# Does the Devil really exist?



## la reine victoria

Following on from dot commers' thread, "What is evil?", I would be interested to know if you actually believe in the existence of the Devil?

There is certainly a very powerful force of evil at work in the world today.  Where is it coming from?  Who is putting evil thoughts into the minds of people, and making them act on them?

LRV


----------



## Etcetera

I'm a Christian. And, more likely, a Catholic. 
Therefore, I believe in God and in all that's written in the Bible. Including what's written there about evil and its sources.
Hope it's a sufficient answer.


----------



## .   1

la reine victoria said:


> There is certainly a very powerful force of evil at work in the world today.


I do not believe this at all.  The only difference today is the video camera and mobile phone camera means that so much horror is recorded and replayed ad nauseum.  The buildings only fell down once but we are subjected to repeated prurient screenings of it on the teevee.

There are none so strange as folk but the devil is just a boogy man dreampt up to keep the weekly weak kneed in line.

Politicians are still using the same sctick.  Scare the people and then tell them that you can save them from the horror that only you can see.  

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

I do not believe in any supernatural entities or powers and surely not in the devil.

Further, I believe that there are no more evil things happening than in other times. All times had their share of evil (if you want to call it that way).

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

la reine victoria said:


> Following on from dot commers' thread, "What is evil?", I would be interested to know if you actually believe in the existence of the Devil?


 
As far as I can see there is no evidence for a Devil, or a God which can convince a non-believer. Both of these concepts depend on one having 'faith'. And if one tries to ask questions about faith and what it is, one is told it is a gift from God.

So, apparently, to believe in God you must first accept a gift from him.

Those who do believe in a Devil tend to say that it was created by God. 
- That must give pause for thought to those who believe in a loving and just God.

I would contend that all our Gods (and we humans have had very many of them down the years, and continue to have a multiplicity) were created by us to explain our "dark places" and to rationalise what we observed happening about us. We needed them to allow us to function in what is a terrifying world - and to give reason and purpose to our lives. Some of these Gods were active players in the lives of humans and some were acting to their own designs - with anything which happened here being incidental to their schemes. We empowered these Gods with the ability to affect our affairs here on earth when we so petitioned them - we even devised elaborate rituals to accompany these petitionings gave them valuable (to us) offerings. 

Devils and demons are, I would suggest, just Gods by another name - but solely evil ones. Their every action we see as being directed towards God through us.

One thing is certain.
Activities which used to be ascribed to Gods and Devils are now understood to be natural events - the processes of which we now understand and can even predict.
Ailments which used to be seen as afflictions caused by God are now known to be caused by disease and natural processes.
Slowly but steadily we have shone light into "dark places" and they get fewer and fewer, and our Gods dwindle.




la reine victoria said:


> There is certainly a very powerful force of evil at work in the world today.


Is there?
- If there is, is it a new thing? Or, has it always been there?




la reine victoria said:


> Where is it coming from?


Where?
- or "who"?




la reine victoria said:


> Who is putting evil thoughts into the minds of people, and making them act on them?


Do humans need an outside agency to put evil thoughts into their minds? 
- Are we not capable of dreaming up our own evil schemes?
And once we have these evil thoughts
- Are we only acting on them because some outside agent makes us do so?


----------



## lshtar

I've been brought up in Spain, a Catholic country, where you can have a 'devil' or a 'god' that punishes you every time you do something 'wrong', so not much to choose!
I think the devil is a human invention based in the inner insecurity and superstition of human race. In this way, with fear, it's easier for some to control a 'flock of sheep', and by the other hand for us, sheep that belong to the flock, it's easier to blame another 'being' for our own faults either for doing something wrong or for doing nothing in an especific situation.

Sorry for my mistakes in my writing


----------



## 94kittycat

Hi,

I for sure believe in the Devil, who is also called Satan. I also believe in the Bible, and it clearly states, all over the place, that Satan is at work, trying to deceive, tempt, and hurt people. There has been and always will be a force of evil.


----------



## Outsider

Particular human actions may be classified as evil, or more evil than others, but those are just human failings. I see no reason to think of them as instances of some transcendent evil force.


----------



## TRG

I may meet the devil one day. That's the day I'll start believing in him. Maybe that' why I'm an atheist. I can't face the prospect of being under the devil's heel for an eternity. (And, according to Woody Allen, eternity is a very long time, epecially near the end.)


----------



## 1234plet

I do not believe in the devil as a person or a spirit. But somehow I believe that they are a bit of a devil in each one of us. 
And I must agree with .,,


----------



## etornudo

la reine victoria said:


> Following on from dot commers' thread, "What is evil?", I would be interested to know if you actually believe in the existence of the Devil?



There is no way to prove devils and demons don't exist and their existence _seems_ to explain why really bad people do very bad things but without any evidence I see no reason to believe in them, or anything else for that matter.

How do you prove that the Devil made you do it and who would go for such a defense?


----------



## übermönch

Sure he exists and not only he contempts men to evil deeds, he also seduces women into witchery which therefore should all be burnt alive and tormented in afterlife for an eternity. So sayeth the Hexenhammer and aye it speaketh right.  
...
...
...
Hey! The european philosophers worked sooo hard to enlighten europe; there really is no reason to fall back!


----------



## panjabigator

I have never once thought about the existence of a devil once in my life, the reason being that there is really no equivalent in Indian thought.  Evil deeds are interpreted as a some sort of a reaction of karma, and therefore, it has its own explanation.  I think people can be cruel, vicious, and evil, but I don't at all see this as a result of any sinister force other than our minds.

I was asked once or twice that since I don't believe in the devil, what is the source of punishment in my faith.  My reply (and I'm really religious by any stretch of the imagination, so...) is that I have never really cared or worried about that.  I try and live my life to be a decent person - that's all.


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:


> I was asked once or twice that since I don't believe in the devil, what is the source of punishment in my faith.  My reply (and I'm really religious by any stretch of the imagination, so...) is that I have never really cared or worried about that.  I try and live my life to be a decent person - that's all.



Great point, panja!

I have long felt that people who 'require' a source of punishment, or the threat of punishment, to oblige them to be 'good' are not really 'good', they are only pretending to it. 
I agree with the notion the late Pope expressed when he repeated the words from the Gospel: "anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eyes has already committed adultery with her in his heart." I understand the concept behind it.


----------



## panjabigator

maxiogee said:


> I have long felt that people who 'require' a source of punishment, or the threat of punishment, to oblige them to be 'good' are not really 'good', they are only pretending to it.



I agree with you here as well, however there are plenty of people for whom it is very difficult to even think that there is another reason to be good; that is, that it is their lifestyle to do good to get into heaven and that's all that they know.  I wouldn't say they're are pretending.

A part of me would want to term them ignorant (in the sense that they don't acknowledge other ways to interpret things) but that word carries an undertone of judgement.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I agree with the notion the late Pope expressed when he repeated the words from the Gospel: "anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eyes has already committed adultery with her in his heart." I understand the concept behind it.


How much experience did the late pope have with women?
Is a celibate monk in any position to make any pronouncements in relation to extremely delicate inter-gender sexual relationships?
What could the late pope possibly know about inter-gender lust?

Will the logic followed by the late pope allow for the following?

"anyone who even thinks about an apology is already forgiven."

.,,


----------



## lizzeymac

Carol Wojtyla / Pope John Paul    II became a priest in his mid-20s, I think. He attended a "regular" high school, had a factory job for a few years after school, & he was a member of a small theater company in the evenings.  I think he might have known thing or 2 about women. For a Pope, he was a fairly "human" person.  (Sorry, ex-Catholic reflex)

I like what Panj said.  
I think that if you behave a certain way only because you are afraid of punishment you are only "well-trained."
Even if there were a Devil tempting me to do evil, my actions & choices are still my choice & responsibility & blaming some  evil spirit for any stupid, unkind, or just plain wrong things I might do is false & weak.  If I want to feel proud of myself for any good things I may do I must also be responsible for the mistakes.
There was a phrase you heard often in Catholic school - "In hope of heaven & in fear of Hell" 
I only liked the first half.


----------



## TRG

. said:


> How much experience did the late pope have with women?
> Is a celibate monk in any position to make any pronouncements in relation to extremely delicate inter-gender sexual relationships?
> What could the late pope possibly know about inter-gender lust?
> 
> Will the logic followed by the late pope allow for the following?
> 
> "anyone who even thinks about an apology is already forgiven."
> 
> .,,


 
I would say most likely so, because it comes extremely close the the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity.


----------



## cubaMania

la reine victoria said:


> ...There is certainly a very powerful force of evil at work in the world today. Where is it coming from? Who is putting evil thoughts into the minds of people, and making them act on them?...


 
I think the contrary.  Overall there was far more evil behavior in the ancient world than there is today.  Slowly over the centuries, ten steps forward then nine steps backward, humanity has been on a steady march of progress toward ever more civilized behavior.  Colonialism if not dead is at least frequently condemned.  Slavery is nearly dead, and other forms of involuntary servitude significantly on the wane.  There are far more free people today than ever were in the past.  Torture, once routine and accepted, is at least under heavy attack from the forces of civilization.  The vicious subjugation of women is no longer routine throughout the entire world.  Enlightenment is dawning with respect to the treatment of children and other powerless members of society.  I could go on.

The fly in the ointment is that technological progress has made the weapons of evil far more powerful.  That may be our undoing, if technological progress outpaces social and ethical progress.


----------



## Josh_

I agree with some of the sentiments already expressed here -- one should not need some threat of hellfire in order to do good.  You should do good because it's the right thing to do.  That's what I do.  I do good because it makes me feel good and I feel it's the right thing to do.  I live by two basic principles: (1) the so-called golden rule -- do to others what you would want done to yourself and (2) taking responsibility and accountability for your actions, which leads me to one of the other sentiments already expressed by others -- not taking blame for your actions but rather scapegoating that blame onto some other thing/being.  Very convenient -- that way one does not have to "own up" and be accountable for his/her actions.  I know that if I mess up, it's all on me.  I don't blame anyone else.

As to the question at hand, no, I do not believe in a devil, nor do I believe in a personal god (but am not opposed to the idea that there may have been some extraordinary Force or First Cause, if you will, that created the universe), and personally I think the concept of Heaven and Hell as concocted by the monotheistic faiths is quite flawed.  God and the Devil are archenemies right?  Diametrically opposed to each other?  They are like two opponents engaged in a cosmic competition of sorts both trying to recruit new souls -- God wants people to go to Heaven and has an active recruiting campaign and the Devil wants people to go to Hell and also tries to recruit.  Well, why isn't it that the Devil rewards those who succumb to "evil" and end up on his/her side of the track in the same manner than God rewards those who follow him? Why is Hell a place of torment, not reward?  Why does the Devil torture those who go to hell and not reward them for their evilness?  It would seem natural that two opposing sides would have benefits for members at both of their camps? But no, rather both parties are on opposite sides, whereas their platforms more or counterbalance and complement each other -- one side rewards and the other punishes.  Without knowing anything about God or the Devil and hearing this state of affairs -- that Heaven is a place where God rewards the just with eternal life and Hell is where the Devil tortures the evildoers with eternal damnation -- I would think that God and the Devil are on the same side, in cahoots even, not diametrically opposed to one another.  God rewards those who do good and those who are rejected get sent to Hell where they are punished because they opposed God in some way. Quite complementary indeed.  It sounds like an efficient business venture to me.  That's why the idea doesn't make sense to me.

By the way, one of my favorite quotes which is very relevant in this thread is "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he never existed."  Maybe I'm one of those who have fallen for the trick?


