He was going to be killed, why would He have a bunch of soldiers leap off a cliff?

I am not suggesting that it was a parable but, as a historical event, it demands some investigating since taking it literally demands answering some puzzling questions. But to address some points you've made, healing a mentally ill person isn't the same as healing the sick. Also, the Roman Legion used the pig or boar as an emblem. As for the soldiers drowning, "drowning" was used as a term of defeat. I, again, don't like this explanation because it doesn't explain how only one or two men were able to defeat two thousand soldieres. Furthermore, this explanation of the story would demand more consistency among its accounts since this is a story of a direct opposition towards the Roman authority by Jesus and thus would be surrounded in symbolism but Matthew, Mark, and Luke have different versions of it. Since there's no consistency about it on their part, it must have been a real event that they placed their own emphasizes on.

And also, Satan was mentioned in the old Testament. But he's only mentioned when and where necessary. Otherwise it would take away from God and Jesus and people would be more focussed on this rebellious spirit than anything.

Your argument suggests that any more information on Satan would distract us from God but there's no evidence suggesting so.

 

[BLACKSWIPE]

So I've got a few things that I would like to be explained. These are a just of a few verses in the bible that have turned me away from Christianity. These are in fact, real, unaltered passages from the Bible:

RAPE:

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
" Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Keep in mind MOSES said that.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
" As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Why?

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

By this logic, you may rape any woman you want, get away with it, AND be tied to her for life.

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Basically, it doesn't matter if you were held down and violated against your own will. You still deserve death.

SLAVERY:

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Remember folks, this is what GOD wants. How can anyone explain this?!

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."

This is awful and this is sick.

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

I thought that Christ and god always came first?

(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."

Delightful.

(Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

From Jesus himself.

KILL EVERYONE:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

Kill Witches
(Exodus 22:17 NAB)
You should not let a sorceress live.

Kill Homosexuals
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Kill Fortunetellers
(Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.

Death for Hitting Dad
(Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.

Death for Cursing Parents
(Proverbs 20:20 NAB) & (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.

Death for Adultery
(Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.

Death for Fornication
(Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

Death to Followers of Other Religions
(Exodus 22:19 NAB)
" Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed."

Kill Nonbelievers
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

Kill False Prophets
(Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through."

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
" Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
(Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
" But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) & (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
1)"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."

2)" Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death."

Death for Blasphemy
(Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
"One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die."

Kill False Prophets
(Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT) & (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)
1) "Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you."

2) "But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared."

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
(Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death."

"NEVER BLINDLY PUT YOUR FAITH INTO ANYTHING, UNLESS YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GETTING INTO." ~BLACKSWIPE

 

[V]

I don't think anyone can explain that away. The Old Testament is full of death and people being slaughtered, many times on God's orders. God was evidently fully okay with that, if he wrote this.

And with taking women as possessions and being obsessive with their virginity, I guess.

I figure the most frequent explanations for this will be that the Bible was written by men receiving the word of God. But you can't confuse the law of God with primitive views on rape and war. God either ordered this as law, or he didn't.

 

[DragonMaster2010]

I think the reason for so much misconception of the Bible comes from the people teaching it.

And as a Christian, that's what I really don't like.

A pastor or priest can literally take something random out of the bible, and twist it's meaning to his own wisdom. All it takes is a thunderous voice and a black/white robe and saying "GOD" "JESUS CHRIST" over and over again, and people will be praising the Lord. For me, I'd rather actually read through what's being said and see if what's being preached is true in it's message.

I also don't like how Christians are perceived both in media and in real life. Not only cause it's a bit offensive, but also because it's...well, it's true. Christians can be extremist when it comes to their faith. Their almost like a cult if you don't believe what they believe and choose to believe in their words instead. I may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean I rule out science as bullcrap. Hell, I actually believe the big bang theory was created by God and the universe began as that.

Sadly, this trope of Christians has been portrayed in media very badly. We Christians are always seen as blind sheep, sprouting "JESUS CHRIST' and "GOD" every second we open our mouth or judgmental on whatever isn't the same as ours. And sadly, in some cases, this image isn't too far from the truth. Westboro's Church is unfortunately tied to this. For the rest of the Christian community, westburo is that irritating uncle that spits in people's drinks and pees all over the food in a drunken frenzy.

