Satan: The Greatest Bible Myth?

April 3, 2008 at 11:09 pm 105 comments

Word From Satan

We have spent a considerable time on this blog, addressing Biblical myths. HeIsSailing wrote on several myths of the Bible including the Leviathan, the creation story, the tower of Babel, and the origins of languages. I compiled an entry on the Exodus. Richard recently wrote on the Apocalypse. However, I believe one of the greatest myths of the Bible is the existence of the creature we call the devil.

On his personal blog, Gary has a post entitled The Grand Myth of Lucifer in which he describes in detail what the Bible says, or what most evangelicals believe the Bible says, about this mythical creature. In the post, he describes the origins of Lucifer, the part he played in the fall of Adam and Eve, the crucifixion of Jesus, and what he knows of his own destiny.

Even as a Christian, I began to have my doubts in the existence of the devil. I struggled with the story of Job in which Job was a pawn in a great cosmic battle between God and the devil. If God was the great omnipotent being and the devil was simply a fallen angel, why did it seem as if they were somehow on equal terms? What was the devil doing in heaven approaching God?

Then of course, there was the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden (see HIS’ post on creation for more on this) and the introduction of demons who could possess humans in the New Testament. In fact, what we now know of as diseases, such as epilepsy, were labeled demonic possessions and cured with the casting out of demons. What were the origin of demons anyway? Were they fallen angels? If so, could the angels who did not “fall” possess humans?

Add all this to the charismatic belief of the well organized, hierarchical kingdom of darkness in the “heavenlies”, I began to seriously doubt the existence of a real being called the devil who had some sort of power over me to control my actions or possess me.

I know a Christian believes that the devil himself tries to deceive others by convincing them that he doesn’t exist. To them, this is known as his greatest lie when in fact, it is one of the greatest truths.

- The de-Convert

Entry filed under: The de-Convert. Tags: , , , , , , .

The fall of literalism in my life Inconvenient categories: The real reasons de-cons leave the faith

105 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Tommykey  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    When I first read Job, it seemed almost as if God and Satan were, if not buddies, were at least on cordial terms. I got the impression that Satan was like God’s court jester.

  • 2. The de-Convert  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    LOL… the pingbacks showed up in my email from “Satan.” Maybe I was wrong :)

  • 3. Quester  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    I often found my curiosity sparked by discussions about Satan and Lucifer: were they the same entity and if not how did they differ and how did they relate. It was never something that concerned me as more than an intellectual exercise, though. God trumped Satan, so I didn’t worry about him.

  • 4. The de-Convert  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    Quester,

    I always viewed Lucifer, Satan, the devil, etc. as one and the same being. Also, we had the belief that satan was the “god of this world” therefore God trumping him wasn’t so much of a reality but a constant battle. It was a little fuzzy as to who was behind natural disasters, etc.

    Paul

  • 5. Quester  |  April 3, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Paul,

    Somehow, I’d never really heard the “god of this world” argument until just last year. What I’d been taught instead was that Satan only had as much power as you’d allow him, and if you kept yourself focused on God, Satan would have no power over you at all.

    When I was in seminary, I preached a sermon on Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness, where he was tempted by Satan. I had two students and a professor come and talk to me later (separately, not all three at once), troubled by my speaking of Satan as if he really existed. I couldn’t understand how they could think Satan didn’t exist, but Jesus did, while the information about both came from the same text. In their turn, they couldn’t understand how I couldn’t understand it. It was obvious to them that Jesus was real and Satan an anthropomorphic figure of myth. I didn’t argue with them, but gave this a fair amount of thought.

  • 6. Cthulhu  |  April 4, 2008 at 12:53 am

    The de-Convert,

    Excellent post – I was astonished that god would make a wager with lucifer…a mere fallen angel and use his creation’s soul as the bet!!! Sheesh…the weak junk I used to believe.

    Brad

  • 7. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:10 am

    LOL, I was actually considering posting it here, but wondered whether it might be a little out of place! The reason I didn’t include Job is because I have read that satan, which is Hebrew for the accuser, is not the same character as the later-developed Satan of the New Testament. It would be appropriate for inclusion, given that most Christians do see them as one and the same, but it just didn’t fit the narrative well.

    The importance of producing The Grand Myth of Lucifer for me was to demonstrate it as a metanarrative of Christian theology, which is usually left unsaid and unexamined. If you take the devil out of Christianity, you end up with huge gaps.

  • 8. Ed Darrell  |  April 4, 2008 at 4:47 am

    One may want to note that “Lucifer” in the Bible doesn’t refer to the Tempter, or a fallen angel, but instead to a king of Babylon, who was known as the “son of the morning star” as a deific. Who first associated the alias of the king with the devil? Why does it continue today?

  • 9. Oubaas  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:30 am

    Lucifer seems to be the main character in this theology. Without him, Jesus would not have been necessary. But without (pre) Jesus, Lucifer was necessary to keep everyone in their proper place. Which confirms the suspicion of Stendhal that “all religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”

  • 10. The de-Convert  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:40 am

    One may want to note that “Lucifer” in the Bible doesn’t refer to the Tempter, or a fallen angel, but instead to a king of Babylon, who was known as the “son of the morning star” as a deific. Who first associated the alias of the king with the devil? Why does it continue today?

    Like everything else in the Bible, it’s all about interpretation. This, of course, was put together based on Jesus statement on seeing Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

    Paul

  • 11. abutua  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:45 am

    I’m not a Christian, but I would agree that Satan is a mythical creature in the Christian tradition. From a conversation with a conservative friend, I realized that what controls one’s action to do evil is not Satan or the devil, but the original sin. However, I disagree with the idea of original sin. Everyone is born innocent. God is just, and why would He inflict our ancestors’ sins upon us? That doesn’t sound like justice to me.

  • 12. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 7:22 am

    A few thoughts:

    I still occassionally listen to Raul Rees adn Hank Hanagraaf during my commute to work. I try to take them seriously, but whenever they bring up The Devil or Satan… I gotta tell you… it just sounds incredibly silly and juvenile. As mythology, it made sense to the ancient world, but I don’t see what place it has in the 21st century. As a De-Convert, I now know why people found Flip WIlson’s old line ‘The Devile made me do it’ so funny – people marvel that Christians *really* believe in the existance of this being. Of course, Christians would have us think that by laughing at the existance of the Devil, we are doing exactly as he wishes. Satan would like nothing more than to laugh at his existance, right? *sigh*

    I was reading Levitucus the other night, and found a forgotten name of the Devil to place along side our Favorites like Lucifer and Satan. Check out Levitcus 16 for the scapegoat ceremony involving the evil spirit ‘Azazel’. Really interesting stuff!

    Does anybody *still* believe that Lucifer from Isaiah 14:12 is another name of the Devil? Does any Christian ask what a Latin name is doing in a Hebrew Bible? Isn’t Light Bearer or Day Star now used in all Bible translations except King James which keeps ‘Lucifer’? I think so, but it is apparantly such a hard myth to let go of. Sheesh, even the NIV has ‘morning star’ instead of Lucifer.

    I now point to Venus, and rightly call it Lucifer – just like the ancients did.

    Isn’t Jesus called Lucifer in Revelation when he is described as the ‘Light Bearer’? I think so. Does anybody have a Latin Bible to check this?

    Satan, the greatest myth in the Bible? Nah. That prize belongs to the afterlife, particularly Hell.

  • 13. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 7:26 am

    Retraction:
    I just checked Rev 22:16

    NIV:
    “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

    Latin Vulgate:
    ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina

    Lucifer fit there in Isaiah but not Revelation.

  • 14. Jonathan Blake  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:06 am

    ReligiousTolerance.org has a good article on the development of the Satan myth which has a long history.

  • 15. Jonathan Blake  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:09 am

    Oh, and don’t miss the second half of the article (the first part doesn’t have a link to the second).

  • 16. TheNorEaster  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:50 am

    Might have been a better post if you had thorougly researched “demonic possession” in the past century or so. I’d certainly like to see an explanation for that.

  • 17. Will Entrekin  |  April 4, 2008 at 9:05 am

    I’m surprised no one’s yet mentioned the true origin of the Biblical Lucifer myth. Whichever book it is that first mentions him (besides Genesis), it’s actually a translation of the Ishtar myth (i.e., Venus). Hence: the morning star. During certain months, Venus (the morning star) appears to rise and then “to fall from the heavens.”

    I wish I had the cite, but I’m open in, like, 9 tabs. Google fu should be pretty quick.

  • 18. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 9:45 am

    The devil code is far easier to crack than The Da Vinci Code, IMO :)
    Thanks for the links Jonathan, it’s fascinating to see how the history differs from the interpretation.

  • 19. Richard  |  April 4, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Many Chrisitans also never notice that there is no identification in the text itself between the serpent in the Garden of Eden and the Devil. It just says “serpent.” This came to my attention when studying Judaism, where it has never been part of the tradiditon that the snake was Satan.

  • 20. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 11:33 am

    It was some months after my decision to de-convert that I happened to hear my wife reading Roman mythology to the kids. I can’t quote exactly, but what I heard was roughly this, “Then Lucifer, the Bright and Morning Star, did arise, and lead his host, the stars of heaven.” (Note, I’m going from memory and probably conjoined some passages that were further apart in the actual text.)

