Do you believe in Satan ?

[techboy]

"Karl Marx totally ripped off my idea"- Seneca the Younger

[70th Week]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger 4 b.c.- 65 a.d.

Every thread on religion I'm posting this quote.

Medieval writers and works (such as the Golden Legend, which erroneously has Nero as a witness to his suicide) believed that Seneca had been converted to the Christian faith by Saint Paul.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5VObT1JEpFoATm5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2cXVjNTM5BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=12311v2i2/EXP=1146331419/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger

Evidently he was a "common person" :laugh: :laugh:

[Jumbo]

Medieval writers and works (such as the Golden Legend, which erroneously has Nero as a witness to his suicide) believed that Seneca had been converted to the Christian faith by Saint Paul.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5VObT1JEpFoATm5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2cXVjNTM5BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=12311v2i2/EXP=1146331419/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger

Evidently he was a "common person" :laugh: :laugh:

So not only does wiwkipedia continue to be a "scholarly" ES source, you accept an allusion to unamed author(s) and works. In fact, the only one cited (Golden Legend) is done so in a context that specifically identifies its erroneous nature about another matter (Nero) in the very exceprt you quoted. Not a great argument, amigo.

If you actually read Seneca's later works, or Morton Hunt or William Durant's essays, reviews, and analyses, you may find them enlightenting.

The laffy's and the roll-eyes following that effort seem poorly chosen.

[Mooka]

:laugh: Lighten up guys, it's just a quote and Seneca was a religious man, with a belief system kinda like confucianism . He was an incredibly smart man and an excellent writer. He was kinda crazy though, he counsuled Nero and then tried to kill him when Nero went all crazy.

Here an example of some of his works:

"Why should I choose that fellow as my adversary? He will straightway drop his weapons; against him I have no need of all my power - he will be routed by a paltry threat; he cannot bear even the sight of my face. Let me look around for another with whom to join in combat. I am ashamed to meet a man who is ready to be beaten." A gladiator counts it a disgrace to be matched with an inferior, and knows that to win without danger is to win without glory. The same is true of Fortune. She seeks out the bravest men to match with her; some she passes by in disdain. Those that are most stubborn and unbending she assails, men against whom she may exert all her strength.

aka: "Fortune Favors the Bold"

A good man differs from God in the element of time only; he is God's pupil, his imitator, and true offspring, whom his all-glorious parent, being no mild taskmaster of virtues, rears, as strict fathers do, with much severity. And so, when you see that men who are good and acceptable to the gods labour and sweat and have a difficult road to climb, that the wicked, on the other hand, make merry and abound in pleasures, reflect that our children please us by their modesty, but slave-boys by their forwardness; that we hold in check the former by sterner discipline, while we encourage the latter to be bold. Be assured that the same is true of God. He does not make a spoiled pet of a good man; he tests him, hardens him, and fits him for his own service. You ask, "Why do many adversities come to good men?" No evil can befall a good man; opposites do not mingle. Just as the countless rivers, the vast fall of rain from the sky, and the huge volume of mineral springs do not change the taste of the sea, do not even modify it, so the assaults of adversity do not weaken the spirit of a brave man. It always maintains its poise, and it gives its own colour to everything that happens; for it is mightier than all external things. And yet I do not mean to say that the brave man is insensible to these, but that he overcomes them, and being in all else unmoved and calm rises to meet whatever assails him.

Translations from John W. Basore

He was an amazing writer.

*edit

Thank you Jumbo

[Zguy28]

All I need is the fate of the Apostles who actually witnessed Christ in the flesh.

Would you willingly be boiled in oil or crucified upside down for something you knew wasn't true? Or would you deny Him and run? Proof indeed.

Nobody answered my question above :point2sky

Do you'll not like me or does it just make too much sense.

[70th Week]

So not only does wiwkipedia continue to be a "scholarly" ES source, you accept an allusion to unamed author(s) and works. In fact, the only one cited (Golden Legend) is done so in a context that specifically identifies its erroneous nature about another matter (Nero) in the very exceprt you quoted. Not a great argument, amigo.

If you actually read Seneca's later works, or Morton Hunt or William Durant's essays, reviews, and analyses, you may find them enlightenting.

The laffy's and the roll-eyes following that effort seem poorly chosen.

well excuse me Jumbo,I wasnt trying to discredit Seneca at all and yes I thought it was a good arguement seeing that it came from Nero in the book Legend and he happened to watch Seneca die would seem as though it was a reliable source.

and I thought the laffys were right on with what I was saying in that what the statement Seneca said and the fact he was converted to christianity.the laffy and the roll eyes (meant to me)that you cant always take what someone says in a one-line statement without a grain of salt.

