urge to pray - advice/help

[brotherlylove]

The grounds for me saying it is you using it as an argument. Sure, I don't believe it, but when you use an argument for your religion that works just as easily against it, I will us it against you.

It's not even an argument for my religion, it is simply what Christians believe and have always believed, and what the jews believed before that. It's surprising that atheists don't know that. I am simply saying that my worldview has an explanation for the genuine supernatural experiences that other people have. You can claim trickster Gods or flying purple unicorns or whatever you want, but you don't actually have any grounds for it, so it is not a persausive argument.

The other half of the equation is that if a good God exists, the deception could only be limited. The truth is available to know who God is..and if God is good that is offered to anyone. So, you could not be endlessly deceived in this paradigm.

[genkaus]

It doesn't work, because you're getting Satan from the bible in the first place, and as I explained above, Satan wouldn't reveal himself voluntarily. You could make a case from Islam, because it also mentions Satan, but there is a good argument against Islam in the bible.

First, Islam is a bastardization of Christianity and Judiasm, written 600 years after the fact. There is basically no difference between Islam and Mormonism. They both have so-called prophets receiving extra-biblical revelations from angels, and they both wrote new books for the bible claiming their revelation trumps everything else. This kind of deception was predicted:

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

More specifically, that neither Muhammed or Joseph Smith heard directly from God. If you don't hear from God you're not a prophet..that's what makes you a prophet in the first place. They only received revelations from angelic messengers:

2 Corinthians 11:14-15

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

So, based on this I think it's reasonable to conclude that the bible is true over the quran.

This is a perfect example of how Satan sows the seeds discord among gods creation.

From time to time, he pretends to be god and "inspires" people to spread "god's word" (Satan's word, in fact, mixed with a few truths). He doesn't come up with a whole new story everytime, but puts in enough differences to spark conflict. Whether it is Abraham or Moses or Jesus or Mohammad or Joseph Smith, they were all deceived into thinking that they were doing god's work, while in fact they were Satan's minions. And the results are exactly what Satan wanted - centuries of people fighting over whose lie is more true.

[The Grand Nudger]

The grounds for me saying it is you using it as an argument. Sure, I don't believe it, but when you use an argument for your religion that works just as easily against it, I will us it against you.

It's not even an argument for my religion, it is simply what Christians believe and have always believed, and what the jews believed before that. It's surprising that atheists don't know that. I am simply saying that my worldview has an explanation for the genuine supernatural experiences that other people have. You can claim trickster Gods or flying purple unicorns or whatever you want, but you don't actually have any grounds for it, so it is not a persausive argument.

The other half of the equation is that if a good God exists, the deception could only be limited. The truth is available to know who God is..and if God is good that is offered to anyone. So, you could not be endlessly deceived in this paradigm.

We didn't invoke the trickster, you did. Now you don't like tricksters because you've realized how childish an attempt at explanation the trickster is. I bolded the portion of your statement that you should re-read..slowly.

There is no other half, that is part of the trick.

[brotherlylove]

Why would remaining unknown be the greatest possible deception? If no one knows it exists, then not telling anyone that is exists is not exactly a great deception. No, a great deception would be lying about what does not exist and convincing everyone that it does.

What I said was that Satan is the greatest possible deceiver, and that the best position to deceive from is one where you are unknown to all. As the father of lies, the deception is everything that is not of the truth. For instance, you attempted to obfuscate the agrument by changing deceiver to deception.

By revealing himself in a form other than his true nature (i.e. revealing himself as weak and ineffectual), Satan has not only been able to deceive you about himself, he has also deceived you about god. If he'd remained unknown, the only thing he'd have been able to deceive you about would have been himself and that wouldn't be enough. The deception he has perpetrated through the bible is even greater.

If no one knows he exists, he doesn't need to deceive anyone about himself. His deception is to lead people away from God. Satan deceives by manipulating human beings to spread his lies. He does this spiritually, by either influencing, oppressing or outright possessing, through his army of fallen angels. He has the most freedom to do this when no one knows he is doing it.

---

The grounds for me saying it is you using it as an argument. Sure, I don't believe it, but when you use an argument for your religion that works just as easily against it, I will us it against you.

It's not even an argument for my religion, it is simply what Christians believe and have always believed, and what the jews believed before that. It's surprising that atheists don't know that. I am simply saying that my worldview has an explanation for the genuine supernatural experiences that other people have. You can claim trickster Gods or flying purple unicorns or whatever you want, but you don't actually have any grounds for it, so it is not a persausive argument.

The other half of the equation is that if a good God exists, the deception could only be limited. The truth is available to know who God is..and if God is good that is offered to anyone. So, you could not be endlessly deceived in this paradigm.

We didn't invoke the trickster, you did. Now you don't like tricksters because you've realized how childish an attempt at explanation the trickster is. I bolded the portion of your statement that you should re-read..slowly.

There is no other half, that is part of the trick.

I don't care if you use logically incoherent arguments. If anyone who is interested in the truth comes to read this dialogue, it will be a point in favor of my position.