----------



## TRG

Josh Adkins said:


> I agree with some of the sentiments already expressed here -- one should not need some threat of hellfire in order to do good. You should do good because it's the right thing to do. That's what I do. I do good because it makes me feel good and I feel it's the right thing to do. I live by two basic principles: (1) the so-called golden rule -- do to others what you would want done to yourself and (2) taking responsibility and accountability for your actions, which leads me to one of the other sentiments already expressed by others -- not taking blame for your actions but rather scapegoating that blame onto some other thing/being. Very convenient -- that way one does not have to "own up" and be accountable for his/her actions. I know that if I mess up, it's all on me. I don't blame anyone else.
> 
> As to the question at hand, no, I do not believe in a Devil, nor do I believe in a personal god (but am not opposed to the idea that there may have been some extraordinary Force or First Cause, if you will, that created the universe), and personally I think the concept of Heaven and Hell as concocted by the monotheistic faiths is quite flawed. God and the Devil are archenemies right? Diametrically opposed to each other? They are like two opponents engaged in a cosmic competition of sorts both trying to recruit new souls -- God wants people to go to Heaven and has an active recruiting campaign and the Devil wants people to go to Hell and also tries to recruit. Well, why isn't it that the Devil rewards those who succumb to "evil" and end up on his/her side of the track in the same manner than God rewards those who follow him? Why is Hell a place of torment, not reward? Why does the Devil torture those who go to hell and not reward them for their evilness? It would seem natural that two opposing sides would have benefits for members at both of their camps? But no, rather both parties are on opposite sides, whereas their platforms more or counterbalance and complement each other -- one side rewards and the other punishes. Without knowing anything about God or the Devil and hearing this state of affairs -- that Heaven is a place where God rewards the just with eternal life and Hell is where the Devil tortures the evildoers with eternal damnation -- I would think that God and the Devil are on the same side, in cahoots even, not diametrically opposed to one another. God rewards those who do good and those who are rejected get sent to Hell where they are punished because they opposed God in some way. Quite complementary indeed. It sounds like an efficient business venture to me. That's why the idea doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> By the way, one of my favorite quotes which is very relevant in this thread is "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he never existed." Maybe I'm one of those who have fallen for the trick?


 
One way to look at the god/devil duality is simply as an extension of the internal struggle that takes places inside everyone as they struggle with their baser instincts in trying to do good.


----------



## HistofEng

What I sometimes dont understand is:

How is Christianity (catholocism in particular) a _monotheistic_ religion if there are other supernatural entities, like the Devil, that they believe in.

The same could be said about Jesus and Mary (who are given reverence in Catholicism and form part of the Trinity) and saints.


----------



## lizzeymac

Ah, but Mary is not part of the Trinity - only the Father, Son & Holy Ghost/Spirit - if she were I might still be Catholic. 
There is only one "God." 
"The Devil" is a fallen angel, Lucifer, once beloved of God.


----------



## JamesM

HistofEng said:


> What I sometimes dont understand is:
> 
> How is Christianity (catholocism in particular) a _monotheistic_ religion if there are other supernatural entities, like the Devil, that they believe in.
> 
> The same could be said about Jesus and Mary (who are given reverence in Catholicism and form part of the Trinity) and saints.


 
That is an entire discussion in itself. (First of all, Mary is not in the Trinity.) Setting that aside, though, _monotheistic_ means only one God, not only one supernatural entity. There are quite a few supernatural beings mentioned in the Bible, in fact an entire hierarchy of supernatural beings. The Devil is considered to be one of the highest ranking supernatural entities below God (an archangel) who chose to rebel against God and set up his own kingdom, in essence.  As Milton put it, he'd "rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."


----------



## HistofEng

So the Devil is a _minor g_od?

If so...to me just because the devil is a minor god doesn't make the religion monotheistic (I would still view it as polytheistic)

Unless you happen to view Mary, the Devil, the saints, and God as part of "God"

See what I mean, or no?


----------



## danielfranco

Ah... just said the magic words, din'tcha? "To me..."
So, sure, if that's how you perceive it, then that's how it is for you. But it seems like the rest of the Christian guys (including Catholics and others) would rather consider their religion to be monotheistic.
It's like that one time when we were all talking about religion and I said that "to me", "in my opinion", "the way I saw it", religion didn't need to be based in a deity. A view that is not shared by anyone else, apparently...

Anyway, the devil seems to me a very tragic figure: I mean, he MUST know that there's no way in hell (hee, hee... not too subtle pun...) that he can ever prevail, much less win against an omnipotent and omniscient God.

I think he exists, the devil (or whatever name, never mind all that "Shaitan" jazz...), but I still haven't figured out how the whole thing works... I mean, it's just not logical...

Whatever...


----------



## lizzeymac

This may be topic-drift, but, to answer your question, not to argue a point:
According to the _Catholic Church _(not me) an angel is not a minor god - there are no minor gods. An angel is a spirit created by God, to serve as God's messenger & agent.  
A fallen angel has rejected God's love & is under the influence of Satan, The Archangel (Lucifer, The Devil) the most powerful fallen angel.
Technically, you are right: God created everything, the heavens & the earth, animals, humans & angels - including Lucifer the Archangel (The Devil).
The Trinity ... is difficult.....  but at the heart of it there is only God, one God.
Now, back to the The Devil...
-


----------



## HistofEng

Sorry for having been off-topic, but thanks very much to those who shed some light on the mono/polytheism issue.


----------



## caballoschica

The existence of the Devil begs the question of the existence of God.  There needs to be faith involved to say the existence of either, in my opinion.  

As to an evil force or person putting thoughts into people's heads; and as maxiogee pointed out: Does there need to be a force or person to put evil thoughts into people's minds?

This reminds me of humanistic psychology.  That all people are born good and outside forces act on them to corrupt them.  Therefore is religion humanistic in nature?  They believe in the inherent good in people?  

Outside forces also reminds me of physics...Newton's first law to be specific.  But that has nothing to do with religion or philosophy...or does it?

I used to think philosophy and physics were completely different until I read a book by a physicist.  Theoretical physics of the string theory is the subject.  It talks about space and time and possibly the origin of the universe.  It has a ton of philosophy involved, which, actually, I love.  

What I'm going on here is that philosophy is often coupled with religion as kind of an...I don't want to say opposite, I suppose alternative to religion.  How do people deal with the unknowable?  

How do they deal with bad things happening outside of their control?  Is it a) an evil force  b) The Devil c) There has to be some scientific explanation with genetics or their minds or something d) This person was influenced by bad people during their life e) It's unknowable.  

To me, I follow the logic of answer C, but I'm open minded enough to say a bit of E.  If I sense the Devil during my lifetime...I'll change my answer to B, for sure!

I am a very open minded scientific person.  Does a Devil exist?  To me, there is a very very small probability.  To me, one in a trillion.  But there's still that chance.  I give the same odds to the existence of God.


----------



## JamesM

HistofEng said:


> So the Devil is a _minor g_od?
> 
> If so...to me just because the devil is a minor god doesn't make the religion monotheistic (I would still view it as polytheistic)
> 
> Unless you happen to view Mary, the Devil, the saints, and God as part of "God"
> 
> See what I mean, or no?


 
In Christianity, God is the only uncreated being. This makes God unique, and it is a characteristic that defines God as God. He exists before time and beyond time. All other entities are created by God, which means they are not "minor" versions of God. They are all creatures of some kind or another. Because of this particular definition of God, it's impossible to have a "minor god." It would have to be another uncreated being, which is not a part of the Christian religion; God is the only Creator in this particular religion.


----------



## HistofEng

^That was a great explanation, thanks a heap James


----------



## maxiogee

Josh Adkins said:


> Well, why isn't it that the Devil rewards those who succumb to "evil" and end up on his/her side of the track in the same manner than God rewards those who follow him? Why is Hell a place of torment, not reward?  Why does the Devil torture those who go to hell and not reward them for their evilness?



The monotheists would tell you that God created both the Devil and, later, Hell - as a place to which he banished the Devil as a punishment for his hubris. The Devil is as much a prisoner of Hell as are the souls he 'recruits'. It is not he who sets out the terms of one's confinement there.


----------



## badgrammar

danielfranco said:


> Anyway, the devil seems to me a very tragic figure: I mean, he MUST know that there's no way in hell (hee, hee... not too subtle pun...) that he can ever prevail, much less win against an omnipotent and omniscient God.



So what you're saying daniel, is that the devil is kind of like the Coyote who will never get that Road Runner?  But he just keeps trying?


----------



## maxiogee

But at least the Devil feeds off the torment and evilness of others - Poor ol' Wile E Coyote never gets to eat anything!


----------



## badgrammar

Excellent point, Tony...  The devil does find atleast some gratification at the end of the day !

More seriously, I don't believe there is a devil.  And that's probably because I am agnostic.  So I guess I believe in something a little more new-agey and hard to describe, like that if there is a God, then it's not an old white guy somewhere up in the clouds, rather it is the positive forces that link all of us mere mortals together and helps us to work in unison for a greater individual and group good.  And it connects us to the world we live in and all other living things.

So the devil would have to be somthing similar:  Some sort of negative life force that interupts the chain of "greater good" described loosely above.  But similarly (again, in my philosophy of life which we can also call "My own private Idaho") it is not a force that is exterior from man, it is the negative "energies" that have always, and likely will always, exist.  

It is all yin and yang, baby!   Can't have one without the other.


----------



## faranji

danielfranco said:


> there's no way in hell (hee, hee... not too subtle pun...) that he can ever prevail


 
Prevail I don't know, dear Daniel, but if Italian footy the current state of the world is anything to go by, he sure is a hard nut to crack. I'm afraid this eons-long contest might eventually call for a photo-finish.


----------



## Josh_

maxiogee said:


> The monotheists would tell you that God created both the Devil and, later, Hell - as a place to which he banished the Devil as a punishment for his hubris. The Devil is as much a prisoner of Hell as are the souls he 'recruits'. It is not he who sets out the terms of one's confinement there.


Let me play the Devil's advocate here.  Then I would ask, if the Devil is a prisoner why is he/she/it (apparently) free to roam around and infect our minds with evil?  It would seem he/she/it has more privileges than the other prisoners.  And if that were the case then I would ask who granted those privileges?  Why should the Devil be more special than any of the other condemned souls?


----------



## Outsider

_The Bible_ actually has very little to say about the Devil. Some devil-like creatures show up (e.g. in the _Book of Revelations_, and in _Job_), but it is unclear whether they are all the same being, and just how "high up" they are in the divine hierarchy.

Many folk ideas about the Devil actually come from popular religion, and were influenced by other religions or heretical sects.


----------



## maxiogee

Josh Adkins said:


> Let me play the Devil's advocate here.


 … a role with which I am not unfamiliar  



Josh Adkins said:


> Then I would ask, if the Devil is a prisoner why is he/she/it (apparently) free to roam around and infect our minds with evil?  It would seem he/she/it has more privileges than the other prisoners.  And if that were the case then I would ask who granted those privileges?  Why should the Devil be more special than any of the other condemned souls?


Who says he is 'free to roam'? Perhaps it is just his influence which is free to roam. Much the same as human criminal types can still control their operations from prison. As to having more privileges, he is reputedly of a different order of creation than humans and would 'naturally'(?) have different powers/privileges/potential. Theologically I would suppose that God granted the privileges, [but personally I think that we created him and so we imbued him with them]. 




Outsider said:


> _The Bible_ actually has very little to say about the Devil. Some devil-like creatures show up (e.g. in the _Book of Revelations_, and in _Job_), but it is unclear whether they are all the same being, and just how "high up" they are in the divine hierarchy.
> 
> Many folk ideas about the Devil actually come from popular religion, and were influenced by other religions or heretical sects.


I was basing my demonology on *Milton's* _Paradise Lost_. At least I think that's were my 'knowledge' of Satan comes from.


----------



## Poetic Device

My opinion:  Just like the phrase "even sananists believe there is a God", So goes the same for Christians and Agnostics at the least.  As far as the athiest go, I know a few that believe there is one central source of evil and that central source has control over the eveil.  I'm not sure, but wouldn't that constitute as the devil?


----------



## xarruc

> Well, why isn't it that the Devil rewards those who succumb to "evil" and end up on his/her side of the track in the same manner than God rewards those who follow him? Why is Hell a place of torment, not reward? Why does the Devil torture those who go to hell and not reward them for their evilness?


 
I always liked the idea of Bob Monkhouse, the famous British comedien which went something like this:

People talk about gambling and alcohol and women(ising) and say they're a sin and you'll go to hell for them. Well when I die I want to go to heaven, on the condition that He lets me go to hell for the weekends!


Personally I don't believe in Heaven or Hell or God or the Devil. 

They have a useful methaphorical value. Concious is in a way God vs. the devil and contentedness vs. selfloathing is perhaps the closest we know to heaven and hell. My rather forward thinking catholic priest even tried this as a tactic to get the more agnostic of us back into the fold.

They also have a useful political value. The old stick-and-carrot. Never fails, does it?