But I apologize,maybe next time I'll explain.

[Jumbo]

and one the subject of all you phsycology majors trying to explain the behavior of evil people such as terrorists as it being some kind of mental problem or chemical imbalance did you ever stop to think that it might be Satan pushing those buttons in their brains or causing that chemical imbalance?Satan using tools like that too,though?We know how the body works as far as the heart and brain but do we know what gives it life?Can we build a body?Of course not.We know how it works but we cant replicate it because God makes it work.Is it so illogical to think the devil cant manipulate someone's mind to make him do such evil things?Of course not.He is quoted as being the prince of powers of the air.

Rant over.thank you. :rant:

You didn't rant, dude.

GPG...most of the ones I know allow for such theoretical possibilities, as would most scientists....such things are philosophically open at their core...some may point out we can't know it's not aliens experimenting on our minds making us thing all this stuff and that couldn't be completely refuted either

In fact, you could take almost every claim made for a deity, and substitute "super-advanced space alien" and the arguments could be the same structurally.

The point I'd make isn't about using what psychologists and neurobiologists know, and are learning, to counter someone's beliefs. I'd use the knowledge to explain things in a way that shows how we can treat them beyond the limited methods used in the past as offered by religious rituals.

The point for me is that by approaching these things and seeking answers in a scientific method we have learned more than by just accepting what was written in the past. If some people had never been satisfied with the "demon" explanation, we wouldn't be able to help heal the thousands helped evey day.

As I said earlier, I think the power of prayer is very important. But I'm grateful to lve in a world not exclusively shaped by those who think they have all the answers they need with the answer to everything through perfection of their message. Especailly when dealing with treatment of psychoses by other than traditional religious rituals.

I'm grateful that this world includes the seeking of non-mystical explanations and solutions, including those offered by the current psychotherapeutic and psychopharmaceutical methods. People can do what they choose with their loved ones, I know where I’ll take mine for help, and still involve their church and pray for them too.

BTW, if we are ever able to build and animate a body (likely), it may cause some temporary angst and turmoil, but it the event will be absorbed and explained within an accpetable religious context sooner than later.

One of the beauties of the survivability of organized religion and personal faith is that it can always be re-constituted to explain whatever happens without giving up its main premises. Witness not just Christians or Muslims, but Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and even Scientologists. They prosper and grow, too.

[Jumbo]

well excuse me Jumbo,I wasnt trying to discredit Seneca at all and yes I thought it was a good arguement seeing that it came from Nero in the book Legend and he happened to watch Seneca die would seem as though it was a reliable source.

and I thought the laffys were right on with what I was saying in that what the statement Seneca said and the fact he was converted to christianity.the laffy and the roll eyes (meant to me)that you cant always take what someone says in a one-line statement without a grain of salt.

But I apologize,maybe next time I'll explain.

No at all, bro, I'm just having fun discusssing with you. I just get into the spririt (rare) at times with old (for me ) debate stuff. I don't intend to be too prickly.

[ashburnskinsfan]

Nobody answered my question above :point2sky

Do you'll not like me or does it just make too much sense.

OK, I'll bite.

Would you hijack a plane and fly it at 400 miles per hour into a building for something that wasn't true?

[Jumbo]

OK, I'll bite.

Would you hijack a plane and fly it at 400 miles per hour into a building for something that wasn't true?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo :applause:

debate points! :laugh:

[Zguy28]

OK, I'll bite.

Would you hijack a plane and fly it at 400 miles per hour into a building for something that wasn't true?

That makes no sense.

Self-sacrifice at the expense of others and self-sacrifice on behalf of others is different. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Would you die for something you absolutely believed was true, if it had eternal consequence? The Apostles did. If they believed it wasn't true or were decievers, I don't think they would.

[ashburnskinsfan]

That makes no sense.

Self-sacrifice at the expense of others and self-sacrifice on behalf of others is different. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Would you die for something you absolutely believed was true, if it had eternal consequence? The Apostles did. If they believed it wasn't true or were decievers, I don't think they would.

You missed the point. It is, unfortunately, quite common for the faithful to be willing to die for their religion.

The 9/11 hijackers killed themselves because of only one thing ... their faith, not because of a hatred of America. A terrorist who did not hold such religious views would attempt to live for another day.

