Is Satan being present in many places at once Biblical?

[Cheerful Charlie]

If people actually followed Jesus and his commandments there'd be no wars, poor or hungry!

Then how did Christians come to hack each other up or reduce each other to ashes, in centuries past, in defense of their vision of Jesus and his commandments? (Um...I think I know, actually. Some of 'em or all of 'em were blind to the true teachings, right?)

If you've read the Gospels, do any of those actions sound like Jesus's Commandments to you? As it's written many come in his name but not all who do will be accepted.

If none of us "lay up treasures on earth", worry about food and drink, worry about tomorrow at all, on the theory that God feeds the birds of the air, so we'll be taken care of, then there better be a permanent, sustaining social security system, 'cuz Suze Orman and I predict a ton of bankruptcies, homelessness, and hunger.

It's not against God to be rich or wealthy by honest work not greed, therefore not being a binding law, your would-be prediction may not be on point. It doesn't say give up everything to be purposely homeless, poor or hungry "therefore riches in heaven".

John 14:15
If you love me, keep my commandments.

Mark 10, Luke 12, 14, 18, Matthew 19

Sell all you have and give to the poor. Plus supporting verses.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to
gain the kingdom of God. You cannot serve mammon and God. Etc.

The Bible is quite clear. The kingdom of heaven is coming soon, soon, soon!
And having wealth is an evil. Which will prevent you earning a place
in this new Kingdom Of God. It did not come soon, soon, soon as promised.

And if it still is as per so many Christians today claim, commands to sell all
you have and give to the poor still stand. Unless you wish to be excluded
from the Kingdom Of God coming with Christ soon now.

Most American children usually no longer believe in Santa after the age ten.
Well, most of them anyway. Wait until every American child by the age ten
learns to to earn salvation when Jesus reappears has to sell all they have and
give to the poor. Teaching the Bible in American schools may not be the best
way to spread Christianity.

Who here loves Jesus as per John 14?
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Luke 14
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,
he cannot be my disciple.

 

[Learner]

If you've read the Gospels, do any of those actions sound like Jesus's Commandments to you? As it's written many come in his name but not all who do will be accepted.

Then, were all Christians who in past centuries burned witches, tortured and killed heretics, or warred on other Christians...not Christians at all?

I've been in, and seen debates where atheists has often come up with the line 'people claiming to be Christians today don't act like Jesus or do what he commands" etc. & etc..

If these Christians acted against what Jesus preached then they're not the Christians as according to Jesus. Sure they may believe strongly in their faith while committing atrocious things but they will be judged accordingly and case by case. Depending on perspective as identifying a group of religious people, then I am quite happy still calling them Christians that way - and I am also quite comfortable also saying they're 'not Christians' by the characteristics that is quite contradictory to Jesus's commandments in terms of having a mutual understanding between us or other people for the sake of the conversation. So, whether I'm calling them Christian or not, either way is fine by me depending on the angle your coming from.

All people who identify themselves as Christians will be judged for their actions individually case by case. And with the case-by-case, there would be situations where it may have be necessary for a Christian to be allowed to defend himself and his family or the vulnerable under his protection requiring harsh measures.

That would include a ton of self-identifying Christians over the long history of the church. It would include popes, Protestant leaders, a ton of rank and file who went along with the prevailing practices.

Like above, All Christians will be judged accordingly depending which gate they walk through. The wide gate or narrow gate.

 

[Learner]

If people actually followed Jesus and his commandments there'd be no wars, poor or hungry!

Then how did Christians come to hack each other up or reduce each other to ashes, in centuries past, in defense of their vision of Jesus and his commandments? (Um...I think I know, actually. Some of 'em or all of 'em were blind to the true teachings, right?)

If you've read the Gospels, do any of those actions sound like Jesus's Commandments to you? As it's written many come in his name but not all who do will be accepted.

If none of us "lay up treasures on earth", worry about food and drink, worry about tomorrow at all, on the theory that God feeds the birds of the air, so we'll be taken care of, then there better be a permanent, sustaining social security system, 'cuz Suze Orman and I predict a ton of bankruptcies, homelessness, and hunger.