The concept of the devil with in us popular among many capable of recieving the Word without having to believe its literal-ness poses a bit of a problem for me too. Whilst its true that there is an inner-conflict constant within us, that decides how we act, encouraging us to betray our loved ones for some instant gratification, it does not mean that we are inherently evil. In fact the things seen as "good": generosity, personal sacrifice, monogamy, nonviolence, obedience of the law, etc. are all things that aid society over the individual. All the things seen as evil: licentious behaviour, drugs, crime, violence, miserness, - all things that can be summed up as hedonism, are antisocial. Pehaps this can be seen not so much as a case of good vs. evil, but as animal vs. citizen - we are animals. sophisticated ones, but still animals, and have learned, as with dogs and other animals, and perhaps even genetically inscribed, that cooperation between us is beneficial both to the individual and the whole. Hedonistic, antisocial behaviour is in many ways the "animal" winning over the "citizen". Perhaps everyone has their own personal balence between the group and the individual. Morality, which deals in classifying behaviour as good or bad, has evolved from the church, taking over the fundamental role of pulling together individuals to form a collective. To label social behaviour as good is constructive with regards to the collective.

Anyway. Its complicated. If good versus evil doesn't exist, why am I still (generally) good? Why do I try to be better? Is it fear of punishement, indoctrination from an early age? What de ferral children believe about good and evil?


----------



## Poetic Device

> Well, why isn't it that the Devil rewards those who succumb to "evil" and end up on his/her side of the track in the same manner than God rewards those who follow him? Why is Hell a place of torment, not reward? Why does the Devil torture those who go to hell and not reward them for their evilness?


 
Satan does reward the people that he tricked (his "followers"). He rewards them with earthly wealth and other things that don't really matter much aside from the the human body want for it.  God, on the other hand, helps and guides you while ion Earth and rewards you after death.  We all go through Heaven and Hell, it's just a matter of when you want them.  Personally, I'll take my Hell now so that I may enjoy Heaven a little more.


----------



## xarruc

> As far as the athiest go, I know a few that believe there is one central source of evil and that central source has control over the eveil. I'm not sure, but wouldn't that constitute as the devil?


I would call that satanism not atheism. An atheist doesn't believe in the concept of God. Believing in any form of supernatural "controlling" force (IE a deity) constitutes an "-ism". (be it sun worship, idolitry, satanism etc.)

Are your friends using it as a metaphor for "badness" (IE antisocial behavior or loose morals etc.)?


----------



## Poetic Device

xarruc said:


> I would call that satanism not atheism. An atheist doesn't believe in the concept of God. Believing in any form of supernatural "controlling" force (IE a deity) constitutes an "-ism". (be it sun worship, idolitry, satanism etc.)
> 
> Are your friends using it as a metaphor for "badness" (IE antisocial behavior or loose morals etc.)?


 
They are saying that they are not sure whether the centre of the evil is a diety or what have you.  For all they know it could be a tree.  (IMHO, I agree with you.)


----------



## faranji

maxiogee said:


> Who says he is 'free to roam'?


 
And the Lord said unto Satan, 
"Whence comest thou?" 
Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, 
"_From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it_."

(Job, 1:7)


----------



## caballoschica

I said before that asking if the Devil really exists begs the question if God really exists because they're both a matter of faith.

But does it really?

Do we need to couple opposites like Heaven and Hell or God and the Devil?

Isn't it possible that one could exist and the other not exist?

If you believe in God, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe there is a devil, does it?  

Or, if we say God exists, do we say the Devil exists to balance out "forces"? 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?  And this is a hard, physical law.  Newton's third law to be accurate.  

If spiritual asymmetry existed, would the world be different now?  (If there were only a heaven or only a hell, only a god, or only a devil, etc.)


----------



## Poetic Device

caballoschica said:


> I said before that asking if the Devil really exists begs the question if God really exists because they're both a matter of faith.
> 
> But does it really?
> 
> Do we need to couple opposites like Heaven and Hell or God and the Devil?
> 
> Isn't it possible that one could exist and the other not exist?
> 
> If you believe in God, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe there is a devil, does it?
> 
> Or, if we say God exists, do we say the Devil exists to balance out "forces"?
> 
> Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? And this is a hard, physical law. Newton's third law to be accurate.
> 
> If spiritual asymmetry existed, would the world be different now? (If there were only a heaven or only a hell, only a god, or only a devil, etc.)


 
Where's that guy that's always looking for scientific proof???

One answer:  Only if you accept that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The same goes for "forces" and the like (think of the force as one huge emotion if that makes any sense).


----------



## etornudo

Outsider said:


> _The Bible_ actually has very little to say about the Devil. Some devil-like creatures show up (e.g. in the _Book of Revelations_, and in _Job_), but it is unclear whether they are all the same being, and just how "high up" they are in the divine hierarchy.
> 
> Many folk ideas about the Devil actually come from popular religion, and were influenced by other religions or heretical sects.



He also tempts Jesus when he's fasting.


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> _The Bible_ actually has very little to say about the Devil. Some devil-like creatures show up (e.g. in the _Book of Revelations_, and in _Job_), but it is unclear whether they are all the same being, and just how "high up" they are in the divine hierarchy.



However, in places where they show up, they do so very prominently and poignantly. Observe e.g. the Gospel story of the Temptation of Christ or the various references to the Devil in New Testament epistles ("your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour," St. Peter warns us). 



> Many folk ideas about the Devil actually come from popular religion, and were influenced by other religions or heretical sects.


In all sorts of Christianity, the line between such ideas and the dogma proper has always been very blurred, especially in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.


----------



## caballoschica

Of course that guy always looking for scientific proof exists....I'm one of those people, myself.  I'm just really open-minded.  

Physical laws don't apply to religion, IMO, but do they apply to how we think?


----------



## maxiogee

caballoschica said:


> I said before that asking if the Devil really exists begs the question if God really exists because they're both a matter of faith.
> But does it really?
> Do we need to couple opposites like Heaven and Hell or God and the Devil?
> Isn't it possible that one could exist and the other not exist?
> If you believe in God, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe there is a devil, does it?
> Or, if we say God exists, do we say the Devil exists to balance out "forces"?
> Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?  And this is a hard, physical law.  Newton's third law to be accurate.
> If spiritual asymmetry existed, would the world be different now?  (If there were only a heaven or only a hell, only a god, or only a devil, etc.)



I think that to truly understand a concept we humans need to be able to imagine its opposite. We can't cope with an "up" without having a "down" - just as, although we grasp the concept of time - we find it really hard to come to terms with is as a dimension as there is no 'counterpart' to it. There is only an  "up" where time is concerned, we can't go "down" in time.

Would "good" be good if there was no evil?
Would "heat" be hot if there was no cold?

We think in terms of sliding scales, I believe, and we like to haev a name for what is at each end. If there is/were no Devil, and God is/was at the top of a goodness scale then we would probably place ourselves at the other end of it and believe ourselves to be evil. That is what some people believe, but I thinbk that it is too extreme for most people, who like to see us as in a middle-ground, and therefore we have either found, or invented the Devil.


----------



## Josh_

maxiogee said:


> Who says he is 'free to roam'? Perhaps it is just his influence which is free to roam. Much the same as human criminal types can still control their operations from prison. As to having more privileges, he is reputedly of a different order of creation than humans and would 'naturally'(?) have different powers/privileges/potential. Theologically I would suppose that God granted the privileges, [but personally I think that we created him and so we imbued him with them].


Yes, I also think we created the idea of the Devil as well as the idea of God/gods, especially a personal God, who wants to have a relationship with us.

Yes, what you say is probably what most Christians believe.  To them everything ultimately comes down to God.  After all God created everything -- Heaven, Hell, and the Devil included. God is omnipotent and the ultimate arbiter of justice (whatever that may be).  So he/she/it ultimately decides who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell.  This is another one of those things I don't understand religion.  If God loves us so, why would he condemn some to eternal damnation and some not.  And what are the guidelines?  What are the determining criteria used to determine whether salvation or damnation is appropriate?  According to many the only unforgivable sin is denial of God? A serial killer can kill ten people and then repent in prison and turn to Jesus and be saved.  on the other end of the spectrum we find that a literal reading of the Catholic faith tells us that a baby who dies before being baptized is sent to Hell.  Where's the justice in that?  Why should having water splashed in your face determine whether you go to Hell or not?  The only conclusion I can draw is that God must be a complete sadist.  Just more reasons why I think the whole concept is flawed.  There are too many inconsistencies for me to think that it is in any way real.  Anyway, I am probably getting off on a tangent now and starting to ramble, so I should stop.


> What de ferral children believe about good and evil?


It's interesting you mention that.  I thought about bringing up the idea of a feral child who had grown up alone away from any of the trappings of societyand how he/she would see the world.  Some who say that there is some absolute morality and Good vs. Evil, mainly religious folk, say that a feral child will learn of this absolute morality at some time since it is all around us and given by God.  But as a moral relativist I do not see this as being the case.  A feral child will grow up having no concept of morality, God, the Devil, good, evil, etc., as those things, and everything else we know to be true or false, is learned from the surrounding society and other individuals living within that society.



> Satan does reward the people that he tricked (his "followers"). He rewards them with earthly wealth and other things that don't really matter much aside from the the human body want for it. God, on the other hand, helps and guides you while ion Earth and rewards you after death. We all go through Heaven and Hell, it's just a matter of when you want them. Personally, I'll take my Hell now so that I may enjoy Heaven a little more.


Why is it so wrong to want to enjoy our lives on Earth, the only home we've ever known?  I'd rather live my life in the here and now and focus on things that are important here than live my life for the hope of some eventual promise in which I have been given no indication as to whether it will be fulfilled or not.


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> However, in places where they show up, they do so very prominently and poignantly. Observe e.g. the Gospel story of the Temptation of Christ [...]


It's interesting that several people have mentioned that passage, because the devil in it could easily be interpreted as figurative: not as an independent being tempting Jesus, but as Jesus overcoming his own temptations.



Athaulf said:


> [...] or the various references to the Devil in New Testament epistles ("your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour," St. Peter warns us).


A clear (and perhaps symbolic) reference to the persecutions of the Romans, it seems to me.


----------



## faranji

Josh Adkins said:


> Why is it so wrong to want to enjoy our lives on Earth, the only home we've ever known? I'd rather live my life in the here and now and focus on things that are important here than live my life for the hope of some eventual promise in which I have been give no indication as to whether it will be fulfilled or not.


 
A-M-E-N to that.


----------



## maxiogee

Josh Adkins said:


> According to many the only unforgivable sin is denial of God? A serial killer can kill ten people and then repent in prison and turn to Jesus and be saved.


You're not the first on these pages to say that, but it isn't that easy. The repentance has to be real. The concept is that God "knows" whether the contrition is valid or not.




> on the other end of the spectrum we find that a literal reading of the Catholic faith tells us that a baby who dies before being baptized is sent to Hell.


No, unbaptised children _used_ to go to Limbo. I'm not sure where they go nowadays (if there can be a 'nowadays' in eternity!). Limbo has been disinvented.


----------



## Kajjo

Josh Adkins said:


> Why is it so wrong to want to enjoy our lives on Earth, the only home we've ever known?  I'd rather live my life in the here and now and focus on things that are important here than live my life for the hope of some eventual promise in which I have been given no indication as to whether it will be fulfilled or not.


Excellent! My thoughts exactly.

I am convinced that the death is the end. Everyone who waits for "later" just throws away his only life. Religion is about many things, some good (hope, humanity), some bad (power, control), but surely it is not about reality.

Kajjo


----------



## Josh_

maxiogee said:


> You're not the first on these pages to say that, but it isn't that easy. The repentance has to be real. The concept is that God "knows" whether the contrition is valid or not.


Which in itself seems somewhat arbitrary.



> No, unbaptised children _used_ to go to Limbo. I'm not sure where they go nowadays (if there can be a 'nowadays' in eternity!). Limbo has been disinvented.


I had a discussion with a Catholic lady and I thought she said they went to Hell.  I don't know.  Maybe I misheard or maybe she meant that since "disinvention" (I like that word) of Limbo they go to Hell.  Either way the child is only guilty of dying before being baptized.  It just doesn't seem like an offense that would bar the child from Heaven.  A rule like this reminds me of legal technicalities, like not being read the Miranda rights, that result in someone who obviously committed a crime being let off.


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> It's interesting that several people have mentioned that _[Temptation of Christ -- A.]_ passage, because the devil in it could easily be interpreted as figurative: not as an independent being tempting Jesus, but as Jesus overcoming his own temptations.