    Until that moment I never knew that Lucifer was a minor deity in the Roman/Greek pantheons. So I went a looked it up. This is what I found out.

    LUCIFER in Roman mythology is called the “Son of the Dawn” and the “Bright Morning Star”. He is the ‘Bearer of Light’ and God of the Evening Star and Morning Star. In the Greek pantheon he is know as the gleaming God PHOSPHEROS.

    There are also references in older mythologies. Notably in the East.

    So one more nail in the coffin for my former beliefs.

  • 21. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 11:34 am

    NorEaster:

    Might have been a better post if you had thorougly researched “demonic possession” in the past century or so. I’d certainly like to see an explanation for that.

    Study psychology.

  • 22. Mike  |  April 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    The de-Convert,

    As always, a good article that raises some relevant questions. There are a number of ancient near east myths that are mirrored in the Old Testament account of events. But I have to ask, why does that necessarily invalidate the account? Let me offer an analogy:

    I go hiking in the mountains up in Canada, and while on a trail, through a clearing of trees I can see a bear laying out in the sun on a rock ledge. When describing this image to you, I say that the bear was in his “thinking spot.”

    Now the language I use in desribing the event is chosen by me to evoke in your mind a connection to Winnie the Pooh, clearly a fictional character. But the fact that my language mirrors a fictional account doesnt mean that I didnt see the bear resting on the ledge. So why is it that when we approach the biblical account and we see names of ancient Gods used to describe Satan, we then think Satan was a concept stolen from those other ancient cultures, and therefore ultimately a false aspect of Christianity? Are there no other explanations for what could have happened?

  • 23. mewho  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Mike,

    Why would the Bible’s revelation be special, if, indeed, there are suggestions that Satan is not an original, “God-breathed” concept delivered to us through God’s inspired Word? If earlier texts reveal a concept that later Bible writers adopted, how is it that the Bible could have only been inspired by God? It doesn’t seem to be that profound of a Book if it borrowed from the cultures around it what those cultures had invented earlier.

    Portions of the Bible appear inspired, but not by God. If the Satan character evolves as one progresses through Scripture, and if this Character is pre-dated by other “Satan-like” models, than Satan’s existence is not revealed to humanity through the Bible, but rather through other works of Ancient literature. Bible writers incorporating the idea of Satan into their writings looks more like plaguerism and less like divine revelation.

    I’m always intrigued by how people have to defend the Divine origins of the Bible. If it is TRULY Divine, it should need no defense. A book authored by the Creator of the Universe would be so profound as to utterly astonish us with breathtaking clarity and revelation. View pictures from the Hubble telescope and then compare them with the Bible and I bet you will be utterly unimpressed that the same God could have created BOTH. To find Biblical stories and concepts in earlier, pre-bible literature is strange, and should give pause to every believer of it’s Divine origins.

  • 24. Cthulhu  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    mewho,

    View pictures from the Hubble telescope and then compare them with the Bible and I bet you will be utterly unimpressed that the same God could have created BOTH.

    Well said…

  • 25. Mike  |  April 4, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Mewho,

    “To find Biblical stories and concepts in earlier, pre-bible literature is strange, and should give pause to every believer of it’s Divine origins”

    This is a great point and any believer in Christianity needs to take this to heart. It is strange to see this happen, but as I described there can be other reasons for mirroring the language than pure “plaguerism.” However, it would be equally silly to assume that there is a cookie-cutter reason for each example of a mirrored mythology. Sometimes it is a polemic against a particular mythology, sometimes it is merely setting the record straight, other times it is indicating that the person being described is greater than the earlier, similar telling elsewhere.

    “I’m always intrigued by how people have to defend the Divine origins of the Bible. If it is TRULY Divine, it should need no defense. ”

    This is an interesting statement, and I think it stems from the over-privelege with which you assess your own place in the story. In a court of law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a witness’s testimony is assumed true unless it can be contradicted. The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true. It is completely fair to cross-examine it and see if there are any holes in the story (one of the reasons I really appreciate this blog). But it is unfair to think that in that process there wouldnt be people willing to advocate for the story. Their presence in the process doesnt invalidate the story at all, it merely shows that while there are good questions that people should be asking about the text (like the one you posed above), they dont invalidate the testimony. Because you come in at the place of cross-examination, that doesnt mean that critical doubt is the initial view to have regarding the Biblical account, it is the second step in the process.

    I guess in a related vein, what way do you believe Divine revelation should be free from defense?

  • 26. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    pure “plaguerism.”

    Had to point out one of the funnier ‘spellos’ I’ve seen lately. :)

  • 27. Shannon LEwis  |  April 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    You actually think that the ‘devil’ appears to be on equal terms with God in the book of Job? Wow – that sure is an interesting reading of those passages. Seems to me that if the Devil needs permission from God to do ANYTHING, and God draws the lines on how far He can go, he’s not much more than a pet. A battle in Heaven? Not a very intense one – a sleeper, to be sure.

  • 28. TheNorEaster  |  April 4, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    On Leo #21:

    I knew you were going to say that.

    Nothing ever changes here.

  • 29. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    NorEaster:

    The point is that 100s of years ago, people would have seen someone in a psychotic rage, or having an epileptic fit and would have had no idea what was going on. Even today we are often unable to pinpoint reasons for brain disorders (is it biochemical, structural, post-trauma, organic???), So who can blame people with little to no knowledge of chemistry or anatomy for proposing spiritual forces to explain such things? Especially if they lived in a superstitious society.

  • 30. Stephen P  |  April 4, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

    No, we are under no obligation to assume any such thing. A far more reasonable starting point is that we do not know which parts are true and which are myth / propaganda / wishful thinking / misunderstanding, and so we do not make assumptions.

  • 31. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

    I noted this too. Why would anyone adopt such a presupposition???

  • 32. tonalddrump  |  April 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Satan is real. He is alive inside you!

    God loves it when we Fuck each other.He gets to watch.

    http://tonalddrump.wordpress.com/

    BTW Christians are very sexually repressed.

    BTW Do what you are told and never question.

  • 33. mewho  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Leo,

    I’m annoyed with myself because I can never remember how plagiarism is spelled. It looked right to me.

    Mike,

    I guess in a related vein, what way do you believe Divine revelation should be free from defense?

    Divine revelation should be unambiguous, so extraordinary and wonderful that it could be nothing else. I’ll use the illustration of the “weeping” statues of the Virgin Mary. Do you believe this is God communicating with us? People who defend that view are in an odd position because any miracle so vague is not that impressive. I think the very fact that believers have to defend it as a true miracle negates it as one. It isn’t impressive. It’s uninspiring as the work of an All-Powerful Creator. The very fact that it’s so unclear as to need human defenders makes it less likely to me that it’s from any god. Any true miracle wouldn’t need people to explain it, defend it, talk it up, or interpret it. There should be no debate. I dare say there should be no doubters.

    But these statues can be humanly manipulated. A statue can be made in order to produce the phenomenon described. And beyond that, how are we to interpret the bleeding statue? That God loves us?

    Imagine for a moment that the Earth is suddenly surrounded by a vast army of alien spacecraft. They are visible, massive and they fill the sky above our planet. Would some people need to convince others (who were simultaneously witnessing the same event) that it was actually happening, or would it be self-evident? Would this event need defenders? The unfolding of these events would be extremely verifiable. I could stand next to another witness, looking up into this colossal alien presence and we wouldn’t dispute that it was happening. Most can imagine this because we’ve watched enough movies, and it would be a startling observation of a very real presence beyond our world. We might debate why they were here, or where they came from, but no one would have to go around telling other people that there were thousands of alien spacecraft hovering above our planet. We wouldn’t need anyone because we would all be undeniably confronted with the same reality. In fact, we’d probably all reply “duh”.

    The reading of Scriptures and the “miracles” on display today lack any such profound force. They all lack the brunt impact that an All-Powerful God should have. A Divine existence should not even be open for skeptical debate. It should be that evident.

  • 34. OneSmallStep  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

    Isn’t this a weak standard, though? I have an evangelical friend who has a book called “How to read the Bible.” One of the sections essentially says that the Bible cannot contradict itself, so if you don’t understand a section, you still know it’s true. But that’s almost self-defeating.

    If you can’t understand a contradiction, and the contradiction is never resolved, then how do you go about proving the truth of something, or the inerrency?

    Mike,

    So why is it that when we approach the biblical account and we see names of ancient Gods used to describe Satan,

    But if you *only* had the Tanakh to go on, would you ever reach the conclusion that the Satan listed in the Tanakh is the same as how Christianity describes it?

  • 35. karen  |  April 4, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    I still occassionally listen to Raul Rees adn Hank Hanagraaf during my commute to work.

    Oh my goodness – you must be a glutton for punishment. ;-)

    I try to take them seriously, but whenever they bring up The Devil or Satan… I gotta tell you… it just sounds incredibly silly and juvenile. As mythology, it made sense to the ancient world, but I don’t see what place it has in the 21st century. As a De-Convert, I now know why people found Flip WIlson’s old line ‘The Devile made me do it’ so funny – people marvel that Christians *really* believe in the existance of this being.

    Yeah, it really does reek of silly nonsense. It took a very long time for me to let go of the idea that there HAD to be a god, but a very short time to reject the idea of a devil.

    As soon as you seriously question it with an open mind, it becomes obvious that it’s a made-up story that’s very effective for keeping people in their proper “place.”