It's not against God to be rich or wealthy by honest work not greed, therefore not being a binding law, your would-be prediction may not be on point. It doesn't say give up everything to be purposely homeless, poor or hungry "therefore riches in heaven".

John 14:15
If you love me, keep my commandments.

Mark 10, Luke 12, 14, 18, Matthew 19

Sell all you have and give to the poor. Plus supporting verses.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to
gain the kingdom of God. You cannot serve mammon and God. Etc.

The Bible is quite clear. The kingdom of heaven is coming soon, soon, soon!
And having wealth is an evil. Which will prevent you earning a place
in this new Kingdom Of God. It did not come soon, soon, soon as promised.

And if it still is as per so many Christians today claim, commands to sell all
you have and give to the poor still stand. Unless you wish to be excluded
from the Kingdom Of God coming with Christ soon now.

Most American children usually no longer believe in Santa after the age ten.

Yes it's interesting when atheists bring the Santa thing up. So you're saying the little blessed children know it's a fairy story. Indeed usually they do by that age.

Well, most of them anyway. Wait until every American child by the age ten
learns to to earn salvation when Jesus reappears has to sell all they have and
give to the poor.

And so they've given up fairy stories by the age of ten and learn the bible isn't a fairy story? Indeed they'll be able to differentiate between Santa and Jesus by that age.

Sell all your things and follow Jesus. Quite right If you want to go around preaching the message in all the far off lands as the disciples did. But it's ok to stay put if you're raising a family or running a place for the sick etc.
(You kindly posted Luke 14)

Teaching the Bible in American schools may not be the best
way to spread Christianity.

Who here loves Jesus as per John 14?
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Luke 14
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,
he cannot be my disciple.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The far right's attempt to cram religion into schools and everywhere is going
to cause a backlash. One way to fight that is to point out the commands of
Jesus. No praying in public. Sell all you have and give to the poor. Help the poor
or burn as per Matthew 25. In England, all schools have religion classes for
school children. And now in England, non-Christians out number Christians.

Luke 14
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If you've read the Gospels, do any of those actions sound like Jesus's Commandments to you? As it's written many come in his name but not all who do will be accepted.

Then, were all Christians who in past centuries burned witches, tortured and killed heretics, or warred on other Christians...not Christians at all?

I've been in, and seen debates where atheists has often come up with the line 'people claiming to be Christians today don't act like Jesus or do what he commands" etc. & etc..

If these Christians acted against what Jesus preached then they're not the Christians as according to Jesus. Sure they may believe strongly in their faith while committing atrocious things but they will be judged accordingly and case by case.

But then, isn't your god omniscient and outside time? Couldn't he see where this was headed? Couldn't he have provided a scripture which, with just a few added verses, would have made clear that he didn't support violence for promoting the faith? "You shall never harm another man for his faith. I repeat, you will never do that. Whoever harms or, worse, kills another man because his faith is different, you do not do this for me, and you shall never reach heaven, for this is wickedness and a sin against your god." Christians back then read the gospels and were preached to about Jesus' Commandments, and it seemed to them that to enforce his church with bloodshed was an ultimate good. Didn't your god foresee that?
(For all that, was god okay knowing that there'd be a Catholic/Protestant schism, and that torture, persecution and war would then characterize his church for centuries? Couldn't a few verses have clarified things like the need for a pope, whether one true church would start with Peter, church authority, Jesus' mom having powers of her own or not, whether there are saints with intercessory powers, and a number of other doctrinal controversies that 'Christians' actually killed and died for? Is he okay today with radically different beliefs on these issues?)

 

[DBT]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

God outside of time comes from Augustine's "Confessions - Book XI - On Time".
For God, there is not past, present, and future. To God all is now. This is
now pretty much dogma in most Christian theologies. If we claimed God
was subject to time, we would have to explain where time came from so
powerful, even God must obey time. With modern physics, relativity, time,
dimension, and mass all depend on our velocity. Now time really gets to
be a serious issue. Now physics is a big issue, a limit on God. And below that,
quantum physics, fields, particle physics etc. Now that we have established
time and physics are all inter-related, and limit God, we can question whether God
is necessary for any explanation at all in regards to the material existence of
the Universe. God is now superfluous. Theological systems that abandon claims
of God's omnipotence and omniscience, such as Process Theology don't fare any
better in explaining how this all works. Augustine of course knew nothing about
physics, so did not realize what a problem time really was for concepts of a God
without limits. There are other serious problems for theories of a God outside
of time. If all is, including all of God's interactions with God's Big Now, the idea
of God creating the Universe is problematic. Creation entails a before, now, and
a future. Which don't exist and cannot exist.