Well, in the same gospel texts, there's an abundance of anecdotes in which devils exorcised by Jesus are specifically depicted as literally existing independent beings, possessing individual consciousness and capable of individual action. He exorcised no less than seven of them out of Mary Magdalene, for instance. 

Thus, whoever it was that authored the final redactions of the canonical gospels, he certainly wanted to send off a message about literally existing evil spirits that are actively operating in this world. 



> _[about the "devil as a roaring lion" of  1 Peter -- A.]_
> A clear (and perhaps symbolic) reference to the persecutions of the Romans, it seems to me.


Perhaps -- but if the writer of 1 Peter hadn't believed in a literally existing devil, I think he would have been careful not to use such figures of speech that can be easily interpreted as confirming the devil's existence and activity. And anyway, there are many other unambiguous and prominent references to devils throughout the corpus of New Testament epistles.


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> No, unbaptised children _used_ to go to Limbo. I'm not sure where they go nowadays (if there can be a 'nowadays' in eternity!). Limbo has been disinvented.


This is not a very accurate statement. First, there has never been any official dogmatic pronouncement on this issue by the Catholic Church, but only speculations of prominent theologians that have never been dogmatized (here is more than you'll probably ever want to know on the topic). As for the "disinventing," there have been tendencies in this direction lately, but no formal statements as of yet.


----------



## maxiogee

I probably need to say here that I am speaking of what I believe to be the Catholic Church's teaching on these matters. I do not believe in these things and am only reportiing what I believe to be the way it sees things.



Josh Adkins said:


> Which in itself seems somewhat arbitrary.
> 
> .



To whom does it appear arbitrary? 
There are only two entities involved in the process.

If one is a believer, one knows the rules. Knowing the rules means that when one faces one's Maker the decision is not arbitrary - it is a foregone conclusion. One has either died contrite or one hasn't. It is not given to those who remain behind one to know whether one has gone to heaven or to hell. So there is no way those who do remain can bne affected by the 'decision', nor is there any way in which they can feel it is arbitrary.




> I had a discussion with a Catholic lady and I thought she said they went to Hell.  I don't know.  Maybe I misheard or maybe she meant that since "disinvention" (I like that word) of Limbo they go to Hell.  Either way the child is only guilty of dying before being baptized.  It just doesn't seem like an offense that would bar the child from Heaven.  A rule like this reminds me of legal technicalities, like not being read the Miranda rights, that result in someone who obviously committed a crime being let off
> 
> .



Perhaps one of the prices of admission to heaven is that one has accepted one's God as being just that, one's creator.
Heaven is God's preserve - admission is His gift. Not all gifts are given to everyone.
As a parent I give a different gift to my wife than I do to my son at times when I give gifts.

You seem to be applying human concepts of fairness and justice to concepts which are extra-human. 

Animals rearing sets of young often let the smallest starve slowly and lavish their attentions of the largest (generally the first born of a brood) and the other is a sort of 'spare' in case the other offspring dies in the birth process, or in the earliest days of its life. Then the 'spare' is still around to be a second-chance at success in that breeding season.
That process is seen as callous by humans who put their own emotions and experiences into their judgement. Were the mother lioness/mother falcon/ mother whatever able to speak to us and answer the accusation of callousness she'd probably explain that a second offspring might be a burden on her food resources, or take too much attention in rearing it, being a distraction to her attention to the one most likely to survive. We need to be careful about applying our own views of what is 'right' to things which don't have 'rightness', as we see it, in them.


----------



## cuchuflete

Does the Devil really exist?

No.

Does the Devil really exist for those who want to believe that the Devil really exists?

Sure, why not?

Has limbo really been 'disinvented'?  Nope.  We all live in it...  Take the elevator down to the place
where no threads have any context, and where all new CD threads are started by newbies asking what language they should study.


Dante believed in the Devil, and in Limbo.  Would you rather trust Dante or a theologian?


----------



## CrazyArcher

I completely agree with Josh. If we take christian religion apart logically, god turns out to be a complete sadist and psychopath. So, even if he exists, I don't wanna be his bi**h. I'm not a weak person to be inimidated about stories of eternal torment. I think there's no place for belief in life, everything should be based on *knowledge*, so I act according to my personal experiences, which are things that I know for sure and, surprisingly, don't speak in favor of what people call "religion".


----------



## danielfranco

Ah, but the epistemological debate rages on, don't it? I mean, how can we know anything at all for sure? At one point or another assumptions are accepted almost as an article of faith. There are no "first causes", apparently.
And there's the problem about knowledge being like an expanding balloon that contains the sum total of facts known, while the surface of the balloon represents the boundary of awareness with things-to-know, which means that the more we know, the more we become aware of an ever increasing amount of things we don't know.

I think the logical approach to religion doesn't reveal a defective God, in human terms, but a very "different than human" one (some people might say "alien" instead, some others might say "holy"...) To analyze religions logically leaves one stranded with no point of reference or relationship with a deity. I mean, what can a god need from puny humans?
By the same token, what does the devil profit from humans' souls?

So, does the devil really-really exists? Who can know? But I believe he does.


----------



## Athaulf

CrazyArcher said:


> If we take christian religion apart logically, god turns out to be a complete sadist and psychopath.



The problem with such an approach, however, that this "logic" necessarily relies on some external criteria that you use to determine what constitutes "sadism" and "psychopathology" -- and these criteria are necessarily grounded in some moral beliefs that themselves cannot be justified except by metaphysical arguments or by appealing to authority or popular consensus. But this makes them inherently as "unlogical" as the religion that they are used to attack.


----------



## la reine victoria

cuchuflete said:


> Dante believed in the Devil, and in Limbo. Would you rather trust Dante or a theologian?


 
I'd rather trust my own intuition.

All will be revealed when we cross the border between life and death.  But if there is nothing then we shall know nothing.

LRV


----------



## badgrammar

la reine victoria said:


> I'd rather trust my own intuition.
> 
> All will be revealed when we cross the border between life and death.  But if there is nothing then we shall know nothing.
> 
> LRV



Yes, and isn't that the true dilemma?  We can ask all we want, think all we want, but by the time you know, it's far too late, and perhaps to late to even realize that in fact, there is nothing.  

Which is why those that have faith - and I quite respect them even if I'm not among them - simply believe.  So on their dying day, they are sure where they  are going...  and if there is nothing, then, well, they'll never know the difference, will they?


----------



## CrazyArcher

Athaulf said:


> The problem with such an approach, however, that this "logic" necessarily relies on some external criteria that you use to determine what constitutes "sadism" and "psychopathology" -- and these criteria are necessarily grounded in some moral beliefs that themselves cannot be justified except by metaphysical arguments or by appealing to authority or popular consensus. But this makes them inherently as "unlogical" as the religion that they are used to attack.


Okay, so under "sadism" and "psychopathology" I meant "complete unpredictability". If something happens, it happens for a reason. If the only reason is a momentary wish of some entity who is by chance all-mighty, then I surely don't really like that entity for the same reasons I'd rather stay away from a clinical psychopath.
I see no problem with approaching the subject with my own logic. It's me who lives with this logic, so it's my right to decide what kind of logic I'll use. If an alien comes and says "As far as I know 2+2=8", I"ll still think that it's 4, because when people count potatoes and construct spaceships, the latter variant is one which works.


----------



## Josh_

maxiogee said:


> To whom does it appear arbitrary?
> There are only two entities involved in the process.
> 
> If one is a believer, one knows the rules. Knowing the rules means that when one faces one's Maker the decision is not arbitrary - it is a foregone conclusion. One has either died contrite or one hasn't. It is not given to those who remain behind one to know whether one has gone to heaven or to hell. So there is no way those who do remain can bne affected by the 'decision', nor is there any way in which they can feel it is arbitrary.


But what are the rules?  Different religions and within Christiany different sects have different rules that one must follow.  Some say you need to only be a True Believer©, others say one needs to be a True Believer© and perform works as well, and yet others have other requirements.  That's what I meant by arbitrary.  



> Perhaps one of the prices of admission to heaven is that one has accepted one's God as being just that, one's creator.
> Heaven is God's preserve - admission is His gift. Not all gifts are given to everyone.
> As a parent I give a different gift to my wife than I do to my son at times when I give gifts.
> 
> You seem to be applying human concepts of fairness and justice to concepts which are extra-human.


   Aah, now you have touched upon one of my other contentions with religion which has to do with who or what exactly God is. Many of the most used attributes of God that people have come up with (immutable, ineffable, infinite, incomprehensible, immortal) are negative attributes in that they tell us what God isn't, but not what he/she/it is.  But to get to the point yes, you are right; I have been applying human concepts of fairness and justice and that is because I am a human being and my understanding of nature as a human being is my point of departure.  I assume you agree that you, I, and every other human being is bound by the laws of physics and bound by the rational capacity of human thought -- what we may term the 'natural world'.  Anything that is supposedly supernatural, extra-human or transcends nature in some way is incomprehensible (one of the many attributes of God) and beyond the scope of human reason and knowledge.  So I ask, if God created us, wants us to have a personal relationship with him, and wants us to follow his rules, laws, examples, etc., why would he make those rules and laws beyond our understanding? Why would God judge us by some concept of fairness and justice that is extra-human, when in fact, we are only humans and are only able to understand and/or form ideas of fairness and justice from a human perspective?  That's like judging the actions of three year old as though he/she were 21.  One would think that if God wanted us to follow a set of rules that he/she/it would condescend to our level, as it were, and make those rules within our scope of knowledge and base his/her/its judgment by our understanding so we would know what to expect.  If they are extra-human then we can have no idea of what to expect come Judgment Day and indeed our concepts of them are useless as God judges us by his own concepts of them.


----------



## JamesM

> Aah, now you have touched upon one of my other contentions with religion which has to do with who or what exactly God is. Many of the most used attributes of God that people have come up with (immutable, ineffable, infinite, incomprehensible, immortal) are negative attributes in that they tell us what God isn't, but not what he/she/it is.


 
Just as a point of logic, when we are attempting to describe an infinite being, we are in a difficult spot to begin with. Words that define what something _is_ define it as opposed to what it's not. There is nothing outside of an infinite being to use for comparison or contrast. If you can take, for a moment, the premise that there is an infinite being, what would you use to define that being? The only thing it can be compared to is itself. This is the reasoning given for why God gives his name as "I Am" to Moses; there is no other name that can be used that would not also limit his scope. It reminds me of an old mock final that used to be passed around when I was in college; one of the questions was: "Define the universe.  Give three examples."  

As for the Devil, or Satan (attempting to get back on-topic here), he is not an infinite being (according to Christian beliefs) so it's a bit easier to describe behavior and characteristics. There is something he is not, so we have something to use for comparison and contrast.


----------



## aleCcowaN

la reine victoria said:


> Following on from dot commers' thread, "What is evil?", I would be interested to know if you actually believe in the existence of the Devil?


Believing has no existential meaning to me (though it has many in the anthropological and psychological fields).

Does the Devil really exist? Not at all, but "ittt" has many disciples. This "ittt" as {}, its counterpart in mathematics, seems to be a member of every set of beliefs. Amazingly, many wars have been fought by diverging interpretations of {}.


----------



## maxiogee

Josh Adkins said:


> But what are the rules?  Different religions and within Christiany different sects have different rules that one must follow.  Some say you need to only be a True Believer©, others say one needs to be a True Believer© and perform works as well, and yet others have other requirements.  That's what I meant by arbitrary.


You pays your money and you takes your choice.
It really is that simple. Do - within the rules of your chosen religion - what appears to be 'right' to you and you will, if there is a Heaven, be admitted when you get there. Why are you concerned whether you need to just believe, or 'believe and act'?
You'll know when you get there!  




> Aah, now you have touched upon one of my other contentions with religion which has to do with who or what exactly God is. Many of the most used attributes of God that people have come up with (immutable, ineffable, infinite, incomprehensible, immortal) are negative attributes in that they tell us what God isn't, but not what he/she/it is.  But to get to the point yes, you are right; I have been applying human concepts of fairness and justice and that is because I am a human being and my understanding of nature as a human being is my point of departure.  I assume you agree that you, I, and every other human being is bound by the laws of physics and bound by the rational capacity of human thought -- what we may term the 'natural world'.  Anything that is supposedly supernatural, extra-human or transcends nature in some way is incomprehensible (one of the many attributes of God) and beyond the scope of human reason and knowledge.  So I ask, if God created us, wants us to have a personal relationship with him, and wants us to follow his rules, laws, examples, etc., why would he make those rules and laws beyond our understanding? Why would God judge us by some concept of fairness and justice that is extra-human, when in fact, we are only humans and are only able to understand and/or form ideas of fairness and justice from a human perspective?  That's like judging the actions of three year old as though he/she were 21.  One would think that if God wanted us to follow a set of rules that he/she/it would condescend to our level, as it were, and make those rules within our scope of knowledge and base his/her/its judgment by our understanding so we would know what to expect.  If they are extra-human then we can have no idea of what to expect come Judgment Day and indeed our concepts of them are useless as God judges us by his own concepts of them.