    Of course, Christians would have us think that by laughing at the existance of the Devil, we are doing exactly as he wishes. Satan would like nothing more than to laugh at his existance, right? *sigh*

    Right – all part of the indoctrination and conditioning again. Was it Larry Norman or Keith Green who had a song where the devil laughed smugly: “No One Believes In Me Anymore”?

  • 36. LeoPardus  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    It was Keith Green. I can hear the song now. :(

  • 37. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Mike:
    “There are a number of ancient near east myths that are mirrored in the Old Testament account of events. But I have to ask, why does that necessarily invalidate the account?”

    Mike, I don’t think that it necessarily invalidates any Biblical account. For instance, nobody denies that religious ideas were shared and swapped back and forth all over the ancient Mediterannean and Near-Orient. Our very word ‘God’, for instance, is of Germanic origin, but in romance languages is just derivative of the Greek god Zeus (ie Zeus, Dios, Deus, Theos), and in the NT was often rendered as Adonai (after the god Adonis).

    No, that does not invalidate the Christian idea of God, or more specifically to this article, Titans do not invalidate the existance of Satan. But I have read several books now on mythologies of the near-east, and I have to tell you, I can think of nothing in Christianity, or the Bible for that matter, that is unique to that religion. It seems that everything, and I mean everything, was shared.

    No, that does not invalidate anything necessarily, but Christians have to concede that ideas like The Devil and Satan are hardly unique to their religion.

  • 38. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Mike:
    “So why is it that when we approach the biblical account and we see names of ancient Gods used to describe Satan…”

    Ancient gods? I can’t think of what you are referring to here – can you be more specific?

    Are you referencing the Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12? If you are, I would like to challenge you with the question I asked in an earlier comment: What is a Latin name doing in Hebrew Scripture? Why not use the Hebrew like everything else in the OT? What is Latin doing there? Leviticus referes to an evil spirit named Azazel – at least that is Hebrew. Why is there no other reference to Lucifer in the entire Bible? How can you say Lucifer = The Devil when there is no other reference to The Devil, to Satan or to any other Evil Spirit in Isaiah 14?

    The Fall of Lucifer is a very powerful myth, but it just is not Biblical that I can tell – it is church tradition read into scripture, nothing more. Isaiah 14 is addressed to the King of Babylon, and makes perfect sense if read in that manner. And it is not even heretical or anti-Christian!

    Here is how I interpret the prophecy of Isaiah 14 – The King of Babylon ruled the world, and swore he was more powerful than even the God of Israel, but just as the light of dawn or rising sun overcomes the bright morning star (Venus), so shall the power of God overcome the King of Babylon.

    That’s it. Very simple explanation. No need for Devils or Demons. Nothing heretical or invalidating Christianity. No fall of Lucifer that needs to be read into the text – there is just no need for that. Isaiah never mentions it, why insert it in there?

  • 39. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Karen:
    ‘Was it Larry Norman or Keith Green who had a song where the devil laughed smugly: “No One Believes In Me Anymore”?’

    Keith Green? Wow, there is a blast from the past. Kerry Livgren also had a song very similar to this one. I am sure there are others.

  • 40. HeIsSailing  |  April 4, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Mike:
    I want to beat this dead horse a little more, just because I have a long weekend away from the computer planned, so this will be my last response. Promise.

    I looked up Isaiah 14:12 in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary volume 5. This commentary has an ecumenical approach, while not Evangelical it is hardly liberal. You may even find it in your school library. For some background into the mythology of this passage, you may find what they have to say pretty interesting:

    “Isaiah 14:12-15
    The use in these verses of material derived from Canaanite myths is unmistakable, and the point is made that the meaning of what the tyrant has done is set forth in the myth of Helal, the Day Star or “Lightgiver” (cf. Vulgate “Lucifer”), son of Shahar, Dawn. It is a manifestation on earth of the ultimate conflict set forth in the myth in timeless terms. We know that here was a god Shahar in Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology, the god of dawn or of the morning star and ‘Helal, son of Shahar’ is mentioned apparently in one of the texts from Ugarit. Another clearly mythological element is the mount of assembly (of the gods) in the far north, the point around which the constellations turned, where was located the summit of the heavenly mountain and the throne of the Most High (cf. Ezek 28:14). The pasage before us perserves the Canaanite form of a nature myth, telling of the attempt of the morning star to scale the heights of heaven, surpassing all other stars only to be cast down to earth by the victorious sun. This became in turn the story of the aspiring of a minor deity to reach the highest heaven where the supreme god dwelt in remote and lonely splendor, and finally the symbol of the ambition and ddownfall of an earthly monarch. He who has climbed so high will be cast down to the depths, better, ‘the uttermost depths’ of the Pit of Sheol.”

    Just some background into the mythology of this passage. As you can tell by now, I really dig this as mythology – but I gotta tell you – the Devil and Satan are just nowhere to be found….

  • 41. Andrei  |  April 4, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Why is it that God allows his archenemy to be his jailer of sorts?

    Think about it… God puts Satan in charge of Hell, and puts him in charge of torturing the Damned. Would you trust your archenemy to do your work for you?

  • 42. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Mike, I take it then you don’t stand with Brian McLaren on his views illustrated in The Last Word and the Word After That? He was the first to suggest to me the possibility of hell and the devil as mythology, and still while holding a high view of the Bible.

  • 43. Gary  |  April 4, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    mewho said, The reading of Scriptures and the “miracles” on display today lack any such profound force. They all lack the brunt impact that an All-Powerful God should have. A Divine existence should not even be open for skeptical debate. It should be that evident.

    On my blog I pondered a similar theme in relation to Romans 1:18-32. Paul suggests here that man has no excuse for disobedience as God is self-evident in nature, yet I ask the question, just how is this so? How do you clearly ‘see’ God in the things he has made?

  • 44. mewho  |  April 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    When I first read “The Da Vinci Code” I thought that Dan Brown had created the whole Da Vinci conspiracy theory himself. I soon learned, however, that the idea had actually come from previous works (Brown was even sued by some authors for plagiarism) and my high opinion of him fell somewhat. His story was riveting and he had taken the whole idea to new heights, but he had “stood on the shoulders” of many others and simply polished the idea. Brilliant and fascinating, yes, but he was hardly the genius I had at first thought him to be.

    I think the comparison between the Bible and “The Da Vinci Code” encapsulates my take on both great works. They are amazing literary works that benefited by earlier works of ancient writers. Since their concept is not original, however, I deny the credit that I might first attribute their authors.

  • 45. Reynvaan  |  April 5, 2008 at 6:31 am

    Andrei: “Why is it that God allows his archenemy to be his jailer of sorts?

    Think about it… God puts Satan in charge of Hell, and puts him in charge of torturing the Damned. Would you trust your archenemy to do your work for you?”

    As far as I know, this idea is totally non-Biblical; I can’t think of any verses that support it at all.
    Actually, I remember Revelation saying that hell was originally created to punish “the Devil and his angels.” I suppose humans now get to go there too, thanks to Adam and Eve. To be punished out of love, of course. ;)

  • 46. The Apostate  |  April 5, 2008 at 11:10 am

    In a court of law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a witness’s testimony is assumed true unless it can be contradicted. The Bible provides a witness that we must begin by assuming it is true.

    Mike, the law does this not for reasons of truth, but because the adage of liberty, a western concept, is that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent imprisoned. This is why our law has so many loopholes. This is why we presume innocence.

    P.S. Thank you for your run down of Reform eschatology, I haven’t responded due to lack of time, but perhaps it could be the subject of a later post.

  • 47. Mike  |  April 5, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Wow. I am away from my computer for a day and look what happens!

    (#30) Stephen P,

    “A far more reasonable starting point is that we do not know which parts are true and which are myth / propaganda / wishful thinking / misunderstanding, and so we do not make assumptions.”

    If this is honestly your approach to communication, i wonder how difficult it must be to have a conversation with your spouse/significant other. And before you argue that point, yes the written word is a form of communication.

    (#38) HIS,

    “What is a Latin name doing in Hebrew Scripture?”

    I dont know. I am looking at the Hebrew (MT) and the Greek (LXX) right now and there isnt a single Latin name or word to be found.

    (#40) HIS,

    Your entire line of thought here fits nicely in with my whole point in #25. The prophet sees a spirit that is so evil in the King that he names it as the spirit of a pagan God. Because the actions and thoughts of the King mirror that of the story the names are taken from, it is an appropriate analogy used by the prophet. Ezekiel does this in chapter 28. He attributes actions and events to the prince of Tyre that the prince himself could never have done. Again, this is the prophet identifying an evil spirit at work behind the prince who “was in Eden.” The prophets choice of words are not accidental. They are intended to show that YHWH is greater than any other pretender to the throne, and it only makes sense that they would call these pretenders out by name: Belal, Azazel, Beelzebul, Baal, etc.

    (#42) Gary,

    No, I dont agree with Brian McClaren on much.