 

[DBT]

Yet if God is able to think, His/Her/Its thoughts have a beginning, a middle and an end, which is time.

Consequently, God time may be different to our time but still relative. So it is not outside of time, nor is it an absence of time.

 

[bilby]

As I said, contradiction and absurdity are not a bug, they are a feature.

 

[DBT]

Hypothetically, how would an Omniscient being think? Given Omniscience, what form would it take? Everything is known. If all past, present and future events are perfectly known, what is there to think about? What is there to plan? There can be no surprises, nothing new or unexpected. Like a video you have been watching all your life.

 

[ideologyhunter]

God binges on Real Housewives of New Jersey?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Funny enough there was a sermon I heard. The preacher said (paraphrasing) " We can't blame satan all the time (direct influence). 'He can't be everywhere at the same time'. It's those snares you got to watch out for that he's laid and left all about.

Gotta love rhetorical nonsense. You can't blame Satan all the time, he is responsible for everything bad we've done.

Satan being blamed for all bad things (starting from Eden) is contextually just a 'technically speaking' response, not in line with the actual context of my post regarding the 'willing choice actions' to do or not to do bad things... and that's without satan.

What are you talking about? I was paraphrasing your paraphrased quote.

I didn't see it. Where did you paraphrase the context element to ones own free will?

The preacher said (paraphrasing) " We can't blame satan all the time (direct influence). 'He can't be everywhere at the same time'. It's those snares you got to watch out for that he's laid and left all about.

He can't be everywhere at the same time.
Got it, Satan isn't everywhere so when we do something wrong, it wasn't Satan.

Good you got it. The commandments for example, stating an obvious, emphasises on laws to not do evil. It's the free will thing.

It's those snares you got to watch out for that he' laid and left all about.
Wait... so when we do something wrong, it was either Satan or the snare Satan left about, so either way it is Satan.

And this is also the ridiculousness of explaining why bad stuff happens. Well Satan made it happen (directly or indirectly whatever the heck that means). No, not Satan, humans. Start owning up to your own failings instead of blaming some imaginary creature.

What it means is: you DO own up to your own actions!

No, it doesn't.

It opens by saying Satan makes some bad stuff happen, and that the other bad stuff is rooted in Satan as well, just not as directly... in the snares and what not. It says you can't always blame Satan... but you know... Satan.

We can't blame satan all the time. 'He can't be everywhere at the same time'. It's those snares you got to watch out for that he's laid and left all about.

The quote doesn't say:

We can't blame satan all the time. 'He can't be everywhere at the same time'.

That would imply needing to own up to ones actions. No, instead it blames Satan directly for some stuff and indirectly for the rest. Not certain how one is to draw the line between the two, but it based on the paraphrase, it sounds like that while Satan isn't currently everywhere, he has been.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your religions’ need for a devil is EXACTLY THE SAME as a political party’s need for an external threat from which to save the hapless people. It’s a component of a power structure to keep people subjugated.
And it’s working real well on you and your ilk.

If people actually followed Jesus and his commandments there'd be no wars, poor or hungry! Dictatorships don't like those teachings.. when followers would rather die than go against Christ!

Too bad Protestant religions worship the teachings of Paul, not Jesus.

 

[EricH]

That would imply needing to own up to ones actions. No, instead it blames Satan directly for some stuff and indirectly for the rest. Not certain how one is to draw the line between the two, but it based on the paraphrase, it sounds like that while Satan isn't currently everywhere, he has been.

Allow me to clarify what I think Learner is saying:

When I, a Christian, do bad things, it's Satan's fault, for laying his snares.

When you, a non-Christian, do bad things, it's your fault because you have free will.

When another Christian does really bad stuff, that means he wasn't really a Christian.