For me, I don't believe everything my religion teaches because I look towards sources, facts, and logical thinking for my teachings then relay on someone dressed in a white robe yelling to the top of his lungs "HALLELUJAH!! JEEESUUUUUUSSSS!!! YESSSSA!!! YESSSA!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH~~" (every black preacher I've ever seen:laugh

Also historically, Jesus was black, and the letter "J" didn't even exist back then. Jesus's real name is Yashua.

 

[Railazel]

Before I begin my counterargument, I will state how ignorant of an argument this is. These laws have no bearing on you nor any modern Christian. They're outdated and their only use is as a reflection of what the past was like. God doesn't tell us to go conquer whole countries or annihilate whole groups of people.

So I've got a few things that I would like to be explained. These are a just of a few verses in the bible that have turned me away from Christianity. These are in fact, real, unaltered passages from the Bible:

RAPE:


Keep in mind MOSES said that.



Why?



By this logic, you may rape any woman you want, get away with it, AND be tied to her for life.



Basically, it doesn't matter if you were held down and violated against your own will. You still deserve death.

SLAVERY:


Remember folks, this is what GOD wants. How can anyone explain this?!



This is awful and this is sick.



I thought that Christ and god always came first?



Delightful.



From Jesus himself.

KILL EVERYONE:


















Kill False Prophets
(Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT) & (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)
1) "Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you."

2) "But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared."


"NEVER BLINDLY PUT YOUR FAITH INTO ANYTHING, UNLESS YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE GETTING INTO." ~BLACKSWIPE

Now, you've either read the whole bible or just this part of it because, if you've read the whole bible, you would know that there are bible verses that directly contradict the ones you listed. Why? Because those laws were made during a time of religious and social discontent and war. Jesus directly refers to this when they question him on the mosaic law. If you don't like those laws then, oh well, you don't have to follow them. Jesus gave us the option to ignore them as long as we understand that they existed. The two greatest laws are to love God and your fellow man. As long as you follow those two laws, you are blessed and have access to heaven. In short, we don't need the mosaic law, so their existence doesn't have any bearing on Christianity or God.

 

[V]

Before I begin my counterargument, I will state how ignorant of an argument this is.

I believe she is asking you to explain why this is in the Bible at all if it is irrelevant to it, if I understand the point of her post right. Enlighten her ignorance, if you are so knowledgeable, instead of deriding it.

These laws have no bearing on you nor any modern Christian. They're outdated and their only use is as a reflection of what the past was like.

Kind of goes without saying they're outdated and that wasn't what she was saying. These things turned her from Christianity because they are a part of it. And they are, because people are constantly quoting original OT passages to justify their hate or disapproval of one thing or another, and they are still in the Christian holy book as potential guides and influential statements. They translate to reality by influencing the Christian collective - five minutes on the internet regarding the OT and currently viewed harmful/controversial statements made by it should be enough to prove that. Claiming they have no bearing in theory is fine - IF we are not supposed to believe the OT is God's word. Claiming they have no bearing in general reality is untrue. Lots of peoples' lives are influenced for real by these OT statements because some people believe they are God's word, so they do have bearing on modern Christians to some degree, and also upon those who are not Christians but who encounter Christians or Christian-based law.

God doesn't tell us to go conquer whole countries or annihilate whole groups of people.

Yes, he does! That is, if you take that which was written in the Bible as literal, he ordered plenty of death - or allowed his representatives to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you make a thread to say "originally in the Bible things are described like this and these are the TRUE interpretations", then originally in the Bible lots of wars and annihilation happens because they are ordered either by God or his representatives, and how are these suddenly NOT also true interpretations, if you're going on actual Bible descriptions? How can you claim one is authentic because it is written and not the other?

If you are, however, saying that God isn't ordering any of us personally right now to go out and kill us some Canaanites or whatever, then yes, obviously he doesn't. But he certainly did do in the Bible.

Now, you've either read the whole bible or just this part of it because, if you've read the whole bible, you would know that there are bible verses that directly contradict the ones you listed.

Just because one part of the Bible contradicts another doesn't mean the things written in it are cancelled out in an argument about the original statements of the Bible.