  • 48. GoDamn  |  April 5, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    Andrei makes a good point. Knowing Satan and his determination to oppose god, it was a pretty stupid choice to put him in charge of Hell Inc. Infact, I’m starting to think that Satan wouldsn’t torture those souls that have stuck up for him and followed his ways. And since god wants satan to do that, thats another reason satan wont do it. Sticking it to god and stuff like that. Ill bet that hell has air conditioning, everyone party’s all day and night with booze flowing freely, playboy bunnies for every man, a Porsche 911 (my lust and envy – damn it), a mansion and basically living it up in style. That would really piss god off. And all those poor good souls in heaven would probably have to spend eternity singing andand praising gods glory while simultaneously working (idle mind is the devils workshop and thats not allowed) like mindless robots. Heaven and hell have changed places. And we evil de-cons will have the last laugh when we drive by the goodie 2 shoes souls in our 911′s as they sing themselves hoarse. Heh Heh Heh. De-cons rock!!!

  • 49. George  |  April 7, 2008 at 6:37 am

    Peter Gilmore must be having a field day with this post (actually the entire website).

  • 50. Garg the Unzola  |  April 7, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Greetings. Interesting post. The myth of Lucifer being the adversary of God, being cast down from heaven for his pride is not actually in the Bible. It is in the Apocrypha, which is not accepted by Protestantism as true biblical books. Ironically, Protestant preachers still fill the gaps left by inadequate explanations of the origins of mankind’s greatest enemy with Apocryphal works.

    Satan in the Bible is an agent of God, used to tempt our faith. He is not out to destroy us, but he fulfils an important function of weeding out the weak believers from the worthy believers.

    I like your noble quest for the truth and the fact that you don’t let indoctrination muddle your mind. Lucifer linguistically is the light bringer. This in itself is not a bad thing. May Prometheus visit the gifts of the gods upon you. Sorry, that’s as kind as I can get as an atheist.

  • 51. Luke  |  April 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    in the jewish tradition ha-Satan is simply hebrew for “the accuser” and is part of the divine court. there is no biblical evidence for the fall of satan. he is the light bringer and sits at the right hand of God… wait a second… right hand of God? that’s where Jesus sits! we can’t have Satan there! best to get rid of him!

    i don’t buy into that doctrine. (which is why i’m a heretic). so i don’t think Satan needs forgiving as he’s still an angel of the Lord. HOWEVER… to get to the issue behind satan.

    is there evil in the world? you bet! is there a cosmic war going on between good and evil? no. it is my belief that only on this plain of existence do we deal with evil. so what does that mean for hitler and the afterlife? i don’t know. can’t say. there is a case for a universalist stance (theology that the writers for “What Dreams May Come” based the story on) and also one for a heaven and hell scenario (only without satan as the head ruler).

    why would the church want to remove satan then? satan who is the morning star, bringer of light, and sits at the right hand of God? i dunno…. ;-) guess they needed to make room for someone else.

    what do you think? how do you see this issue of Satan and do you think God would forgive?

  • 52. Adrian  |  April 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    To HelsSailing #37

    You incorrectly translate ‘Adonai’ as a translation of ‘Adonis’~ from Greek to Hebrew?~ when the real Hebrew root for Adonai is ‘adon=lord’. Christians call their god ‘Lord’. Remember, the translation of the biblical texts went from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek, not vice-versa.

    And #45, Reynvaan, God did not appoint Satan as his jailer, he banished him to hell with the rest of his followers. Look at it this way, even if you’re the biggest, toughest, most ruthless criminal in jail, and all the other criminals follow what you tell them, you’re still in jail with them!

    As an agnostic, (yes, I know what a dirty word that is in this forum,) I enjoy picking out the threads of the myths that form the cloth of the Bible, the Torah, the Qu’uran and their associated texts, unravelling the sordid mess of contradictory stories and logic twisting parables. But there may be a deeper question here: are humans hard-wired for religion? I propose that our biological imperative to catalogue and categorize everything we experience into some form of qualifiable logic UNTIL we have the leisure time to reassess and calmly de-mystify what we are experiencing has made us prone to religions, as a species. It has only been in the last few centuries that our development of the scientific process has allowed us to observe or deduce things like the mechanisms of gravity, light, atomic and sub-atomic particles, DNA and electricity. Through learning, the veil is lifted, and the need for the comfort of religions is left by the wayside, just as a child forgets his wagon when he grows up and learns to drive a car.
    I said I was agnostic, another good greek word that may make my point; it is ‘a=without + k(g)nossos=knowledge’. I am without personal knowledge of God, but I would like to think there might be one! That’s the leftovers of my primitive brain speaking, and there you have it. I’m still struggling with my spirituality.

  • 53. karen  |  April 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Adrian:

    As an agnostic, (yes, I know what a dirty word that is in this forum,

    Really – why do you say that? I don’t recall anyone ever being chastised here for calling themselves an agnostic – or an atheist or a Christian or Muslim or anything else, for that matter. I know several of our members identify as agnostics, in fact. Am I forgetting something guys, or are we less tolerant than I think?

    I said I was agnostic, another good greek word that may make my point; it is ‘a=without + k(g)nossos=knowledge’. I am without personal knowledge of God, but I would like to think there might be one! That’s the leftovers of my primitive brain speaking, and there you have it. I’m still struggling with my spirituality.

    Well, welcome. I think you’ll find all of us in somewhat the same boat. Some of us have moved past the struggling, for the most part, but others are in the thick of it. I hope you’ll stick around and that we can be helpful to you!

  • 54. Max  |  April 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    At this point neither Christian nor Jew believe that the Lucifer of Isaiah refers to satan. There is dispute on exactly who it was, but it has been interpreted by everything that I have read on the subject as a Babylonian king. If you have this discussion, you need to know the distinction.

  • 55. Jonathan Blake  |  April 23, 2008 at 9:34 am

    I know quite a few Christians who do believe that Lucifer = Satan. And even if they realize that on the surface Isaiah is talking about a Babylonian king, the king can always be interpreted as a symbol of Satan.

  • 56. Anonymous  |  April 24, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    The thing about Satan is that he was created from the human mind. He is an imaginary being. Christians don’t now that Jesus defeated this “enemy” because he knew that this enemy wasn’t real. Christians say that the greatest enemy is the devil. True, it’s just that the real ‘adversary’ is the human mind. People have always said that the greatest enemy is oneself, or the human mind. We couldn’t be further from the truth.

  • 57. Anonymous  |  January 2, 2009 at 1:21 am

    anonymous,
    This is what satan wants everyone to believe if no one believes in him he isn’t a threat….which means there is no hell ….which means there is no heaven…which means we can do whatever we want there are no afterlife consequences right? Wrong! This is satan’s greatest deception to make people believe he doesn’t exist to get them at the end of times. There has been and will be until the end of days a struggle over humans souls..God knows he will win in the end. Satan was once an angel and thought he was as powerful as God so that is why he is a fallen angel. Satan knows he won’t win in the end but he wants to take as many as he can down with him. I don’t know the way I see it as a lowly girl who only went to bible college for a semester…things have gotten lost in translation and such but satan is still a very real threat especially to believers.But everyone can bicker over this until their blue in the face. But me I believe the bible is true and satan is real as is God but I’ll guess we’ll just have to wait and see huh?

  • 58. Quester  |  January 2, 2009 at 1:37 am

    Well, we could choose to anonymously post unsupportable blather on various blogs, if waiting to see is somehow too polite and reasonable.

  • 59. Josh  |  January 2, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    “This is satan’s greatest deception to make people believe he doesn’t exist to get them at the end of times.”

    Wow, he sucks at it then. Because its been 2000 years of trying to dish out this deception and the end times still haven’t come…

    And how the hell do you know this anyway? I’ve read the Bible at least 8-10 times and never ever came across a passage that indicated this in the least. I think you just made this up because its convenient.

  • 60. Jonathan Harris  |  January 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Umm…this article has nothing rational. There were no reasons given to not believe in Satan, just some venting about how you’d rather not believe in him…hardly anything substantial? I find the character of Osama Bin Laden to be dissatisfying, but I can’t “believe” him out of existence!?

  • 61. BigHouse  |  January 14, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Point that analysis at your own post Jon, what are your reasons FOR believing in Satan?

  • 62. Dale701  |  January 14, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    Jonathan Harris said…..
    Umm…this article has nothing rational. There were no reasons given to not believe in Satan, just some venting about how you’d rather not believe in him…hardly anything substantial? I find the character of Osama Bin Laden to be dissatisfying, but I can’t “believe” him out of existence!?

    Rational? Wow………
    What is rational about the idea of satan?

    Satan was created to take the (evil blame) away from god.
    Early theology has god responsible for everything, good and evil. After all the bad stuff that happened to job, job’s wife asks job why he doesn’t curse god and dye?
    Not Satan but God!
    God is given credit for the evil done to Job.

    Now everything good, god gets credit for.
    Everything evil, satan gets credit for.

    Satan seems to get the credit for why humans turn to the dark side.
    I want to know who influenced satan to turn to the dark side.
    I think I already answered that.

    If there is free will why do we need satan?
    Otherwise we humans are just pons in the god game.

    If satan can go bad on his own why can’t humans?
    It would seem to me, to take a much more powerful being to turn satans heavenly head than is needed for an earthly human head?
    Maybe God himself?
    Yikes, God just got his evil self back.

  • 63. Servant  |  January 15, 2009 at 4:08 am

    If the God has given free will to his immortal beings, and has set up the Law, Adversary is surely to appear by mathematical logic. It is convenient that this adversary is the most advanced creature possible. I sawhHis actions in history, especially his efforts in rise to power of obscure illiterate austrian politician who became so notorious leader through inducing mass hysteria. I also know about his actions in future, when he will appear as saviour and christ, and seduce almost all world population.