Josh, please don't assume - just read what I wrote....



maxiogee said:


> *I probably need to say here that I am speaking of what I believe to be the Catholic Church's teaching on these matters. I do not believe in these things and am only reportiing what I believe to be the way it sees things.*


​
To get answers to your questions you need to speak to experts in these matters.
My take on it all is that (if there is a God) He has set the standards for *both* entry into Heaven and for our ability to come to a decision as to how to get there. As in any 'judgement', marks will be awarded according to how hard one tries - according to the information with which one was provided.

You say


> One would think that if God wanted us to follow a set of rules that he/she/it would condescend to our level, as it were, and make those rules within our scope of knowledge


*Oh come on!  *
He has, in most religious traditions that I know of. 

What do you think the Bible and the Ten Commandments / Koran / Book of Mormon / ..... / are - but instruction books and training manuals for the aspiring 'Believer'. 

How explicit do you want the Ten Commandments to be before you see what they are supposed to be?

There are both 'revealed' scripture and prophets in many religious traditions.


----------



## maxiogee

On a point raised by the concept of different religions having different Gods / Devils / rules …

Perhaps the whole point of creation is a Godly experiment to see how, given the same intellectual powers and differing types of rules, people react to them and act. Maybe the one God (if there is one) created all the religions as a laboratory experiment.

If you really need to know the answers to the thread question, or to questions raised as a result of it, I suggest that a course of study in Theology and/or Philosophy might be more fruitful than WordRef as a source of answers.


----------



## Denis555

I think anyone who really believes in the Devil or God, must first do some _serious_ thinking.
At the end of the day, religion has killed more people than any Devil could have ever done. 

http://richarddawkins.net/home 

Greetings,
DENIS


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> On a point raised by the concept of different religions having different Gods / Devils / rules …
> 
> Perhaps the whole point of creation is a Godly experiment to see how, given the same intellectual powers and differing types of rules, people react to them and act. Maybe the one God (if there is one) created all the religions as a laboratory experiment.



What you are suggesting here seems to me far from Christian concept of God in which God knows everything, so you are suggesting a "different" God which is in fact what all religions are about: they are based on either a different God or a different messenger.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> If you really need to know the answers to the thread question, or to questions raised as a result of it, I suggest that a course of study in Theology and/or Philosophy might be more fruitful than WordRef as a source of answers.



My opinion is that there is no answer. It would be the same as asking Does God really exists. No rational argument is useful. A course in theology would teach us many things but not _give_ us answers, it might in fact raise many questions; a course in Philosophy would show us the _opinions_ of philosophers on this subject and only their opinions, which could get us to create our own answers.


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> What you are suggesting here seems to me far from Christian concept of God in which God knows everything,
> 
> .


 
I don't believe in the Christian God! How often do I have to say it?

Christianity may say that God knows everything, but then it counters that by saying 
(a) that we have been granted free will, and cann act independently
(b) that our actions are not, just because God may know what they will be, pre-determined.



> so you are suggesting a "different" God which is in fact what all religions are about: they are based on either a different God or a different messenger
> 
> .


 
Why not? The way I envisage it is somewhat like this....

My mother knew me as "Anthony";
My sister knew me as one of her brothers;
My schoolfriends knew me as "Anto";
My teachers knew me as "Mr O'Grady";
My doctor knows me as "Mr McCoy O'Grady"
My wife knows me as "Tony";
My son knows me as "Dad".

They all knew a slightly different person, but I am a mixture of all the people they knew. I am one person and nobody knews the whole of me.
​ 



> a course in Philosophy would show us the _opinions_ of philosophers on this subject and only their opinions, which could get us to create our own answers
> 
> .


No, a course in philosophy is designed to teach one how to think! *That* brings one to one's own answers. And in this matter, I believe, our own answers are what is important to both our existence here, and (if there is a god) our future after death.


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> I don't believe in the Christian God! How often do I have to say it?



I did not say I thought you beleived in the Christian God. I said that what you wrote is far from the Christian concept.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Christianity may say that God knows everything, but then it counters that by saying
> (a) that we have been granted free will, and cann act independently
> (b) that our actions are not, just because God may know what they will be, pre-determined.



(I'm not sure about your "b")  In fact, this corresponds to what I stated that is that religion/theology rises more questions than it gives answers.  




			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why not?



Indeed, why not?




			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> No, a course in philosophy is designed to teach one how to think! *That* brings one to one's own answers. And in this matter, I believe, our own answers are what is important to both our existence here, and (if there is a god) our future after death.



Why do you start your sentence by: "no"? I said philosophy tells us the thoughts of philosophers and studying philosophy might bring us to our own answers


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> I did not say I thought you beleived in the Christian God. I said that what you wrote is far from the Christian concept
> 
> .


But why make such a comment to someone who doesn't hold to Christianity. There are other ways of looking at "God".




> (I'm not sure about your "b")


Ask a priest. 





> In fact, this corresponds to what I stated that is that religion/theology rises more questions than it gives answers
> 
> .


Only for those who are trying to compare different religions. If one has 'faith' in one's chosen religion one doesn't see questions being raised by this. 




> Why do you start your sentence by: "no"? I said philosophy tells us the thoughts of philosophers and studying philosophy might bring us to our own answers
> 
> .


What you actually said was "... a course in Philosophy would show us the _opinions_ of philosophers on this subject and only their opinions ..." , that's why I said 'No'. 
A course of study of philosophy only highlights the thinking of _some_ philosophers, not of 'philosophers' - I doubt that there is any course which covers all philosophical 'schools of thought' - let alone all philosophers. My point was that such course is designed to teach one _how_ to think.


----------



## Josh_

maxiogee said:


> You pays your money and you takes your choice.
> It really is that simple. Do - within the rules of your chosen religion - what appears to be 'right' to you and you will, if there is a Heaven, be admitted when you get there.


What if one's chosen faith is the wrong one, though?  After, all most faiths hold that only theirs is the true blue correct faith and all others are wrong.   'Arbitrary' was probably the wrong word to choose.  That reminds me.  Back in my ecumenical/pan-religion days when I still kind of believed in a heaven I used to make the analogy that religion was like a wheel with spokes in which they meet in the middle.  The end of the spoke on the outer edge was our point of departure.  Everyone's point of departure was different, that is, we all follow different paths.  All of our different paths lead to the same place -- the middle/Heaven.



> *Oh come on!  *
> He has, in most religious traditions that I know of.
> 
> What do you think the Bible and the Ten Commandments / Koran / Book of Mormon / ..... / are - but instruction books and training manuals for the aspiring 'Believer'.
> 
> How explicit do you want the Ten Commandments to be before you see what they are supposed to be?
> 
> There are both 'revealed' scripture and prophets in many religious traditions.


You're the one you told me I was applying human concepts of fairness and justice to things that are extra-human.  So I responded therein.   Really, though, as I am aware that you are not an adherent to Christianity, my post more a general response to Christian theological arguments I have heard as well as to all those who have told me that God is mysterious, incomprehensible, supernatural, etc., yet I could somehow know him and have a personal relationship with him.  How can I know or have a relationship with an incomprehensible being?  All things I can possible know are confined within the natural world, but God is supernatural.  And if I can know and understand God then it follows necessarily that he is within the realm of the natural world, in which case he would cease to be a god.  Anyway, if God wants to have a personal relationship with me he is free to drop me a line at any time.  I don't know if I'll wait by the phone, though.


----------



## Poetic Device

Kajjo said:


> Excellent! My thoughts exactly.
> 
> I am convinced that the death is the end. Everyone who waits for "later" just throws away his only life. Religion is about many things, some good (hope, humanity), some bad (power, control), but surely it is not about reality.
> 
> Kajjo


 
So does that mean we should take liberty to do anything we want?

As far as the good and evil thing is concerned, let's pretend that we did not label anything good, bad or evil.  Isn't it funny that your life is a little easier if, let's say, you stay away from heroine or commit murder?  Granted, those two examples are harsh as all get out, but I think that they prove the point...  Just in case they do not, my point is simply this:  The positive and negative energy that surrounds different actions that life offers you to take is real, and it does not need a label to be real.  Did you ever hear a little something tell you to do something?  Some people call that a conscious (sp).  Many say that is either God or another force (be it Satan or whomever) depending on what the action they are suggesting is.  The many people that have told me that it was a spiritual experience all described it the same way:  it's a voice that is not your own and really has no distinct sound.  When it comes there is no other thought or sound in your head, and the feeling is very clear and very crisp (like early morning in winter).  Are these people right?  Can you say either way?  Does it have to be explainable?


----------



## Kajjo

Poetic Device said:


> So does that mean we should take liberty to do anything we want?


Being responsible, humane, honest, helpful to others, caring for your children and family ... all that has nothing at all to do with god. I can be a good citizen of a society without believing in deities of any kind.

However, I think there is no need in limiting your own liberty, in chastizing yourself, in not granting your yourself your dearest wishes just because there might be a god that _after life is over_ might punish you. 



> The many people that have told me that it was a spiritual experience all described it the same way:  it's a voice that is not your own and really has no distinct sound.  When it comes there is no other thought or sound in your head, and the feeling is very clear and very crisp (like early morning in winter).  Are these people right?  Can you say either way?  Does it have to be explainable?


I do not believe in such things. Whatever those people experienced, I am sure it has natural causes.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Josh Adkins said:


> What if one's chosen faith is the wrong one, though? After, all most faiths hold that only theirs is the true blue correct faith and all others are wrong.
> 
> .


I think that the great 'fault' in most religions is spurning God - sin, if you will.
To see 'your' God in a different light than their 'true' God is not to spurn God - it is just to see that God differently.

There may well be a difference at the gates of Heaven, if there is I'll be doubly surprised. [(a) at there being a Heaven, and (b) at their being any distinction between religions.

But the point is - Religion X says you must to A, B & C. If you are a follower of Religion X then
If you have done A, B & C you will get into heaven if
Religion X is the true Religion
Religion X is on a par with all Religions
Religion X is not the true Religion, but God thinks you did what you thought best according to your upbringing.​
If you have done A, B & C you will not get in to heaven if  
Religion X is not the True Religion (but you already know now that it might not be)
If there is no Heaven (but that's a subset of the previous one.)​
If you have not done A, B & C then you will not get into heaven if 
Religion X is the true Religion
Religion X is on a par with all other religions
Religion X is not the true Religion, but God thinks you had a set of rules and didn't keep to them​ 
I don't see a problem with these things. 




> How can I know or have a relationship with an incomprehensible being?
> 
> .


Can a blind person not 'know' an elephant?
We can know those bits of God which he chooses to reveal to us. This is why I mentioned the idea of scriptures.
If there is a God, and if any of the religions are true, then we have ways to get to know him in our fashion.




> And if I can know and understand God then it follows necessarily that he is within the realm of the natural world, in which case he would cease to be a god
> 
> .


Only if he were totally within the natural world.
We are informed by those who say that they know these things that he is of both this world and the 'other'/'next'/'totality'.

Your entry says you are 'in' Detroit, are you not also 'in' Michigan?
Detroit is a subset of Michigan - our realm is but a subset of His creation.


----------



## cuchuflete

Maxiogee said:
			
		

> If there is a God, and if any of the religions are true, then we have ways to get to know him in our fashion.



If there is a God, or many Gods, and if all religions are false, then we have ways to get to know him or them in our fashion.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> Being responsible, humane, honest, helpful to others, caring for your children and family ... all that has nothing at all to do with god. I can be a good citizen of a society without believing in deities of any kind.