Why? Because those laws were made during a time of religious and social discontent and war.

This is what I predicted you would say. And what most people do say when asked to explain why the Bible is violent. I believe all the laws in the Bible were written by men so I don't knock this "argument", but if you believe in God, much of this in the Bible is supposed to have been ordered by God. You can't "ignore" that and say it was the fault of violent dudes at the time if someone is asking you whether God actually ordered this or not. If he did, then he is a violent God. If he didn't, then people are making up orders in the name of God, and why on earth should ANY of this book be believed as God's word, if that is the case? How do you know which parts are God's word and which parts invented by man?

Jesus directly refers to this when they question him on the mosaic law. If you don't like those laws then, oh well, you don't have to follow them.

What you're saying is that you can cherry pick. And that's like, the biggest problem so many people have with all of this. They will argue with you for sure if you say stuff like this, because you've just made a thread here that starts by saying people are ignorant of what's authentic, and ended it with a proverbial shrug.

Jesus gave us the option to ignore them as long as we understand that they existed. The two greatest laws are to love God and your fellow man. As long as you follow those two laws, you are blessed and have access to heaven. In short, we don't need the mosaic law, so their existence doesn't have any bearing on Christianity or God.

Sure, that seems to be the deal for Christians, but this is Jesus' 'father' we're talking about. The God that he obeys or the God that you should love, right? you can see why some people might have a problem with that, and all the nasty stuff done in his name still sat in his holy book.

There's a difference between following Jesus and following the Old Testament, I get it. But then why should we care about angels and demons as described in the OT and the NT? It's not important apparently, you don't have to take that as true, or authentic, according to your rationale, as you've just effectively stated that 99% of the book is window-dressing, not to be taken literal, "take it or leave it," according to yourself.

I think a lot of people in here are are gonna lock horns because of your attitude. You're not doing your faith any favors calling people ignorant so frequently, for starters.

 

[Angel]

...Anyone for cake?

 

[Rebel Dynasty]

...Anyone for cake?

Sure, I'm up for a sli-


Oh...I see what you did, there.

 

[V]

I like cake.

 

[Railazel]

I believe she is asking you to explain why this is in the Bible at all if it is irrelevant to it, if I understand the point of her post right. Enlighten her ignorance, if you are so knowledgeable, instead of deriding it.

But with the way she posted, her initial statement of wanting an explanation seems to have little value. If she wanted someone to explain it to her then she needs to ask the question, not make over- exaggerated comments like "KILL EVERYONE".

Kind of goes without saying they're outdated and that wasn't what she was saying. These things turned her from Christianity because they are a part of it. And they are, because people are constantly quoting original OT passages to justify their hate or disapproval of one thing or another, and they are still in the Christian holy book as potential guides and influential statements. They translate to reality by influencing the Christian collective - five minutes on the internet regarding the OT and currently viewed harmful/controversial statements made by it should be enough to prove that. Claiming they have no bearing in theory is fine - IF we are not supposed to believe the OT is God's word. Claiming they have no bearing in general reality is untrue. Lots of peoples' lives are influenced for real by these OT statements because some people believe they are God's word, so they do have bearing on modern Christians to some degree, and also upon those who are not Christians but who encounter Christians or Christian-based law.

But do you see any Christian woman have her hand cut off for touching another man's balls? Or do you see fortune tellers getting murdered by Christians? If not, then you see my point. While some OT statements have been used to fuel various beliefs within the Church, the laws themselves have been scarcely used in application. The fact is OT is God's word but so are the various statements that contradict those laws. If any Christian places those laws over the statements that contradict them, then they are devaluing a part of God's word.

Yes, he does! That is, if you take that which was written in the Bible as literal, he ordered plenty of death - or allowed his representatives to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you make a thread to say "originally in the Bible things are described like this and these are the TRUE interpretations", then originally in the Bible lots of wars and annihilation happens because they are ordered either by God or his representatives, and how are these suddenly NOT also true interpretations, if you're going on actual Bible descriptions? How can you claim one is authentic because it is written and not the other?

You're misunderstood me.