  • 64. orDover  |  January 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    If the God has given free will to his immortal beings, and has set up the Law, Adversary is surely to appear by mathematical logic.

    How could anything as complicated as evil be created, if not by God? If God truly is the author of the universe, doesn’t it hold that sin wouldn’t just pop up spontaneously? If you believe that good comes form God, then you should believe evil does too. If you think good and evil are terms apart from God, then never mind.

  • 65. Dale701  |  January 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    orDover,
    Don’t you know how evil came into the world.
    It was residing in the fruit of some tree!
    Just kidding of course, no one would ever believe something as goofy as that!

    I still have not figured out why we need satan since we are all born sinners to start with.

  • 66. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    Dale:

    Silly fellow. It’s just so obvious. We need him to blame things on. After all, we can’t blame the deity who set it all up so perfectly. :(

    Reminds me of my favorite bit from “Mr. Deity”. When asked why he doesn’t get involved and really answer prayers, Mr. Deity says, “If people pray and good things happen, who gets the credit? Me. If people pray and bad things happen, who gets the blame? Not me. So I’m not gonna stick my nose in and mess with a good thing.”

  • 67. Servant  |  January 15, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    @orDover
    How could anything as complicated as evil be created, if not by God? If God truly is the author of the universe, doesn’t it hold that sin wouldn’t just pop up spontaneously?

    Well, evil is not complicated at all. If you set up some kind of fence, evil is when you cross over that fence. If God has set up the Law, all you have to do is to break it to become evil. So the creator of the Law doesn’t neccesarily have to be the breaker of the Law. And if you give creatures free will, in unlimited time, some one will surely break the Law, sooner or later.
    So i can conclude, if Law exists and free will exist, by mathematical logic, Law has to be broken someday.

  • 68. BigHouse  |  January 15, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    So then, God, by granting creatures free will with their mathematical certainty of law-breaking behavior, created evil. It’s a pretty simple logic chain, isn’t it?

  • 69. Santiago Jones  |  April 25, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Bishop Carlton Pearson used to be a great believer in Satan. Then for some reason, he shifted to a belief in universal salvation, the idea that the death and resurrection of Jesus was the one and only payment for sin that God required. No one else has to bear the burden. In essence, no one is condemned. Not the other religions, not the bad guys, not anyone.

    What do you all think of that?

  • 70. Quester  |  April 26, 2009 at 4:55 am

    Well, Santiago, it’s a good start.

  • 71. Santiago Jones  |  April 26, 2009 at 11:50 am

    The next step, of course, is to do away with the necessity of a death and resurrection and recognize that if there is a creative force, it is the One and Only.

    I find it humorous when I hear those who say that evil couldn’t exist without some exterior force or being. We as a species are fully capable of doing nasty things without benefit of a devil. If we weren’t, we would still be apes. Conscious choice must of necessity bring the possibility of doing evil. Otherwise choice does not exist, only instinct.

  • 72. Quester  |  April 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Very good! In the same vein is the idea that morality could not exist without some exterior force or lawmaker. We as a species are fully capable of performing loving, benevolent and altruistic actions without the benefit of a god. Not too far off is the idea that we could not exist without some original, intelligent creator making everything first. While we do not know yet what started everything off, everything after the starting point seems to have followed normal laws we can discover and begin to understand.

  • 73. Santiago Jones  |  April 26, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Of course. I would put this to you, however. You said, “…everything after the starting point seems to have followed normal laws….” Humans can be a bit naive when it comes to so-called natural law or natural reaction, response, whatever you want to call it. Yes, we have come to understand a little of the what, but we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the why. With that in mind, it’s important that we remain ever in awe of the Mystery. As a follower of the New Thought spiritual path, I do not believe in any bookish gods but I still know that I do not know much. When I see the tree, or the flower, or even other humans, I am struck by the apparent miracle of it all. I know, I know. The word ‘miracle’ seems to smack of the religious, but not so. I see the entire universe as a miracle, in that it makes no real sense for it all to be here. It remains Mystery. I do not worship It, but I do very deeply respect it and acknowledge my own ignorance. And I am grateful to be participating in the whole thing. Why? I don’t know.

    One thing I do know, and you presented it well: we are fully capable of benevolence, justice, equality, and ultimately, compassion (doing the least harm, the most good, as the Buddhists say). But if it takes a belief in an outside deity in order to get folks to do good to one another, then who am I to stand in the way?

  • 74. Quester  |  April 26, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    If I wished to stand in the way of theists’ right to belief, I would visit their forums and blogs to share these views instead of sharing them on this blog for deconverts and the deconverting.

    Otherwise, I respond to you that the appropriate response to Mystery is thoughtful study and investigation, lest we find ourselves worshipping our own ignorance. There’s nothing wrong with taking time in aesthetic appreciation or allowing one’s mind to be temporarily overcome with wonder, but to be content to sit at the furthest extent of what we know and fail to look out from there seems somehow sad and wasteful. Again, a person has the right to do this, but never to impose the limits on others who might wish to strike out beyond.

  • 75. Santiago Jones  |  April 26, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my previous comments. I agree with you completely. As you know, when humans are presented with a mystery, the natural inclination is to discover and even to solve. Fortunately, the universe is a vast enough mystery to keep the healthy and inquisitive mind engaged for, well, infinity. My only point was to suggest that we don’t take the universe for granted, as if we knew what natural law and process actually are. Every time we discover a new truth, we realize that it is only a momentary one, that more truth awaits.

    Is that a better way to put it? Sorry if I was less than clear.

  • 76. The myth of the virgin birth of Jesus « de-conversion  |  November 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    [...] and the Crucifixion story. I compiled an entry on the Exodus and wrote a short blog on the myth of the devil.  Richard most recently wrote on the [...]

  • 77. Warrior  |  December 9, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Interesting blog. Apparently after reading Bible, Quran, Vedas and as by birth Cathoilc. I have eventually lost my trust on all these bible tales. Some of the best comments on the this topic I have read on internet. Keep up the good work. ;)

  • 78. David  |  January 7, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    When will we realize that evil is created by man? Usually it falls to the unintelligence of natural human beings, and mental illness. There is no doubt a supreme being exsists, but not the one created by the hypocrits of organized religion.
    I am a Roman Catholic. I for one cannot see why fellow Catholics accept the teachings of the church when their own leaders agree with war, and rape little boys.
    We blame the Muslims for terroism, yet my faith killed millions during the Crusades in the name of Christ.. Go figure.

  • 79. Eve's Apple  |  January 7, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    We are told throughout the Bible that Satan is a liar and the father of lies. But can anyone name any verses that show Satan in the act of lying? I can’t think of any. The Garden of Eden? How is that a lie? The serpent told them if they ate the fruit they would know good and evil, and that is exactly what happened. That’s not a lie. God, however, told them that the minute they ate it they would die. Well, that didn’t happen.

    And when the devil tempted Jesus in the desert by promising him riches and power, Jesus didn’t say, “You lie, Satan, you can’t deliver those things.” In fact, it wouldn’t have been much of a temptation if he (Satan) hadn’t been able to deliver. Why bother? But Jesus didn’t say that. He was tempted because he knew and Satan knew, that he could make good on the deal.

    Just curious.

  • 80. BigHouse  |  January 8, 2011 at 9:05 am

    There is no doubt a supreme being exsists

    This is false. There is plenty and reasonable doubt to this effect. Evidence can supplant doubt with confidence though, can you provde any?

    I am a Roman Catholic. I for one cannot see why fellow Catholics accept the teachings of the church when their own leaders agree with war, and rape little boys

    Interesting juxtaposition. How care you Roman Catholic if you don’t follow the teachings of the church?

  • 81. satanlovesvulva  |  May 23, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Hello everyone, satan in the house. I know that some of you are doubting my existence, that’s cool, I can live with that. I think that the problem is that I have not been showing up at your doors and really going evil on you satan haters. OK, enough mr. nice satan, from now on I’m bring death and destruction to all. We’ll then see if I exist or not. What ma? milk and cookies are ready? got to go. my mom is making cookies. satan’s out of here.

  • 82. Lovemyself  |  May 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Is Satans mom Mother Monster? Cause I want some of the cookies she’s eating. Hahahaha.

  • 83. satanlovesvulva  |  July 10, 2011 at 11:09 am

    No my mom is not “Mother Monster” it is the “Virgin Mary”.

    What mommy? you want me to play with my brother jesus? ok.

    Go to go. I’m going to play with my brother jesus and then after that I will eat cookies with milk and for nightcap I’ll have some of mrs. satan vulva.

    satan has left the building.