Willingness to die for your faith in modern time is not limited to Muslim fundamentalists. Heaven's Gate, as one example.

If the disciples maintained their faith while being tortured, all that is necessary is that they believed in Jesus to be who they claimed him to be. It is not necessary for their belief to actually be true. Isn't the difference clear?

[techboy]

You missed the point. It is, unfortunately, quite common for the faithful to be willing to die for their religion.

That's true. You, however, missed the point that unlike the 9/11 hijackers (or the monks setting themselves on fire during Vietnam, or Jim Jones, or...), the Disciples were in a position to KNOW if their faith was real or not. They were there. They knew if Jesus was ressurected from the dead. What you are suggesting is that they ran around proclaiming the Ressurection, knowing full well that it wasn't true, and then went to horrible deaths proclaiming that lie.

That's not dying for faith, that's dying for a lie.

Big difference.

[techboy]

OK, I'll bite.

Would you hijack a plane and fly it at 400 miles per hour into a building for something that wasn't true?

I'm going to say no. And, if the 9/11 hijackers had reason to know for a fact that Islam wan't true, they wouldn't have either.

[techboy]

If the disciples maintained their faith while being tortured, all that is necessary is that they believed in Jesus to be who they claimed him to be.

Exactly. And the only reason they'd believe that, is if they saw the Ressurection. Otherwise, they'd know better.

*EDIT- Sorry for the triple response. I had three seperate thoughts one after another. And, of course, I didn't think of using the edit feature until it was time to apologize for it.

[Zguy28]

You missed the point. It is, unfortunately, quite common for the faithful to be willing to die for their religion.

The 9/11 hijackers killed themselves because of their only one thing ... their faith, not because of a hatred of America. A terrorist who did not hold such religious views would attempt to live for another day.

Willingness to die for your faith in modern time is not limited to Muslim fundamentalists. Heaven's Gate, as one example.

If the disciples maintained their faith while being tortured, all that is necessary is that they believed in Jesus to be who they claimed him to be. It is not necessary for their belief to actually be true. Isn't the difference clear?

Sorry, my friend but you missed the mark. THe Apostles faith was founded upon the resurrection. If it didn't happen, and they didn't see the risen Christ they never would have continued. In fact it mentios that in the Gospels. THe Apostles lost hope(for lack of a better word) when Jesus died, until they saw Him risen.

[Jumbo]

Exactly. And the only reason they'd believe that, is if they saw the Ressurection. Otherwise, they'd know better.

No. People deeply believe all sorts of things, including what they assume to be evidence of something based on some visual they behold, that regulalry turn out to be false.

Seeing may be believeing , but sight and what's interpeted from it, are hardly free form error.

[Zguy28]

No. People deeply believe all sorts of things, including what they assume to be evidence of something based on some visual they behold, that regulalry turn out to be false.

I would agree with you normally, but this case is different, in the sense that 11 men and several women witnessed Him in real life, and thats just one instance. He even ate with them after resurrection. If that's not real, I don't know what is.

Seeing may be believeing , but sight and what's interpeted from it, are hardly free form error.

I agree. I actually use illusion and slight of hand in my street evangelism.

[techboy]

No. People deeply believe all sorts of things, including what they assume to be evidence of something based on some visual they behold, that regulalry turn out to be false.

Seeing may be believeing , but sight and what's interpeted from it, are hardly free form error.

Uh, the Disciples didn't just "see" Jesus. They also ate with Him, put their fingers in His wounds, spent time with Him, and had conversations with Him over a fairly extended period of time.

[Jumbo]

Uh, the Disciples didn't just "see" Jesus. They also ate with Him, put their fingers in His wounds, spent time with Him, and had conversations with Him over a fairly extended period of time.

Lord, boy...like I (and 90% of people here) wouldn't know that piece?

This can be an everextending dialogue, but what I meant was the idea that he never "died" to begin with so what they "saw" was not resurrection, even assuming acceptance of their reports as accurately representative of actual events and legitimately recorded. There is much written on this matter, but in different books. One such, The Passover Plot, was one my Jesuit priest uncle had me read a long time ago that I rmeber as pretty well done from a scholarly standpoint. But I should see if it still hold up today.

Additionally, there are other events where someone's death was witnessed, medically verified, and the person effectively dissapeared for a time, not seen again for some time only to reappear later. Just to elaborate a little, this has happened more than once, and for different reasons, some cases directly orchestrated by witness protection needs as well as other secular matters like politcial or govermental agency related matters.