The problem with such an attitude, however, is that at the end of the day, entities and concepts such as "citizenship" or "society" (and even "good" in general) are also metaphysical fictions that exist only because the majority of people have been convinced of their existence and are willing to accept them as a guide for their lives. Modern people like to pride themselves in being free of yesterday's religious dogma that nowadays seems hopelessly naive and superstitious, but it seems to me like the old fictions have merely been replaced by new ones of different form, but same essence.


----------



## Poetic Device

cuchuflete said:


> If there is a God, or many Gods, and if all religions are false, then we have ways to get to know him or them in our fashion.


 
Can you translate that into dummy?


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> The problem with such an attitude, however, is that at the end of the day, entities and concepts such as "citizenship" or "society" (and even "good" in general) are also metaphysical fictions that exist only because the majority of people have been convinced of their existence and are willing to accept them as a guide for their lives. Modern people like to pride themselves in being free of yesterday's religious dogma that nowadays seems hopelessly naive and superstitious, but it seems to me like the old fictions have merely been replaced by new ones of different form, but same essence.


There is a difference between the metaphysical (or supernatural) and the social. I do not agree that they are of the same essence.


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> The problem with such an attitude, however, is that at the end of the day, entities and concepts such as "citizenship" or "society" (and even "good" in general) are also metaphysical fictions that exist only because the majority of people have been convinced of their existence and are willing to accept them as a guide for their lives. Modern people like to pride themselves in being free of yesterday's religious dogma that nowadays seems hopelessly naive and superstitious, but it seems to me like the old fictions have merely been replaced by new ones of different form, but same essence.



What has replaced religion? 
The concepts of citizenship and society are not new, and they may even predate religion - as religions had to from within societies, they could not have existed outside of them? And you need society before you get citizenship, as there can be no citizen without there being a society for that citizen to belong to.

Religion and citizenship are just different ways of 'refining' society into smaller units.
We seem to be going in the opposite direction with the rise of the trans-national society - be it the trans-state USA, the multi-national EU, the way sports clubs have international followings and, I suppose, the slow decline in the number of languages spoken around the world. 
We are heading for membership of larger units than we belonged to before.


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
> If there is a God, or many Gods, and if all religions are false, then we have ways to get to know him or them in our fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you translate that into dummy?
Click to expand...


There is a common misconception that whatever one may know, feel, think or believe about a deity
or deities is a function of religion or the absence of religion.   Spirituality does not require bricks and mortar or theology or hierarchies or sacred texts.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> There is a common misconception that whatever one may know, feel, think or believe about a deity
> or deities is a function of religion or the absence of religion.   Spirituality does not require bricks and mortar or theology or hierarchies or sacred texts.



But Spirituality has nothing to do with God 
If it were all _that_ easy we'd all be laughing 

Has anyone seen any sign of a Devil around here. I think we've lost one, and I've been pushing at the boundaries of my knowledge of Christian theology pretty hard recently. Can I have a hand from a practising Christian who knows what it's all about, please? Pretty please?


----------



## JamesM

maxiogee said:


> Has anyone seen any sign of a Devil around here. I think we've lost one, and I've been pushing at the boundaries of my knowledge of Christian theology pretty hard recently. Can I have a hand from a practising Christian who knows what it's all about, please? Pretty please?


 
I'm a practicing Christian, but no theologian, and I definitely wouldn't even begin to pretend that I know "all about it." It seemed to me that many of the posts had to do with something completely different than a discussion of the Devil or God - something more akin to "why I hate religion." 

I've been reading it all with interest, but I haven't seen many openings where I thought I could contribute to the thread.

I think the question of whether or not there is a Devil is a good question. I personally think that much of what gets blamed on the devil is simply an excuse for people to do what they want when they know they shouldn't.  

There is quite a popular movement these days to blame religion for all wars and conflict, and it's certainly true that many wars have been fought in the name of religion over the centuries. However, many of the wars in the 20th century had nothing to do with religion, as far as I understand. I don't think World Wars I or II were religion-based in any way and World War I was by far the deadliest war ever. Removing religion from the picture will not stop war. War is a function of fear, greed, pride, envy, and hatred. Those are all part of the human make-up, in my opinion, and humans will simply choose another excuse for going to war other than religion if religion is removed or suppressed in some way. 

Now, does the devil stir up all these things in people? Does he make people do things they otherwise wouldn't? I don't know. I think we can align ourselves with creative or destructive forces on every level of existence - spiritual, political, social, familial, financial. I think we can go beyond alignment and surrender our lives to creative or destructive forces, too. If there is free will, as I believe there is, then the bad news is that we get to be responsible for our own choices in these matters.


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> I'm a practicing Christian, but no theologian, and I definitely wouldn't even begin to pretend that I know "all about it." It seemed to me that many of the posts had to do with something completely different than a discussion of the Devil or God - something more akin to "why I hate religion."
> 
> .


Yes, I tend to try to avoid those things too. I do like a good debate though and this thread has had an interesting point or two brought up in it.




> I think the question of whether or not there is a Devil is a good question. I personally think that much of what gets blamed on the devil is simply an excuse for people to do what they want when they know they shouldn't.
> 
> .


I don't think too many people would argue with you there. Maybe about the 'much' - some might want to say 'all'.




> There is quite a popular movement these days to blame religion for all wars and conflict, and it's certainly true that many wars have been fought in the name of religion over the centuries.
> 
> .


Yes, but they would probably have been fought over other things had religion not been the handiest 'cause' to hang them on. Humans don't really care - I believe - what religion someone in a foreign land is, they care about (a) land, (b) trade, (c) the power both bring to those who control them. And I believe that this has been true for a very long time. Wars and invasions are all about that. Even the crusades (the religious-iest wars there have been) were more about power back in Europe than about the Holy Land itself.




> Now, does the devil stir up all these things in people? Does he make people do things they otherwise wouldn't? I don't know.
> 
> .


If he exists - and exists as the entity we think him to be - then he 'ought' to be making them do these things. He's not fulfilling his function if he isn't.
If he's not responsible for a certain amount of what is wrong here, what *is* he doing?


I find the views of religion on the concept of temptation to be interestingly contrasted with the views of our secular societies.
We have concern for the person tempted by the Devil who lapses and sins. we 'understand' the sin and the sinner. We are urged to hate the sin but love the sinner. We have rituals built into our religions so that they can repent and assuage their guilt.
But - the authorities can set up a sting operation in most jurisdictions, and entrap a suspect, and on the basis of that entrapment alone the person can be sent to prison. No repentance acceptable. No societal 'understanding' of how easy it is to fall.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Another point that might be interesting is what defines a deity? The widespread definition says that there's one god who is all-knowing, all-mighty etc. But if we downscale the picture and replace people with and a human is god. Of course, the ants don't understand the motiffs of humans, they can track any movement of a single ant and by their standards humans are all-mighty, although the latter isn't really true. So, ants may assume that humans are gods. If the ants can't distinguish between different humans, they can't tell if the 'god' is one or many, and might attribute any unexpected events happening (positive or negative) in their lives as 'god's' intervention.
I don't think that the reality is much different from this picture. It might very well be that there are some aliens with technology much more advanced than ours who experiment with the human civilization, and everything what we call supernatural is quite natural, but just hasn't been explained by science of our days. It's also a possible scenario, isn't it? This way the question who is good and who is bad doesn't have much value, asuuming that the aliens are all having a common objective and are not divided into opposing factions.


----------



## JamesM

> Another point that might be interesting is what defines a deity?


 
This sounds like a question that deserves its own thread.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Well, but if the topic is "devil", then it's closely linked to this question...


----------



## Josh_

maxiogee said:


> I think that the great 'fault' in most religions is spurning God - sin, if you will.
> To see 'your' God in a different light than their 'true' God is not to spurn God - it is just to see that God differently.
> 
> There may well be a difference at the gates of Heaven, if there is I'll be doubly surprised. [(a) at there being a Heaven, and (b) at their being any distinction between religions.
> 
> But the point is - Religion X says you must to A, B & C. If you are a follower of Religion X then
> If you have done A, B & C you will get into heaven ifReligion X is the true Religion
> Religion X is on a par with all Religions
> Religion X is not the true Religion, but God thinks you did what you thought best according to your upbringing.​If you have done A, B & C you will not get in to heaven ifReligion X is not the True Religion (but you already know now that it might not be)
> If there is no Heaven (but that's a subset of the previous one.)​If you have not done A, B & C then you will not get into heaven ifReligion X is the true Religion
> Religion X is on a par with all other religions
> Religion X is not the true Religion, but God thinks you had a set of rules and didn't keep to them​I don't see a problem with these things.


Let's hope it's as simple as that.



> Can a blind person not 'know' an elephant?


An elephant is still a tangible, corporeal object.  The blind person may not have use of one of his/her senses, but he/she still has four others with which to interact with the world.  God, on the other hand, who is supernatural, is by extension extrasensory -- we cannot use any of our five senses in order to experience him.  We cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or hear him.  I believe most, if not all, theists would agree with the contention that God is not experienced through the the five _physiological_ senses with which we perceive and interact with our world. Furthermore, perception of something by the five sense presupposes that something is bound within the confines of the physical world, which God is not.



> We can know those bits of God which he chooses to reveal to us. This is why I mentioned the idea of scriptures.


  How do I know the scriptures came from God?  As Carl Sagan would say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."


> If there is a God, and if any of the religions are true, then we have ways to get to know him in our fashion.


Yes, you would think that if God wanted us to know him he would make himself known in some way -- in some way we can understand based on our status as human beings bound by our limited human rationale capacity.



> Only if he were totally within the natural world.
> We are informed by those who say that they know these things that he is of both this world and the 'other'/'next'/'totality'.


I would ask those who know these things how they know these things.  In what way does God manifest himself in the natural world?



> Your entry says you are 'in' Detroit, are you not also 'in' Michigan?
> Detroit is a subset of Michigan - our realm is but a subset of His creation.


Analogies are nice, and they can serve their purpose, but an analogy presupposes that (1) two things are similar in some way and (2) we have had some experience with which we are comparing, otherwise how ca we make a valid comparison.  Our experience comes through the physical world. As God is supernatural and beyond physical world, something with which we cannot comprehend with the human mind we have no way of examining his characteristics and thus any comparison we could come up with would fall short and be rendered meaningless.  'Detroit is to Michigan what our realm is to God's creation' might sound nice and inspirational in some way, but we have no way of knowing the veracity of that.  Comparing God to man is like, as the saying goes, comparing apples to oranges.  We have no experience with the supernatural and cannot compare the natural with the supernatural.

To tie all this in to the Devil (who has apparently worked his magic in this thread by diverting our attention away from him), yes, as JamesM said, the Devil is not considered an infinite being, so we have at least a starting point with which to define his character, but he, like his creator, God, is still an intangible being who is beyond the realm of the physical world, and by extension human understanding, and therefore we have no way of knowing anything of his nature.  He is still, I contend, as incomprehensible as his incomprehensible maker.



----------------------------------------------------


JamesM said:


> I'm a practicing Christian, but no theologian, and I definitely wouldn't even begin to pretend that I know "all about it." It seemed to me that many of the posts had to do with something completely different than a discussion of the Devil or God - something more akin to "why I hate religion."


Speaking for myself I just wanted to say that while I might look critically at religion I don't hate it. Hate is an emotion and looking at something from an emotional standpoint, especially a negative emotion, is not looking at it objectively.  I have just tried to look at religion as objectively as possible from a logical and rational standpoint and base my understanding and explanations therein on reason, and not on emotion.  I do fully respect those who profess a faith and admire their conviction, and would defend their right to believe what they believe.  I view all faiths with equal footing; I do not think one is better than the other.  For the most part they all have good messages which could benefit us all if incorporated into our lives. 

Like maxiogee, I, too, love a good debate.


----------



## maxiogee

Josh Adkins said:


> An elephant is still a tangible, corporeal object.  The blind person may not have use of one of his/her senses, but he/she still has four others with which to interact with the world.  God, on the other hand, who is supernatural, is by extension extrasensory -- we cannot use any of our five senses in order to experience him.  We cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or hear him.  I believe most, if not all, theists would agree with the contention that God is not experienced through the the five _physiological_ senses with which we perceive and interact with our world. Furthermore, perception of something by the five sense presupposes that something is bound within the confines of the physical world, which God is not.
> 
> .



But, with both the elephant and with God, we can use what we can sense to build a mental image of what is there.




> How do I know the scriptures came from God?
> 
> .