  • 84. Jason  |  August 5, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    I think by no means are satan, lucifer, the devil the same soul……have you ever read I send forth great delusion……the whole world is deceived….can anyone say the differenece between these or if the exist.? I have my beliefs, the only way through a great delusion is to pray for the Lord to reveal the truth

  • 85. Warrior  |  August 6, 2011 at 8:55 am

    Mr. Jason,
    The concept of Satan is usually connected with the Seth, the God of chaos or one against the harmony. The concept of Satan, devil and lucifer did not exist in history, but a genius creation of the Hebrews who were expelled from Upper Egypt and later settled in Israel. ( we call them as Jews ). The concept of heaven and hell was also not existing during the that peroid, and the other civilizations were still living in a barbarian phase, including the region ( which had the original dravidian inhabitants. Hinduism was never a religion but a way of living which was brought to India by the invading Aryans. These Aryans are very much connected to the earlier Egyptian race ).
    The Egyptians only believed that they need to live with their relatives in the other world after death ( Which the Hebrews corrupted and named that other world as heaven ).
    The whole world got deceived by the creation of religion, Gods, heaven and hell and still getting deceived. We no longer live in harmony with nature and everything that is of cause and effect is blamed upon God or Devil. This manipulation was very well used by the Catholic Church.
    Its better we just live in righteousness as human beings and humanity.
    Thanks
    A. M

  • 86. Santiago Jones  |  August 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    The whole world is not deceived. We simply do not know. In that regard, to make any claims of certainty remains the highest of arrogance, not to mention ignorance. There is no certainty, and of that I am certain!

  • 87. Brian Steere (@binra)  |  September 5, 2012 at 6:22 am

    I chanced on this page when checking a bit on the origins of Lucifer and Satan. I always feel a quality I can relate with in a love of truth, so in that sense communication embodies a truth that cannot be itself spoken. Call it ‘one-mindedness’ or ‘of one kind’ or don’t call it anything. But this living context that we call ‘mind’ is not at all identical to anything that we think or define and accept it to be – yet it is the underlying truth in which stories in mind, belief and all experience are ‘played out’. Inseparably.

    That the mind can deceive and be deceived is not in question, but the mind that can deceive and be deceived is NOT the mind beneath the stories of self and world. That true mind which I will now call Mind is the truth in which experience is had, indulged in or transcended – even if the experience is an effect using an imagination as a lens over truth.

    Our stories are both personal and cultural, and constitute our self definitions and justifications in the context of an intolerable or denied sense of being. This may not be obvious because we WANT our stories to save or protect or mitigate our sense of dissonance, and so our human consciousness is fitted to look out through the lens of our stories rather than look at the filters of belief themselves.

    There is a movement in Mind that is self-aware, it is inherent or innate to what Mind is. Know Thyself, is an alpha and omega – as well as the truth all the while one seems to know something ‘else’.

    Yet while a preference for ‘knowing’ our own stories prevails over knowing directly, we have an experience that ‘shares’ the sense of self that is gotten in stories. I say ‘shares’ because mutual agreement (or indeed interlocking shadow projections of mutual disagreement) do not constitute a true intimacy – but validate a sense of separated self by its thoughts – which is what maintains a virtual sense of self – our ego or self image.

    The capacity to ‘live’ in our stories; our ego, or defining and judging aspect of our mind, is limited, no matter how much force is brought to bear or how ingeniously we package and present a lack of real presence as if it were truly meaningful.

    Self awareness – is simply noticing. And no matter how ingenious our defences are for maintaining our mind-in story, there are constant breaches through which we notice that which undermines or fails to support our story-self. And the complexity and speed in which a protection of mind-in story works to deny, distract and reconfigure itself so as to appear continues and real is witness to the power of Mind, even in the act of asserting one’s own story-experience as true (which inherently denies or discards a direct awareness of the true nature of Mind).

    Now, I didn’t know what I was going to write when I started, but I see an attempt to sketch something that can serve awakening to an activity we are humanly and culturally disposed to render unconscious, and to the innocence and natural curiosity and delight of a direct relationship in and as Mind; an unselfconscious love.

    We find a movement in our being that delights in stories, and we know we can enjoy them without mistaking them for reality, for they can reflect the innate qualities of Mind as well as the imagined attributes of a ‘free will’. But mind can also be conditioned such as to program itself by its own choices, and become so engaged and identified in its story, that it becomes self destructive in guilt and via fear. A sense of invalidity and worthlessness of self that militantly denies love welcome and substitutes with token acts or sacrifices that are ‘loving’ in order to GET.

    Waking up, healing, reintegrating – these terms point to a release from a deception that is ultimately self-illusion – no matter how the story tells it. This is Good News, though we rarely want to hear it.

    The purpose of the stories of the ego is in exploring and experiencing a sense of PERSONAL creation. It was an innocent act by which we frightened ourselves and became caught up in our own defences so as to commit to a false or mistaken sense of our self. All that came from that has never left its starting point.

    Yet within our story – personal and cultural – is the movement of healing or awakening – and this is the purpose that guides the mind that thinks its name is legion, to calm, to listen, to discern and to trust a true relationship in which its own true nature reveals itself in unified expression.

    All things serve the purpose we are actively holding in our heart (regardless of the stories in our head). The wish to determine what is true is the mind of division and judgement; the mind of control. And to every applied action there is reaction. If we make this mind real to us then we suffer its effects likewise!

    Or we may uncover a willingness to pause, to truly or directly listen or notice, and to discern – that is – to FEEL the qualities that are present, and to trust the movement that is NOT the ‘will to control’ or prevail, but is the feeling of life in unified expression.
    And then give embodiment to that with as an expression of a truly shared worth and integrity of being.

    The religious or spiritual urge at its root is the intuition of truth – but its spark is soon covered in attempts to weave it into our story, to use it for our ‘selves’, where the forms originally associated with joy may become weapons or instruments of ‘righteous’ war, and slavery of thought.

    How to reach the mind of those who love to hate? Or those who mistake abject slavery for freedom and security? One cannot.
    But in every encounter, we can desist form joining with it in our own mind – such as the grace of noticing and true desire brings.

    Nothing I have said here requires belief, but it may call for suspending believing AGAINST. The power of the mind is witnessed in every experience and yet is invisible to those who know not what they do. It is not a mind of control that judges and lords it over our being – unless you establish that measure – and even then, only in your own mind-made experience.

    The prodigal does not come home to a trial and punishment – but to a True Remembrance – regardless of anything that he thought he thought or did. But ‘coming Home’ is a rude awakening to a bankruptcy of self, in which the intuition of Life stirs and is given welcome, such as to be turned in purpose from demanding self-will to a willingness to truly serve. In the expression of this purpose is the servant replaced with the Original Nature; “My Son”.

    I never did get to write about the fear of our own thought that became personified in stories of awakening as the deceiver – and then became a basis for stories of control.

    I did notice that Santa is an anagram of Satan. Pretty much knocked the Divine Birth (the thirst for truth and its welcome), from Christmas.

    We personify aspects of mind – by identifying with or rejecting, but they never in fact ever, leave the mind except in story. Release the guilt we ‘put out’ by asking truly within this very moment. Otherwise we seed and feed the very thing we hate, unknowing.
    But what do we really hate? And is hating it actually helpful?

    One doesn’t have to believe in God to be healed, but one does have to put behind the wish the deceive oneself. Mind is never really locked or fixed but that belief has set it so, and beliefs can be changed or released. What we give our attention to is the chooser of experience and the layers of beliefs that filter and condition this can be released into a direct trust that brings forth a different experience – because it is of a different foundation and purpose.

    Thankyou for your attention.

  • 88. cag  |  September 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Brian Steere (@binra), More word salad with no nutritional value.

    By the way, did you put any thought into this silly conclusion

    I did notice that Santa is an anagram of Satan. Pretty much knocked the Divine Birth (the thirst for truth and its welcome), from Christmas.

    This doesn’t work in other languages, Père Noël is not an anagram, Jultomten is not an anagram.

    All supernatural beings are imaginary, the product of human ignorance. Thousands of gods, all imaginary. Angels are imaginary. Satan and Lucifer are imaginary.

  • 89. spiritgeek  |  September 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    You may or may not find this interesting. Lucifer is the ancient Roman name for Venus. It means Bringer of Dawn, Bright Morning Star. Funny thing, though, Jesus is referred to in the same manner in the New Testament: “The Bright and Morning Star.” Coincidence? I think not…

  • 90. Anonymous  |  December 24, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Coincidence ? Wheres the proof. Random ? Wheres the proof. You think you know who you are ? Wheres the proof. Love ? Wheres the proof. The Bible True or False. Does it matter ? To understand a story is to understand the story teller, and if the story teller isn,t you then respect, listen and above all ENJOY that your not alone. If you was the only one in existance and knew it that to me would be Hell. So to go backwards in time is abit scary just in case logic wins. Logic appears to be knowing but can you imagine a time when there was only one life form only because thats a truth that would make self awarness unbearable. Abit like the God senario of One God before any creation. I invite you to be alone forever knowing that all there is ,is you. So if the so called God allmighty is singular the big bang would be God.,The evidence of truth in this thought is something i wouldn,t want to know . Has anyone got the balls to beleive that . . Is it possible, is God one of us. To know it all i wouldn,t wish to my worst enemy and if anyone was to con themselves this reminds me of the nature of a so called Satan If God allmighty is real then time would be a creation and only a God could do that. Matter follows laws that i didn,t make and all matter appears to be more intelligent than any man i know. Truth is right in front of us a place to explore..