But not all such are planned. Professionaly, I know of a case of dissociative fugue following a boating accident with a guy on vacation where it was just a series of odd circumstances. But there were so many events for the family that it totally freaked them out when he re-joined them almost a year later.

True, none of these claimed any divine intervention. And I don't mean to compare my examples too directly to Jesus' whole story other than to demonstrate what I meant for the sake of the conversation.

[70th Week]

No. People deeply believe all sorts of things, including what they assume to be evidence of something based on some visual they behold, that regulalry turn out to be false.

Seeing may be believeing , but sight and what's interpeted from it, are hardly free form error.

I think you guys are misinterpreting believing with brainwashing. :2cents: Most of the ones blowing theirselves up are young influential people they get messages from the muslim clerics to do this so they have a sure path to heaven.Do you see any of those clerics blowing themselves up?I think not.They have no knowledge of their holy book.Do you think with what you know(with your knowledge)of the muslim faith you would blow yourself up as a sure way to heaven.hmmm...After all according to them that is a sure way to heaven....why arent we all blowing ourselves up for allah?...

[techboy]

Lord, boy...like I (and 90% of people here) wouldn't know that piece?

I think it's time for me to say thank you for the exchange

I win! I win! YESSSSSSS!

Where's the Napoleon Dynamite arm pump smiley?

*EDIT Hey! No fair editing out my victory! I won fair and square (twice!)!

Anyway, the articles by Dr. Craig I cited earlier do a pretty good job of ruling out the eventualities you stealth edited in .

As for the Passover Plot, I'll just quote this.

The next theory to study was promoted by Hugh J. Schonfield in his best-selling book, The Passover Plot.

Basically, the story line is:

Jesus of Nazareth was just another nice guy whose luck ran out. Convinced that he was the Jewish Messiah, he connived to have himself arrested, drugged, crucified, and revived to fulfill the Jewish scriptures as he understood them.

Unfortunately for the comatose Jesus, a soldier jabbed a spear into his side before his henchmen could remove him from the cross. Later, all attempts to revive him were fruitless; his secret Jerusalem followers quietly buried him in a spot unknown to his Galilean disciples, who soon repeatedly mistook the beloved disciple, a young priest from Jerusalem, for Jesus himself.

Subsequently, the eleven prominent Galilean disciples and others began propagating the incredible message that Jesus had risen from the dead. Christianity was born (Bab****, p.245).

This theory suffers from several of the same problems as previous ones. What about the empty tomb that was being watched by a Roman guard?

How could the disciples have spent 3 1/2 years, day and night, with Jesus and then mistake someone else for him? How could the unknown man appear through locked doors and disappear at will? How could Jesus, who taught honesty and integrity His entire ministry, have involved Himself in such a deliberate, attempted deception?

As with the other theories, Schonfield rejects a large part of the known facts and only accepts the few points that fit his theory. It seems his own preconceived ideas and vivid imagination are utilized in developing this theory rather than historical fact.

Anyway, I have once again reached the point of repeating myself. I invite everyone to examine the arguments and links and evidence I have provided earlier.

I'll just close with the Extremeskins Knockout special.

Joe Gibbs is a believer. Trust Joe Gibbs.

[Jumbo]

I win! I win! YESSSSSSS!

Where's the Napoleon Dynamite arm pump smiley?

Brother, I edited that to give ya a little more dialgue before I saw this repsonse, but I'll happily throw in a win too :laugh: :applause:

I love seeing an ES'er so happy.

[techboy]

Oh... I'm not an ES'er. Didn't you read what I said in the other thread? I don't have time to debate on two boards... :doh:

[Jumbo]

I win! I win! YESSSSSSS!

Where's the Napoleon Dynamite arm pump smiley?

*EDIT Hey! No fair editing out my victory! I won fair and square (twice!)!

Anyway, the articles by Dr. Craig I cited earlier do a pretty good job of ruling out the eventualities you stealth edited in .

As for the Passover Plot, I'll just quote this.

Anyway, I have once again reached the point of repeating myself. I invite everyone to examine the arguments and links and evidence I have provided earlier.

I'll just close with the Extremeskins Knockout special.

Joe Gibbs is a believer. Trust Joe Gibbs.

Oooooo that's a very poor, simplistic, and misrepresentative rejection of the work. It can be critiqued and countermanded much, much, more honestly and accurately than that, I'd almost take my present away :laugh: . Not very good work. I really wish people would cease treating the interent, espcially the casual search, like the best, let alone only, resource tool at an academic level.