Ask him to explain how he knows all this and he pretends he can't hear you.

 

[Lion IRC]

When I, a Christian, do bad things, it's Satan's fault, for laying his snares.

Nope.

satan might be an accessory or an accomplice but he is not a get-out-of-jail free card for the person who sins.

In fact you could argue that listening to satan instead of God would be even more incriminating against the person who has been warned about satan.

When you, a non-Christian, do bad things, it's your fault because you have free will.

Firstly, Christians also have free will.
There's no exemption for Christians in this regard.

Secondly, many non-Christians have deliberately made themselves non-Christians, often, after having previously been self-professing Christians. So it's quite reasonable to hold them responsible for their free will choice.

When another Christian does really bad stuff, that means he wasn't really a Christian.

No.
'Real' Christians can sin.
People pretending to be Christians can sin.
Muslims can sin.
Jewish people can sin.
Atheists can sin....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When I, a Christian, do bad things, it's Satan's fault, for laying his snares.

Nope.

satan might be an accessory or an accomplice but he is not a get-out-of-jail free card for the person who sins.

I'm not claiming that is the case, that pastor did.

In fact you could argue that listening to satan instead of God would be even more incriminating against the person who has been warned about satan.

Listening?

When you, a non-Christian, do bad things, it's your fault because you have free will.

Firstly, Christians also have free will.

Not according to Calvin.

There's no exemption for Christians in this regard.

Secondly, many non-Christians have deliberately made themselves non-Christians, often, after having previously been self-professing Christians. So it's quite reasonable to hold them responsible for their free will choice.

Again, this is in dispute. Let us know the consensus once Christians have reached it regarding faith and whether or not God actually dictates that.

 

[Elixir]

Listening?

IKR?
Who needs to listen? I just look to my left.
If there's a little guy with horns in a red suit sitting on my shoulder, that's enough for me!

 

[DBT]

When I, a Christian, do bad things, it's Satan's fault, for laying his snares.

Nope.

satan might be an accessory or an accomplice but he is not a get-out-of-jail free card for the person who sins.

In fact you could argue that listening to satan instead of God would be even more incriminating against the person who has been warned about satan.

When you, a non-Christian, do bad things, it's your fault because you have free will.

Firstly, Christians also have free will.
There's no exemption for Christians in this regard.

Secondly, many non-Christians have deliberately made themselves non-Christians, often, after having previously been self-professing Christians. So it's quite reasonable to hold them responsible for their free will choice.

When another Christian does really bad stuff, that means he wasn't really a Christian.

No.
'Real' Christians can sin.
People pretending to be Christians can sin.
Muslims can sin.
Jewish people can sin.
Atheists can sin....

A conviction or a lack of conviction is a complex process, not something you switch on or off by an act of will.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

 

[bilby]

I don't get this 'outside of time' idea. Time is relative and so flows at different rates, but being outside of time as in 'no time' implies that nothing happens, no events, no thoughts, no actions because all of these take time and are time.

Important thing here, and I think it bears observation: having some dimension along which there is a single direction of change that is not perpendicular to the single dimension of mono-directional change we experience is entirely possible.

The problem is that some people have a very weak understanding of what "time" is, or what makes some dimension "temporal".

For an example, yet again, look at the simulation/host boundary.

I am not strictly bound by simulation time. I can wind the simulation forward, I can restore it back to a previous state. I am outside of simulation time because I can play it back and forth like a tape in a drive, it's "time" is to me merely "location".

Being "outside of time" doesn't mean there is no time dimension for the agent, it just means that the time dimension of the observer being invoked is more a "locational" dimension for the entity being observed.

Indeed. From a higer dimensional perspective, spacetime is just a four-dimensional block of stuff that never changes. The future isn't known to an observer embedded in the block, but then, such observers don't even agree on which parts of the block are "future" and which are "past".

This is an interesting way to think about time, but from a religious perspective it is of little value; A posited observer (or even creator) in the form of a supra-dimensional intelligence is nothing like the Gods proposed by any major religion, and does nothing to help answer the question of origins - even if a higher dimensional being made the four dimensional block universe, we still need to understand the origins of that higher dimensional being - the question isn't being adressed, it's just kicking the can down the road.