[genkaus]

Remember these words?: "Et tu, brute?" The most dangerous enemies are those you don't know are enemies. That is so obvious that to argue against it shows your desperation in trying to hold on to your illegitimate premise.

And this is a perfect example of an underestimated enemy - not unknown enemy. Brutus swore loyalty to Caesar, but his actions always spoke otherwise. In the civil war between Pompey and Caesar, Brutus supported Pompey and then came running back once Caesar won. He was married to Porcia, daughter of Cato the Younger, who was a supporter of Pompey and a man who Caesar hunted down through Africa.

Further, Brutus did not act alone, neither was he the one to strike the first blow. There were many involved in the assassination, many whom Caesar would have been careful of, had he not under-estimated any of them or over-estimated his own position. Clearly, he knew enough to know, and yet he underestimated his enemies.

I wouldn't have thought this was clever even when I believed Christianity was untrue.

Its not clever, it is the truth. And that fact that you cannot provide a single argument against it is the proof of its truth.

It has a bearing on reality, it is backed up by scripture and my own experience. I also have 2000 years of history and 2 billion people who affirm my belief. You could say flying unicorns from mars are deceiving me but you don't have any grounds for saying it, and it isn't exactly a persausive argument when you are contending for things you don't actually believe yourself.

Flying unicorns from mars aren't deceiving you. Satan is deceiving you, using the bible. And you are allowing yourself to be deceived. God will not forgive you for that. But it is not too late. Repent and come back to the path of rationality.

---

What I said was that Satan is the greatest possible deceiver, and that the best position to deceive from is one where you are unknown to all. As the father of lies, the deception is everything that is not of the truth. For instance, you attempted to obfuscate the agrument by changing deceiver to deception.

The best position to deceive from is certainly not the unknown. Think about it. Who is more likely to be able to deceive you. Someone you don't know? Ofcourse not. You'll be careful not to take his words at their face value. Someone you know and trust? There it is.

If Satan always remained unknown or always told lies, no one would believe him - thereby defeating his own purpose. The best option for him is to put up a trustworthy front - such a Jesus Christ.

By the way, before you accuse me of obfuscation, look at your own words -

The greatest possibility of deception in every possible world is to be completely unknown.

If no one knows he exists, he doesn't need to deceive anyone about himself. His deception is to lead people away from God. Satan deceives by manipulating human beings to spread his lies. He does this spiritually, by either influencing, oppressing or outright possessing, through his army of fallen angels. He has the most freedom to do this when no one knows he is doing it.

---

Just by influencing, oppressing and possessing. Those are such limited options. And as soon as he does any of those things, he's going to become known. People aren't stupid enough to be influenced, oppressed or possessed without asking who is doing the influencing, oppressing or possessing.

No. Satan's strategy is similar to that favored by the great emperor Palpatine - better known as Darth Sidious. On one hand, he presents himself as this ominous, unknown threat - threatening people with influence, oppression and possession - and trying to seduce them to the dark side. On the other hand, he presents himself as the leader of the opposite side - Chancellor Palpatine (in this case Jesus Christ)- and tells people that doing things his way would help them resist stand against the threat. Its the classic "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

[brotherlylove]

And this is a perfect example of an underestimated enemy - not unknown enemy. Brutus swore loyalty to Caesar, but his actions always spoke otherwise. In the civil war between Pompey and Caesar, Brutus supported Pompey and then came running back once Caesar won. He was married to Porcia, daughter of Cato the Younger, who was a supporter of Pompey and a man who Caesar hunted down through Africa.

Further, Brutus did not act alone, neither was he the one to strike the first blow. There were many involved in the assassination, many whom Caesar would have been careful of, had he not under-estimated any of them or over-estimated his own position. Clearly, he knew enough to know, and yet he underestimated his enemies.

Brutus was a close friend of Caesers. He didn't know he was an enemy, and if he did, he certainly wouldn't have made him Praetor. Your argument holds no water.

Its not clever, it is the truth. And that fact that you cannot provide a single argument against it is the proof of its truth.

Flying unicorns from mars aren't deceiving you. Satan is deceiving you, using the bible. And you are allowing yourself to be deceived. God will not forgive you for that. But it is not too late. Repent and come back to the path of rationality

Satan wouldn't have revealed his existence in the bible, or anywhere, had he any choice. The most dangerous enemy is the one you don't know about. Again, this is so obviously true that the fact that you're still arguing this point shows that you have no argument at all.

---

Remember these words?: "Et tu, brute?" The most dangerous enemies are those you don't know are enemies. That is so obvious that to argue against it shows your desperation in trying to hold on to your illegitimate premise.

And this is a perfect example of an underestimated enemy - not unknown enemy. Brutus swore loyalty to Caesar, but his actions always spoke otherwise. In the civil war between Pompey and Caesar, Brutus supported Pompey and then came running back once Caesar won. He was married to Porcia, daughter of Cato the Younger, who was a supporter of Pompey and a man who Caesar hunted down through Africa.