  • 91. Anonymous  |  December 26, 2013 at 12:15 am

    Hi Merry Christmas, SpiritGeek are you in the spirit of Christmas. What you said concerning Lucifer and Jesus brings up a very interesting topic. Lucifer and Jesus are now of different spirit but people with there free choice when excercised can find truth. Bending for God I call it. The Word according to the story is alive and the Word became flesh so the story is saying that God became flesh. The Bible can be read and understood ,especially when it comes to the characters . You already know the character of lucifer really know as Satan today. You know the character of Jesus still and always showing the character of God Allmighty. The Coincidence you talk of ,of course occurs in your writings because thats what your hinting. If someone knows the truth and says they do, is an opportunity to become a lier. Knowing is Knowing . Do you know the truth over this subject ,do your thoughts match the characters. Knowing the characters personalities is how the book comes alive. The Bible is inspired by God. Need to know what inspired means and the thruth will be revealed their. Need to know that a council of Men chose what to be included in the Bible. God made man according to bible and the bible story who ever m.eses with it ie all the different versions still has the same characters. God didn,t write the bible, it was inspired or inspirit. Everything is inspired by God if God is the God of creation.. Your comments were inspired by God , a poem writen by my daughter is inspired by God. We were made by God yet everyone has there own custom spirit. How free is free choice ? Only as free as you are .To have complete free choice all the choices would need to be known ,we need to know who we are (nature of the choser) The World can con us like satan the master of us if we exibit his character ,think like we are in this World but not of this World. Remember we are who we choose. Lucifer in the story was once lord of planet earth ie (morning star) these are my thoughts , now Jesus is Lord of planet Earth. What i said is only what i said but the story shows this to me. Here is something else to think about. Lucifer is a master of lies, illusions,and hates Jesus, Jealousy is a spirit that holds Hatred towards who we choose. . Every Man and Women on this planet have their own spirit if they choose to ie own character. Knowing who we are is as tough as knowing someone else. Infact all spirit is there for the chosing.and getting lost is more common that really knowing who we are. Lucifer can,t pull the wool over the eyes of Jesus because he knows the true character of God Completely so Jesus took on his spirit perfectly.Thats one with God, not 2 or 3 but one with God. When Lucifer wears say the spirit of Jesus he will appear to be Jesus ,like a counterfit. The living bible i think means the characters are alive still because spirit is alive all around us for the picking. When i say around i mean within too. Thinking in the spirit is not Human. Only flesh and blood ( physical ) is Human and just as a radio can be many stations,songs and persons we can be who we choose. Knowing who we are is almost like choosing who we are. The person that God allmighty intended us to be.There are infinite possibities and finding who we are amongst true spirit is hard enough, now throw in the spirits that lie. Now we can lie without knowing (innocent) or lie knowingly accountable. The spirit of lucifer is accountable and incidently we are not taken over but willing to choose. If the garment we wear (the spirit we choose) is not who we are then we become imposters like we have always been since the spirit of Lucifer has been here on earth. The lucifer spirit became like an anti matter spirit (anti matter , anti Christ) Anti matter is like a lie on earth (physical world) . We are a mixture of the soup of spirits and when we take on lies,(anti matter,satan,evil) we take on a lie of which manifest and becomes real to us and others because others will sense it and sometimes rub off on to them. When we loose control of ourselves then who we become is anybodys guess. God allmighty is the spirit that has always been, no beginning and know end. Jesus too because he knows God and obeys through choice and therfore one with God. Jesus still has his own identity and Gods identity. They are the same in truth so seeing jesus like some did is like looking at God. Hearing Jesus is like hearing God. Jesus heard God perfectly so his words were the words of God. Thats what the pherisees witnessed but didn,t recognise as truth so they accussed Jesus as the counterfit. They thought Jesus was satan even with the knjowlege of the bible. The tree of Kownlede of good and bad. Bad is without good and good is God ,lives forever but Bad or Evil is a lie of which will one day only exist as anti matter. Don,t be decieved if you can help it and certainly don,t choose the lie because if you never find who you are then anti matter will consume you. To choose the lie as being decieved (innocent), To choose the lie knowing it (guilty). No one can con God because he knows you better than you know yourself. How, Jesus is in those that chose him and to know jesus is to know God. Our mouths can choose but we have to be genuine otherwise the words are not ours.Satan does exist but all men have been deceived to be children of satan. Those that have been deceived but are innocent can seek and find the real jesus because jesus is in us to guide us. The innocent will chose correctly eventually. Jesus won,t put out even a smoldering wick. Once jesus seeds within you (different from being in you) No one can live without God within us but if Jesus the son is denied (don,t beleive and don,t want to even try) then you don,t know God. Its like knowing who you are but deny your own hand. Why not just know God. Most on the planet are like that. If you have a son and your friends deny him then they deny you. You can,t know God with out knowing Jesus too. You can,t no me if you reject my hand . Of course physically speaking is a paraball of the true person (spirit). To know God is to know Jesus and to know jesus is to know God. Gods children that truly choose will choose jesus and will become one with God. Have our true identaty and have Gods too. Every person that loves jesus will become one. Its like being God with our own awarness so we will not be lonely. To be lonely is like not knowing God. God the Father, God the Son, God the holy spirit and God the chooser. Gods Kingdom can not be inherited by flesh and blood yet Gods Kingdom is within. The universe within that can,t be measured. God is infinite remember.To wake up is to seek and all humans are being called. If you lost a child in a store you would call for the child.Well Humans are so lost that Jesus is our shepherd and we are his flock. Jesus will guide us how to behave to help us find ourselves .We are not unlike God . We are too far (different) to be guided by God all mighty
    but Jesus will take us to him. Get to know Jesus (truth,goodness,light) drop the lies ,evil,darkness (the person you are not) leave yourself behind and remember who you are .Only Truth continues and anything other than truth is a lie. Darkness is absense of light, Lies are absense of truth. There are alot of imposters out there so don,t be one . Love everyone ,even those that are sinfull (all of us) Treat people the way you would like to be treated because we are one with everthing . Thats my opinion of the bible, don,t let the world pull the wool over your eyes and keep loving. If you don,t love yourself (the true you) then you can,t love anything. Know love. To find love is to know God and the evidence is everywhere. Can,t see the wind but can see the effect of the wind. If you Love your see the effect and what God saw is Good. I would not like to be the only one that found this . Its not just in the Bible, its in you too so seek and you shall find. God Bless you all ye gods of the utmost high. Inspired by God, how much you decide . Merry Christmas.

  • 92. cag  |  December 28, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Anonymous #91, sling your fiction somewhere else. There is no evidence for the reality of any of the characters in the bible, they are all ancient fiction. If you have real evidence that any of the main characters in the bible exist or even existed, give it. The bible is the claim, not the evidence.

    Take your blathering about that disgusting fictional character you refer to as god somewhere where it will not be mocked. Kill the Amalekites, send bears to maul children, kill all the first born, stone to death disobedient children and on and on. It is fortunate that your god doesn’t exist.

  • 93. Anonymous  |  December 28, 2013 at 7:05 pm

    Lucifer is a Latin word, forced into a Hebrew text, composed before Latin ever existed. So that’s mistake #1. Second, Lucifer is just the old Roman name for Venus, or Bringer of the Dawn, Bright Morning Star. Again, those terms are used to describe Jesus in the NT. So, A91, remember, Lucifer is not a spirit of evil but of light. Your own myths say so.

  • 94. Anonymous  |  February 27, 2014 at 5:39 am

    Anonymous The Characters don’t have to be real unless manefested . Anyone can manifest there choices . It’s not logical to equate what you don’t beleive . If God. Doesn,t exist then that’s all dandy. Hawkins. Of which I truly respect says there’s no room for God. Maybe God does,t need room. That constant can still be in Hawkins theorys. without disputing his great works. If God is in his creation then he is all that Hawkins has found. The story of Jesus is inside of our brains when heard but inside our heart’s when you let him in. The Word is ensribed on our heart’s. Ask Jesus into your heart and he will guide you if that’s what you choose. Jesus obeyed God perfectly. He loved everyone and that alone is a recipe for peace. God is Love and Love speaks for himself. To prove God is to prove Love and if love needs to be proven then maybe Love Dosn,t Exist. Tell that to your children.

  • 95. Richard Kent Matthews  |  February 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    To Anonymous: An old saying: If it ain’t fact, it’s fiction. When we make claims without any kind of substantiation, we open the door to ridicule. Taking something on faith is fine, as long as we do not tell others it’s ‘truth.’

    One more thing here. Don’t know if I covered it or if someone else did, but it’s important to remember one interesting ‘fact’ about Lucifer…

    His name only appears once in the Hebrew bible and not at all in the New Testament. And the appearance in the Hebrew text is quite telling. Lucifer is a Latin word, suddenly showing up in the Hebrew Book of Isaiah, a book penned long, long before the Latin language ever existed. Now, how did that word show up in that book? Hmmm. And Lucifer is also the old Roman name for Venus, the Bringer of Dawn, the Bright Morning Star…and that was the description also applied to Jesus.

    Think about it.

  • 96. Anonymous  |  April 10, 2014 at 1:23 am

    I agree RIchard and I,m no interlect my writings are over zealous . and certainly in perfect. Its like I don’t belone in this forum. I hope God is really love and that I will meet my Mother again and that Jesus really was God at work.
    This is what I want, not so much the bible written by men and studied by both believers and non believers. I want the character of Jesus to manifest and hold me and say I Love you. Cha.