We cannot 'know" the unknowable. I cannot "know" if Religion X is the rigth one - but I can look around (although most people never do) and compare religions and when I find one I can accept as a viable one I need to work to develop a faith in the God it espouses. This will generally begin by my accepting at face value that the claims that the scriptures of this relgion come from God. It is all part of having that intangible thing called "faith". But - I don't *have to* do this, it is my choice.




> I would ask those who know these things how they know these things.  In what way does God manifest himself in the natural world?
> 
> .


Why would you ask?
Why do you need to know?


----------



## JamesM

> We have no experience with the supernatural and cannot compare the natural with the supernatural.


 
This "we" is the sticking point, I'd contend.  There are plenty of people, myself included, who will say that they have experienced the supernatural. The scientific method does not allow for direct access to this experience, but it does not make it any less real for me.

The natural and the supernatural are experienced in different realms, but so are many of our moment-to-moment experiences that we accept without question. Can you "show" me a "disappointment"? a "debate"? a "comparison"? If you are opened up, will I be able to see, touch, taste, hear, or smell some object in your brain that is any of these? These things are accepted as real. They have physiological results to some degree that can be measured, but they are not the results. They are the source of the results. 

If you strictly apply the five-sense test, these things are unknowable at their source, only by their effects. Yet we operate every day on the solid assumption that these are real because we experience them and many things like them without any demonstrable proof that they exist, only personal experience. 

This "five-sense test" idea falls down pretty quickly when it comes simply to consciousness and self-awareness. If we start with "I only believe what my five senses tell me", a fundamental question is, "Who is this 'I' and how can the five senses of someone outside of 'I' prove that this 'I' exists?" Someone outside can only see secondary, circumstantial evidence that there is an "I" over there.

A relationship to God is very similar. I can point to effects, results, changes as a result of the relationship, but I can't prove that the relationship itself exists. It lives in a realm that falls outside the five-senses test, but so does the "I" that is experiencing the relationship. and so does the concept "relationship". To argue that something is unknowable because it is not tangible through the five senses is to ignore huge portions of where life itself occurs, including the "I" that is making decisions based on these things called the five senses.

I take it on faith that you exist.  My five senses cannot confirm there is another being engaged in this discussion. I have only secondary evidence, a lot of assumptions, and an extrapolation from previous life experiences to give me a level of comfort that I'm communicating with another being in this conversation.  None of this is five-sense verifiable _directly_.  And yet, here we are,  engaged in a debate about a being that is somehow "not real" because he cannot be experienced through the five senses.


----------



## Veggy

I love this discussion, which is pleasure of discussing (and a good exercise for english language) since the question the thread asks cannot in anyway be proved. JamesM's last post is quite difficult for me to understand, hi James, would you explain please? You say one cannot show disappointment, a debate.
I'll tell you my thoughts about this. 
 One feels a disappointment and is able to tell others about it. The moment you tell while being listened to, you make it real or at least you make it "exist".
A debate cannot be showed but can be listened to and since we are able (if) to memorize and repeat then we make it exist.
You say: "who is this I and how can the five senses of someone outside of I prove that this I exists?"
I do not understand. If I see a person, if I touch a person, if I hear a person doesn't mean that person IS there? A person with his/her own "I", his/her thinking, his/her voice to communicate through the use of words whatever he/she wants to communicate.
What do you mean, James, by "secondary, circumstantial evidence"?
You say "my five senses cannot confirm there is another being engaged in this discussion" But you READ what others write, don't you? Doesn't this mean others exist at least in what we (generally speaking of human beings) intend by existing?
Don't we use our five senses to memorize and relate to others what we will consider afterwards and after rationalization as REAL? This cannot be done with what has never been seen, touched or heard directly like God and Satan. I suppose this is one of the reasons faith was invented.


----------



## JamesM

Veggy said:


> One feels a disappointment and is able to tell others about it. The moment you tell while being listened to, you make it real or at least you make it "exist".


 
That implies that the "existence" is in the communication, but Josh Adkins is proposing that things that exist in our natural world are provable using the five senses. If your feeling was tangible, you would not have to tell me about it, and I certainly shouldn't take your word for it - that would only be a report of the feeling, not the feeling; I should be able to observe that feeling with my five senses. The point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that exist in our everyday world that are intangible.



> What do you mean, James, by "secondary, circumstantial evidence"? You say "my five senses cannot confirm there is another being engaged in this discussion" But you READ what others write, don't you? Doesn't this mean others exist at least in what we (generally speaking of human beings) intend by existing?


 
Possibly. This internet forum, though, is a good example. Although we're not yet there, a time could arrive in the near future when a program was having a conversation with you on the internet, indistinguishable from a person. There is no "proof" in this case that I exist. You see my writing and you assume that there's a person on the other end writing them. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is an assumption, nevertheless. There is a certain amount of "faith" involved here.



> Don't we use our five senses to memorize and relate to others what we will consider afterwards and after rationalization as REAL? This cannot be done with what has never been seen, touched or heard directly like God and Satan. I suppose this is one of the reasons faith was invented.


 
We relate many things to other people. They are not all experienced by our five senses. When we relate how we feel a relationship is changing, there is no "relationship". It is a construct made up of assumptions, feelings, expectations, communications, memories, and a bundle of other things, most of which exist beyond our five senses and between our two ears. The relationship is not a tangible thing, even though it is a powerful part of our experience.


----------



## Poetic Device

cuchuflete said:


> There is a common misconception that whatever one may know, feel, think or believe about a deity
> or deities is a function of religion or the absence of religion. Spirituality does not require bricks and mortar or theology or hierarchies or sacred texts.


Ah.  Okay.  Thank you!


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> I think the question of whether or not there is a Devil is a good question. I personally think that much of what gets blamed on the devil is simply an excuse for people to do what they want when they know they shouldn't.  ...


 
I completely agree with you.  I think another thing that is amazing is how if an unfortunate occurrance happens in our life we forget that Satan is there and automatically blame it on GOD.  But that is not what this thread is about...

James, your words are pure wisdom.  I never really considered that part.  I started to way earlier in this, but never completely thought it out.




> Furthermore, perception of something by the five sense presupposes that something is bound within the confines of the physical world, which God is not.


 
That is all the more reason why we should be all be able to experience God at least once.  We all know that we have experienced works of the devil at one time or another and we are very quick to acknowledge that.  Some of us go as far as to misplace the blame.  However, when a positive thing happens, It's usually luck or we did it ourselves.  Not that much credit really goes to HIM, and that goes for the "believers" as well.

I don't know why, but it is at this time that I want to say that there are no athiests in foxholes...


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> II don't know why, but it is at this time that I want to say that there are no athiests in foxholes...


 
... and suddenly the discussion takes a sharp right turn.  

This is a saying that is considered quite offensive by atheists, Poetic Device, and reasonably so, in my opinion.  Imagine if the saying were, "There are no Christians in a crisis."  What would it say about the integrity of Christians?  It would say that in times of crisis the Christian abandons his world view.  In other words, all it takes to "convert" a Christian is to scare it out of him. The "no atheists in foxholes" is saying the same thing.  

I'm hoping this doesn't become the topic of this thread.


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> ... and suddenly the discussion takes a sharp right turn.
> 
> This is a saying that is considered quite offensive by atheists, Poetic Device, and reasonably so, in my opinion. Imagine if the saying were, "There are no Christians in a crisis." What would it say about the integrity of Christians? It would say that in times of crisis the Christian abandons his world view. In other words, all it takes to "convert" a Christian is to scare it out of him. The "no atheists in foxholes" is saying the same thing.
> 
> I'm hoping this doesn't become the topic of this thread.


 

I understand what you are saying, however the saying is true, just as what you said about Christians is true to an extent.  The point of the quote is to show that during the last few moments of life when, let's say, you are in a plane crash or any other large life threatening disaster, most of the time people yell "God save me" or something to that extent.  It is a natural human reaction to a life threatening situation.  There is no insult meant, nor should anyone take it as one.  There is also the other side f the coin as you pointed out.  There are some pwople that denounce their faith during a trying/life threatening time.  How many times have you seen a church goer get turned off of religion because they lost someone close to them or something along those lines?  I know people that were major Christ lovers, and when they were dying (one because of a car accident and one of cancer) they both said that there was no God as they took one of their last breaths.

So you see, like many other things, it is not one sided.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> I understand what you are saying, however the saying is true, just as what you said about Christians is true to an extent.  The point of the quote is to show that during the last few moments of life when, let's say, you are in a plane crash or any other large life threatening disaster, most of the time people yell "God save me" or something to that extent.
> 
> .


Has anyone checked with this "most" to see if any of them are atheists?

"Most" people are - or were raised as - followers of some religion or other, so why wouldn't they call to their God?

I believe that many people - orphaned for years - will also, in a deadly crisis, call for their mother. Does that mean that they deny their mother has died? When both my father and my mother were dying I had to sit and listen to them calling for a long-dead parent.


----------



## Josh_

Poetic Device said:


> That is all the more reason why we should be all be able to experience God at least once.



 If there is a god, and we are supposed to dedicate our lives to him and/or he wants us to experience him, then sure, I would agree.  But he should also make it easier for us to experience him, that is, make it a little more tangible.  I don't believe in a god, but it is not for lack of trying.  For a year and a half year in my early college days I lived with a group of friends who were devout Christians,  I studied the Bible, went to Bible study groups, went to church on Sundays, went to the university Christian youth organizations, but was never able to make a connection with God.



> We all know that we have experienced works of the devil at one time or another and we are very quick to acknowledge that.  Some of us go as far as to misplace the blame.


  I disagree with that.  I don’t think we _all_ know that we have experienced works of the devil.  That is an extreme generalization.  As far as ‘acknowledgment’ I don’t know one can really _acknowledge_ that the Devil did anything.  




> However, when a positive thing happens, It's usually luck or we did it ourselves.  Not that much credit really goes to HIM, and that goes for the "believers" as well.


Watching most award ceremony shows and sporting events would contradict this statement.  It seems to me that God is thanked, if not all of the time, much of time when something positive happens.  Obviously I can’t speak for believers but many of the believers I know attribute many of the good things in their life to God; they take pride in their accomplishments, but also acknowledge God’s part in it.



> I don't know why, but it is at this time that I want to say that there are no athiests in foxholes...


 I’m not offended by this and actually find it somewhat humorous, as I never really understood it. I mean how can one really know what goes through the mind of another when the other in a trying predicament.  I don’t want to dwell on it either as it is not the purpose of this thread, but I will say a few related things.



> I understand what you are saying, however the saying is true,


You say that with such certainty.  How can you be so sure, unless you are able to read everyone’s minds?  I also don’t think you can say with any certainty what people yell out at their moment of death unless you were there to witness it.  Another interesting discussion (one I have thought about from time to time), especially for a linguistic forum such as this, is the use of the word god in everyday language, when it is not specifically a religious context.  For example, when one stubs his/her toe he/she might yell out “God damn it!,” but is not being used in a religious way, and it doesn’t prove that that person necessary believes in God.  I frequently say “God knows” when I don’t know the answer to something, but I say it out of force of habit, not that I literally think that God knows.  So saying “God save me” when confronted with a life threatening situation may be common (I really don’t know that either), but without knowing the individual, I cannot say for sure if the phrase is meaningful to him/her.  Also, as maxiogee said many people were raised with a religion, and many people do profess faith in a god, so they might be prone calling out to that God in a difficult situation.

I am pressed for time now, so I will get to the other issues brought up earlier when I have more time to compose my thoughts.


----------



## Veggy

JamesM said:


> That implies that the "existence" is in the communication, but Josh Adkins is proposing that things that exist in our natural world are provable using the five senses. If your feeling was tangible, you would not have to tell me about it, and I certainly shouldn't take your word for it - that would only be a report of the feeling, not the feeling; I should be able to observe that feeling with my five senses. The point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that exist in our everyday world that are intangible.



First of all thank you JamesM for your answer, now your thought is much clearer to me. Yes, I think that existence is in the communication or at least that we bring "out" in the world what is inherent/inside ourselves through speach which can be sometimes without words but many times we use language and I think that everything is anyway processed by our minds so that everything is a report. Perhaps (from what you say) Josh is mixing up existence and knowledge for I think that most of what we know is learnt through our senses. I do agree that many things are intangible like feelings for instance.