If you are, however, saying that God isn't ordering any of us personally right now to go out and kill us some Canaanites or whatever, then yes, obviously he doesn't. But he certainly did do in the Bible.

I am not saying otherwise.

Just because one part of the Bible contradicts another doesn't mean the things written in it are cancelled out in an argument about the original statements of the Bible.

I never said they did.

This is what I predicted you would say. And what most people do say when asked to explain why the Bible is violent. I believe all the laws in the Bible were written by men so I don't knock this "argument", but if you believe in God, much of this in the Bible is supposed to have been ordered by God. You can't "ignore" that and say it was the fault of violent dudes at the time if someone is asking you whether God actually ordered this or not. If he did, then he is a violent God. If he didn't, then people are making up orders in the name of God, and why on earth should ANY of this book be believed as God's word, if that is the case? How do you know which parts are God's word and which parts invented by man?

You're misunderstanding the point of the argument. What it means is that God's word was in reaction to the attitudes of the people at the time. It's the major reason why NT and OT seem so different but let me make the point that God himself doesn't change. The same God who believed in showing mercy to repentant sinners in the NT is the same God who ordered their deaths in the OT, and his mindset was the same throughout. What that means is that God has a purpose for each law he gives. Once that purpose has been fulfilled, then it is no longer needed.

What you're saying is that you can cherry pick. And that's like, the biggest problem so many people have with all of this. They will argue with you for sure if you say stuff like this, because you've just made a thread here that starts by saying people are ignorant of what's authentic, and ended it with a proverbial shrug.

I'm not "proverbially shrugging" it off when I am simply stating what the Bible teaches and history has shown us. The Bible says that it is by faith that we are saved, so the laws are merely there to act as instruction, to show us what we were and are like and how blessed that we don't need the laws to give us grace.

Sure, that seems to be the deal for Christians, but this is Jesus' 'father' we're talking about. The God that he obeys or the God that you should love, right? you can see why some people might have a problem with that, and all the nasty stuff done in his name still sat in his holy book.

Indeed, they do sit there. However, your argument assumes that what Jesus said is in some way different than what God has said or intended. Jesus' word is God's word, what he says is what God says. So if he says that the Mosaic law is fulfilled, then it is fulfilled. The laws remain in the Bible because they act as tutors. They teach us a lot of things about our history, our sinful nature, and our God. We don't need to follow them, just learn from them.

But then why should we care about angels and demons as described in the OT and the NT?

Angels, you have to. Demons... not so much.

It's not important apparently, you don't have to take that as true, or authentic, according to your rationale, as you've just effectively stated that 99% of the book is window-dressing, not to be taken literal, "take it or leave it," according to yourself.

First of all, don't make assumptions about "my rationale" unless I make a clear statement about them. Second, don't exaggerate said assumptions. I take that as insulting.

Now, I have not taken the Bible as just "window- dressing" neither do I see it as "take it or leave it". My statements have been clear from the get- go.

I think a lot of people in here are are gonna lock horns because of your attitude. You're not doing your faith any favors calling people ignorant so frequently, for starters.

My attitude has been of decency and respect. However, I have not been one to enforce argument. I was respectful throughout the entirety of this thread and my only insult was at Blackswipe's argument, not her, as that is a basic argument used by almost all non- believers. Furthermore, my intention wasn't to "do any favors" for my faith. I am not here to promote it, advertise it, or to make anyone feel any way about it. Rather, I was simply drawing attention to a fallacy within modern doctrine concerning Satan and Demons and making a thread for the simple purpose of raising questions about that fallacy as well as a brief and basic explanation concerning angels.

Since the thread has lost its purpose, I would rather it close. I am very disappointed with how it turned out since instead of questions being asked and answers given about the actual topic, it was just a debate over how I'm wrong for presenting my beliefs as fact and how my beliefs supposedly contradicted the Bible. As much as I expected that to happen, there was very little questioning regarding the actual subject-matter, which is sad because I assumed the people who would find interest in this thread would want to test the foundations of my view on more logical grounds than it just being different from normal doctrine. Even worse was that I didn't want it to be about anything other than Angelology and yet here I am arguing about Mosaic Law. Clearly, the thread took a turn that I didn't want it to and I'm not doing myself any favors.