  • 97. cag  |  April 10, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Anonymous #96
    All the hoping you are capable of will not turn a fairy tale into reality. Think about what gods a human living 3000 years ago in, say, Greece believed to exist. Do you believe that that person wasn’t as dedicated in their belief as you are? Their gods, which preoccupied them, are just as imaginary as your god. Thousands of discredited gods, no evidence for any god. There is no other rational conclusion than there are no gods, none. Do not place your hopes on the imaginary.

  • 98. Alban  |  April 12, 2014 at 3:53 am

    Anonymous, the evidence that answers hope, you and everyone else already contain. It is not outside of you or waiting to enter. That is what religion says. That is not what Jesus as The Christ among many others (one at a time) stated or offered.

    Instead, he for one, in his day and time offered to show the sincere the source of life, the source of all hope, the origin of Peace, Joy Contentment, Fulfillment, Salvation etc; already there within each one!!

    So yes, all the Love you can handle is there and your capacity to accept more and more grows. Once you ‘enter’ this and you can now with some amazing help, you will discover what you had wished to know about Jesus in a way that reading or imagination or believing cannot touch. Those ‘determinants’ were never meant to certify, but we Christians in our ignorance and arrogance didn’t leave ourselves a lot of options after the crucifixion…although for many the intent has been pure in it’s naivete. Still, rationalization is rationalization no matter how you dress it up.

    Your mother would be a personal conversation best not put up to pubic scrutiny.. In short, your overall wish is conservative in scope. Hope that is good news!

  • 99. cag  |  April 12, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    Alban, more blather without a shred of evidence. The historicity of your jesus is suspect to say the least. No mention of such a character until a fanatic creates a “saviour” by stealing from even older myths. Christian scholars who study jesus always come up with some rationalization. Atheist scholars come up with facts as they are not bound by a need to confirm the existence of jesus. What is most telling is that the atheist scholars remain atheist. They are not convinced to convert by what they discover, they rightly conclude that the evidence is totally lacking. Christian scholars start off with a conclusion and desperately and dishonestly try to justify that conclusion.

  • 100. Alban  |  April 12, 2014 at 10:51 pm

    cag, I agree with you on the problem with scholarly conclusions. Remember those conclusions came in large part from what they had read or heard, inspired by people who felt, saw, tasted and heard tangible internal evidence.

    What I am referring to, is a criterion seldom used, that is elementary in its simplicity. Most often this ability is overlooked, theorized to be impossible or worse, in centuries past, considered to be heretical and therefore silenceable.

    The value of finding WHERE this ability takes us cannot be measured by a uniform worldly standard, but it can be literally perceived by individuals. Not for the purpose of testing; rather for the purpose of enjoying. The evidence you seek you already have within you! cag if it makes it simpler, just look in the mirror and repeat like a parrot, “What I am wanting to verify is already within me”

    Once engaged/enjoyed on a daily basis, perspective of its value ‘grows’ and it becomes apparent thru reading (if interested) that this opportunity has been offered throughout history, but never before to the entire world- too many physical constraints. You see in those readings breadcrumbs of what you know. Sort of like knowing Humpty Dumpty prior to the crash and then recognizing the pieces in the debris.

    So WITHOUT turning the senses within (absent mantras) after having been inspired and understanding why, and being shown where and how, it is impossible to VERIFY that this opportunity has EVER existed. The criterion therefore does not exist WITHOUT this discovery- the ongoing discovery of THE Self, the part of each one us that has no beginning or end. (sorry, that is after the fact)

    What each of us have prior has been described as a “Thirst” (to know) It is unlike any other thirst. And that IS THE CRITERION. Once felt, the perspective expands and the tool for measurement is THEN RECOGNIZED to be in place. (because it already has been)

    Like I’ve said before at that point, you do not go running off to become religious. You do acquire an appreciation of life that is simply off the charts!! Throw in wisdom, humility, clarity, bliss and a deeper sense of common sense and everyday becomes savorable, no matter the ups and downs of circumstance. Really.

    What is so ironic about this experience is it actually allows one to agree with an atheistic point of view of religion based on a lack of tangible experiential not belief measurement, along with the existing scientific scales of universally accepted ‘measurement’. On the other hand, one can agree with the religious assertion that God exists, AGAIN without the pure simple criterion of internal, not emotional ‘measurement’. (Belief and emotion are together incendiary-think we all know that by now!)

    This is an amazing perspective that escapes all imagination leaving critics adamant on both sides that it is impossible or just leaves them befuddled. The key is the thirst. Find that and the rest is simple. Without that thirst, there will be NO evidence even though it is so perceivably abundant to unseeing vision or unhearing auditory perception.

    Someone once said that we have eyes, but they do not see. We have ears but we do not hear. Could that have referred to those senses being focused in the opposite direction- inward? Mmm…

    Pieces in the debris.

  • 101. cag  |  April 13, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Alban, I do not have to look inside when there is so much outside to grasp and enjoy. I do not spend any time worrying about which way I will go after death, I do not worry about pissing off some disgusting deity. I do not spend a second worrying about if my actions are an abomination to some imaginary monster. I actually took some astronomy courses way back when, and can go outside and marvel at the vastness of the universe without positing some god as the cause. I am not blinkered by any kind of “god did it” thinking. It feels good to live in a time when superstitious nonsense such as god belief is dying and knowledge is expanding.

    I was 9 years old before I knew that there was such a thing as TV. I have seen a lot of progress in my time, none of it created by theologians. I reject the idea of a soul, afterlife and all things attributed to gods. We know how the tides work, how lightning occurs, why earthquakes happen and that the earth goes around the sun – things previously misunderstood or attributed to gods.

    Knowledge kills the god idea. Your god is irrelevant to a good life, one not constrained by dogma. If you want to live a life trying and failing to please an imaginary friend, that’s your business. Do not think that such ridiculous nonsense is something that a sane human should emulate. Never assume that the life of an atheist is an empty life. We can act and do what we consider to be right, not what was decreed by ignorant scam artists.

    Thousands of gods, all of them the product of human thought.

    With so much on the outside, why worry about the inside. I’m not searching for meaning to my life, I’m just living it.

  • 102. Alban  |  April 13, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    cag, knowledge is the whole point! Knowledge of the self is fundamental. Doesn’t matter what we think about God or Satan. Neither are individual entities and are simply labels or metaphors describing limitless abundance and blockage to that abundance. Both terms were created by humans.

    Most people operate without conscious knowing of the self and they are not smited, nor sentenced to eternal damnation. On the Satan side there is no external force that makes us do foolish or atrocious acts. With self knowledge there is just acceptance or ignorance with any middle ground on the side of ignorance.

    In knowing of the self, you simply use your awareness to literally place it in the PRIMARY ASSET (without the P.A. there is no conversation) elevating the quality of life, enhancing all that you enjoy and then some, while diminishing or eliminating a lot of the negative components, be they attitudes, beliefs or activities as naturally occurring vs contrived.

    For instance, less desire or attachment to anger or melancholy, compulsive behaviors, more desire for feeling unconditional joy and picking the diamonds of any joy out of everyday experiences. (Despite some disappointment and tragedy, I can honestly say I have not had a ‘bad day’ in the last 40 years with this Knowing!)

    We do not contain an instruction guide, but we all possess an incredible sense of detection, of feeling, of awareness that includes sometimes humorous realization of common sensical observation, allowing each of us to enjoy laughing at our own blockhead tendencies and occasional bad decisions.

    I know a number of people who make the experience of self knowledge a “holy” experience, but the majority just take it in stride and are oblivious to labels. They simply enjoy what IS THEIRS to enjoy. All are grateful of course to have been shown. And that is naturally occurring as well. This is absent of dos and don’ts!

    Bottom line: The living mechanism, life, whatever you wanna call it has this incredible dimension to it. Make believe doesn’t hold a candle to this knowledge. Everyone who is alive has AS a possibility, access to this dimension. So it’s not a question of is the access there, it’s simply a choice to discover it. Choose wisely.

    cag, if you love freedom, kindness and genuine contentment, you may want to know that you contain unlimited abundance of all these and more in every breath of your life, soul or not, God or not.

    Not ‘knowing’ is neither good or bad nor moronic. Slavery however, has its limitations. It is better in my opinion, to own my life, rather than to be owned. I put the leash on my dog when we go for a walk, not the other way around.

    Given this possibility to choose, it would be more practical to live and die as a free man.

    As for religion and “GOD”, since Easter is nearing, the whole notion of Salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus merely created an intricate, sophisticated imprisonment for people to make BELIEVE they are ‘free’ in the subjugation of government and religion.

    The only aspect left in Christianity of any freedom is the HOPE of finding out what he was actually pinpointing, so that there is a more accurate perspective in which to choose if they want, to find their ‘thirst’ for the tangible FREEDOM he inspired and showed, at that time in history. Sorry, it is not ongoing by or from Jesus. Happy Easter is an oxymoron.

  • 103. i want to buy a car on finance  |  September 23, 2014 at 10:20 am

    Every weekend i used to go to see thhis site, because i
    wish for enjoyment, as this this web site conatios actually nice funny stuff too.

  • 104. pawn shops online near me  |  September 26, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Thankfulness to my father who shared with me on the topic of this web site, this blog is
    actually awesome.

  • 105. table centerpiece  |  October 16, 2014 at 9:44 am

    The all-wheel drive X5 is a mid-size deluxe SUV marketed by BMW
    given that 2000.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,043,836 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 208 other followers