			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> Possibly. This internet forum, though, is a good example. Although we're not yet there, a time could arrive in the near future when a program was having a conversation with you on the internet, indistinguishable from a person. There is no "proof" in this case that I exist. You see my writing and you assume that there's a person on the other end writing them. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is an assumption, nevertheless. There is a certain amount of "faith" involved here.
> 
> We relate many things to other people. They are not all experienced by our five senses. When we relate how we feel a relationship is changing, there is no "relationship". It is a construct made up of assumptions, feelings, expectations, communications, memories, and a bundle of other things, most of which exist beyond our five senses and between our two ears. The relationship is not a tangible thing, even though it is a powerful part of our experience.



The example of the internet is interesting but probably someone with more imagination than me could figure out something completely alien to human beings thinking and writing messages, -even if it was a robot there would be a person "behind" it-. So I don't really see the assumption there.
On the other hand, imagining is "creating images" (images can only be taken from what we saw) and it comes to mind that someone must have had the imagination to draw/describe God and the devil in the first place so that it would become so common for us to make them part of our life whatever we beleive in them or not.


----------



## cuchuflete

Back to the Devil...

Here

This presents some interesting data about belief in the devil, by country.  It appears that said spirit/thing/force
has a much larger body of believers in the US than elsewhere.

According to the paper cited, 66% of US residents belive in something they call the Devil.
The Irish Republic follows at 57%. Then come Australia at 36%, Spain at 33%, Britain, Finland, Italy and
Norway at about 30%, and Sweden and Denmark at a mere 12%.

Any conceivable correlation between belief in the devil and the number of McDonald's restaurants _per capita_ is
coincidental.  In every country studied except Finland, Italy and the US, those who believe in God exceed the number
who claim a belief in the Devil.


----------



## emma42

Here in Nottingham, we have 76.5 MacDonald's per foxhole, and no one believes in the devil.


----------



## vachecow

maxiogee said:


> Has anyone checked with this "most" to see if any of them are atheists?



If you guys really want to debate this there is a better place, which might have some more educated opinions...
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=642


----------



## tvdxer

I do believe that there exists a devil, actually many of them.

There's a saying that goes something like "Satan's greatest trick is to get us to deny his existence".

This is my belief as a Catholic.  Do I expect non-Christians or non-religious people to believe in a devil?  No, they do not necessarily have the basis to, but it makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## maxiogee

vachecow said:


> If you guys really want to debate this there is a better place, which might have some more educated opinions...
> http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=642



I am an admirer of Richard Dawkins.
However, I doubt that a site sop closely connected to his would be a neutral venue for such a debate.


----------



## HistofEng

I believe that the "I" exists by natural mechanisms (I have faith in that). By extension, I believe that there is an "I" in most human beings, and that many severely mentally handicapped individuals (as well as most other animals) don't perceive an "I", don't feel "I"

Sure, in an absolutist sense I don't know if you "exist" but in the same absolutist sense, I don't know if anything exists (except, perhaps, my own "I") I don't know whether a natural _or_ a supernatural exists...whether you exist _or_ god exist. 

While I give this absolutism very serious consideration, I don't think any of us (religious folk, theists, or atheists) live by it, we all live more practically. 

(my point: absolutism takes a stab at theists and atheists alike)


----------



## vachecow

maxiogee said:


> I am an admirer of Richard Dawkins.
> However, I doubt that a site sop closely connected to his would be a neutral venue for such a debate.



I didn't mean to say it is a neutral site.  In fact, it is extremely biased since almost everyone on the site is an atheist.  Nothing is wrong with that except for the fact that their oppinions will be naturally slanted towards their beliefs.  I just googled it and thought it was an interesting site.


----------



## maxiogee

vachecow said:


> I didn't mean to say it is a neutral site. In fact, it is extremely biased since almost everyone on the site is an atheist. Nothing is wrong with that except for the fact that their oppinions will be naturally slanted towards their beliefs. I just googled it and thought it was an interesting site.


 

No, no! It was "I" who used the word neutral. My point was that the people who have religious convictions here would be vastly outnumbered there and would most likely not get a fair hearing.

Many athiests have an uncanny ability to dismiss out of hand any arguments put up by their 'opponents' - and not to be able to properly explain why they dismiss them.


----------



## JazzByChas

I believe I will simply say yes...the Devil (Lucifer) does exist.


----------



## maxiogee

JazzByChas said:


> I believe I will simply say yes...the Devil (Lucifer) does exist
> 
> .



What grounds have you got for saying so?


----------



## Josh_

maxiogee said:
			
		

> We cannot 'know" the unknowable. I cannot "know" if Religion X is the rigth one - but I can look around (although most people never do) and compare religions and when I find one I can accept as a viable one I need to work to develop a faith in the God it espouses. This will generally begin by my accepting at face value that the claims that the scriptures of this relgion come from God. It is all part of having that intangible thing called "faith". But - I don't *have to* do this, it is my choice.


Yes, I generally like this attitide.  As I believe people have the right to choose what they want to believe I think that one should choose what he/she thinks is best for him/herself.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that what one chooses to believe is in accordance with known facts, though.



> Why would you ask?
> Why do you need to know?


Before I espouse something, I want to see what it is about.  I don’t want to espouse something that I can’t see in grounded in fact.  If someone says “you should believe this because it is the truth” I want to understand why it is the truth.  On what basis do they make that assumption.  If I took something at face value I might as well be waiting, cup of magic cool-aid in hand, for the next meteor to come around and take me away.



			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> The natural and the supernatural are experienced in different realms, but so are many of our moment-to-moment experiences that we accept without question. Can you "show" me a "disappointment"? a "debate"? a "comparison"?  If you are opened up, will I be able to see, touch, taste, hear, or smell some object in your brain that is any of these? These things are accepted as real. They have physiological results to some degree that can be measured, but they are not the results. They are the source of the results.
> 
> If you strictly apply the five-sense test, these things are unknowable at their source, only by their effects. Yet we operate every day on the solid assumption that these are real because we experience them and many things like them without any demonstrable proof that they exist, only personal experience.


  First off, the 5 senses are how we experience our physical world, but that has nothing to do with rational thought, other than we extrapolate and form ideas, via rational thought, by what we experience in the physical world.   Being creatures with the capacity of rational thought we can form abstractions.  As far as a ‘disappointment’, ‘debate’, ‘comparison’ or ‘numbers', 'language', justice,' and what have you, yes they are intangible but two things are important to remember here – (1) they are different than God in that they do not designate nor refer to an immaterial being and (2) they depend on man for there existence.  As I noted above we have the ability to form abstract thought.  Those abstract ideas you mentioned are just that – abstract concepts that man has come up with in his social interactions within the physical world that he has given meaning to.  Since man gave rise to these ideas, they depend on man for their very existence, and do not exist independently.  They may not be made of matter, but they are dependent on matter for their existenceGod, on the other hand is supposed to be an immaterial being that exists independently of man.



> This "five-sense test" idea falls down pretty quickly when it comes simply to consciousness and self-awareness. If we start with "I only believe what my five senses tell me", a fundamental question is, "Who is this 'I' and how can the five senses of someone outside of 'I' prove that this 'I' exists?" Someone outside can only see secondary, circumstantial evidence that there is an "I" over there.


Consciousness refers to the state of awareness exhibited by certain living organisms.  We need a brain for consciousness.  When an organism dies, or brain function is otherwise gone, so is consciousness.  So again, consciousness is not matter, but is dependent on matter for existence.



> That implies that the "existence" is in the communication, but Josh Adkins is proposing that things that exist in our natural world are provable using the five senses. If your feeling was tangible, you would not have to tell me about it, and I certainly shouldn't take your word for it - that would only be a report of the feeling, not the feeling; I should be able to observe that feeling with my five senses. The point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that exist in our everyday world that are intangible.


  The same with emotions.  We may not completely understand emotions, but scientists know what parts of the brain are stimulated when emotions are involved.  And like consciousness, emotions cease to exist when the body dies.  They do not exist independently of the man.  There is no feeling if there is not a consciousness to be aware of them.

In essence you really can't compare abstract things such as consciousness, emotion, and abstract ideas to God as these things do not exist independently of the man, whereas man does.  Furthermore, the point of equating these things to God is not clear because they do nothing to further our understanding of him.



> A relationship to God is very similar. I can point to effects, results, changes as a result of the relationship, but I can't prove that the relationship itself exists. It lives in a realm that falls outside the five-senses test, but so does the "I" that is experiencing the relationship. and so does the concept "relationship". To argue that something is unknowable because it is not tangible through the five senses is to ignore huge portions of where life itself occurs, including the "I" that is making decisions based on these things called the five senses.


  I’m not sure what you mean by a realm outside the sense test.  Words, as we know, do not exist in a vacuum, they must have context.  If you take a word like “relationship” and you remove it from its human context within human language, then you are rendering it meaningless as we can only understand words within that framework.  If one says that God is alive, how is he alive?  Alive like a man?  If so he is a breathing creature who will eventually die.  If not, then the word alive as it is applied to God has no meaning for us since it is different than the human meaning we are familiar with -- it is an incomprehensible trait; an unknowable trait of an unknowable being.  So by saying that one has a relationship with God, but that that relationship is beyond the human realm, you are removing the word from its context within human language, thereby rendering it meaningless.



> I take it on faith that you exist. My five senses cannot confirm there is another being engaged in this discussion. I have only secondary evidence, a lot of assumptions, and an extrapolation from previous life experiences to give me a level of comfort that I'm communicating with another being in this conversation. None of this is five-sense verifiable _directly_. And yet, here we are, engaged in a debate about a being that is somehow "not real" because he cannot be experienced through the five senses.


I’m not really sure what to say here.  I mean we are engaged in the discussion.  You’re reasoning here is close to the idea of solipsism which I think is a strange notion.  Imagine one man telling another man that he does not exist, who of course has his own separate consciousness.  I know you exist by the very fact that we are having this debate.  And it is verifiable.  It’s all here on the internet for anyone to see.  There is no magic being employed here.  Everything we are doing is within the confines the natural world, human reason, and human language.


  --------


> Many athiests have an uncanny ability to dismiss out of hand any arguments put up by their 'opponents' - and not to be able to properly explain why they dismiss them.


Well, I think  in every school of thought has been guilty of dismissal of the opponent's arguments.  The argument, commonly termed "The Problem of Evil," is an issue that is commonly dismissed by theists for the very fact that the idea of an omnibenevolent god is untenable and irreconcilable with all the pain and suffering in the world?


----------



## maxiogee

Josh Adkins said:


> Being creatures with the capacity of rational thought we can form abstractions.  As far as a ‘disappointment’, ‘debate’, ‘comparison’ or ‘numbers', 'language', justice,' and what have you, yes they are intangible but two things are important to remember here – (1) they are different than God in that they do not designate nor refer to an immaterial being and (2) they depend on man for there existence
> 
> .



(1) 
Define "being"  
We have no knowledge of whether God is a being or a concept. We can't even get our heads around the idea of a being which never dies.
Perhaps those to whom God has revealed 'himself' have experienced a person because that is the best way to do it. 
How would you want a 'conceptual' God to reveal itself?

(2)
Disappointment
You've never had a pet, have you? They can express 'disappointment' very well.

Comparison
Animals are well able to express preferences in tastes - this depends on comparison.

Numbers
Then how does an animal know that it has three cubs?  Any animal, mother to a multiple birth, knows - when she is moving them one-by-one from A to B - how often she needs to go back to A for another one.

Language
So whales don't communicate with each other?


----------



## cuchuflete

JazzByChas said:


> I believe I will simply say yes...the Devil (Lucifer) does exist.



Sorry Chas, your best efforts and mine have failed to get anyone to take an interest in the Devil.
They would rather discuss other matters.


----------



## JazzByChas

I figured as much...this topic is like all the other religious topics that discuss everthing and its mamma...and may even talk about the subject...so I put in my literal two cents, very succinctly, and left...so to speak!  



			
				Cuchu said:
			
		

> Sorry Chas, your best efforts and mine have failed to get anyone to take an interest in the Devil.
> They would rather discuss other matters.


----------



## cherine

*This thread has proved in a way or another that there must be some sort of existence of the devil, that is even so wicked he made most of the contributors focus more on his ennemy/competitor/.... (God) than on himself, even when we gave him the honor of being a topic for discussion. *
*Let's all fight that devil and end this discussion that's going everywhere.*

*Thank you all. *

*(P.S. For those who don't believe in the existence of the devil, please explain -by PM- how does this thread have so many off-topic posts, and how can we put it back to life again. )*


----------