Further, Brutus did not act alone, neither was he the one to strike the first blow. There were many involved in the assassination, many whom Caesar would have been careful of, had he not under-estimated any of them or over-estimated his own position. Clearly, he knew enough to know, and yet he underestimated his enemies.

I wouldn't have thought this was clever even when I believed Christianity was untrue.

Its not clever, it is the truth. And that fact that you cannot provide a single argument against it is the proof of its truth.

It has a bearing on reality, it is backed up by scripture and my own experience. I also have 2000 years of history and 2 billion people who affirm my belief. You could say flying unicorns from mars are deceiving me but you don't have any grounds for saying it, and it isn't exactly a persausive argument when you are contending for things you don't actually believe yourself.

Flying unicorns from mars aren't deceiving you. Satan is deceiving you, using the bible. And you are allowing yourself to be deceived. God will not forgive you for that. But it is not too late. Repent and come back to the path of rationality.

---

What I said was that Satan is the greatest possible deceiver, and that the best position to deceive from is one where you are unknown to all. As the father of lies, the deception is everything that is not of the truth. For instance, you attempted to obfuscate the agrument by changing deceiver to deception.

The best position to deceive from is certainly not the unknown. Think about it. Who is more likely to be able to deceive you. Someone you don't know? Ofcourse not. You'll be careful not to take his words at their face value. Someone you know and trust? There it is.

If Satan always remained unknown or always told lies, no one would believe him - thereby defeating his own purpose. The best option for him is to put up a trustworthy front - such a Jesus Christ.

By the way, before you accuse me of obfuscation, look at your own words -

The greatest possibility of deception in every possible world is to be completely unknown.

If no one knows he exists, he doesn't need to deceive anyone about himself. His deception is to lead people away from God. Satan deceives by manipulating human beings to spread his lies. He does this spiritually, by either influencing, oppressing or outright possessing, through his army of fallen angels. He has the most freedom to do this when no one knows he is doing it.

---

Just by influencing, oppressing and possessing. Those are such limited options. And as soon as he does any of those things, he's going to become known. People aren't stupid enough to be influenced, oppressed or possessed without asking who is doing the influencing, oppressing or possessing.

No. Satan's strategy is similar to that favored by the great emperor Palpatine - better known as Darth Sidious. On one hand, he presents himself as this ominous, unknown threat - threatening people with influence, oppression and possession - and trying to seduce them to the dark side. On the other hand, he presents himself as the leader of the opposite side - Chancellor Palpatine (in this case Jesus Christ)- and tells people that doing things his way would help them resist stand against the threat. Its the classic "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

The people being manipulated by Satan don't know it is happening. It isnt a matter of being deceived by Satan, as if you are talking to him, or seeing what he is doing. He works in the spiritual realm where you expressly cannot see what he is doing.

[genkaus]

Brutus was a close friend of Caesers. He didn't know he was an enemy, and if he did, he certainly wouldn't have made him Praetor. Your argument holds no water.

That's because Caesar was a big practitioner of "keep your enemies close". He forgave and took back a lot of people who opposed him with Pompey and he made a lot of Gauls senators. If anything, it makes more sense for him to give someone he considered a threat a position of power. If your enemy has a lot to lose by moving against you, he'd hesitate to do so. On the other hand, if he has nothing to lose, then he's even more dangerous.

Satan wouldn't have revealed his existence in the bible, or anywhere, had he any choice. The most dangerous enemy is the one you don't know about. Again, this is so obviously true that the fact that you're still arguing this point shows that you have no argument at all.

---

The fact that you still don't understand the argument shows that you have no intelligence at all.

Satan had a choice - he could remain hidden, but that would mean that he wouldn't be able to act and therefore he wouldn't be able to influence anyone. Or else, he could come out in a manner of his choosing. He chose the latter.

The people being manipulated by Satan don't know it is happening. It isnt a matter of being deceived by Satan, as if you are talking to him, or seeing what he is doing. He works in the spiritual realm where you expressly cannot see what he is doing.

Do you really think everyone is as stupid as you? That they wouldn't stop to examine their own actions and motivations to figure out if they are acting on their own or being deceived and manipulated by someone else?

Oh, right, you would think that. After all, it is because you didn't examine your own beliefs, actions and motivations that you are being so deceived by Satan

[Undeceived]

Satan had a choice - he could remain hidden, but that would mean that he wouldn't be able to act and therefore he wouldn't be able to influence anyone. Or else, he could come out in a manner of his choosing. He chose the latter.

Why would he come out portrayed, by all accounts, as a deceiver? If you deceive, that means you have something to hide. If Satan was more powerful than God, or if God didn't exist, Satan would have no reason to deceive or fabricate a Bible. He'd rule the earth with an iron fist, and we'd know about it, and we couldn't do anything about it. What's more, some people might actually view him as a good god and worship him--exactly what he desires.

I came in the middle of this. Do you, genkaus, believe Satan exists? If not, why explain to brotherlylove how he is deceived by Satan? You're basically saying no spirits exist, but if they did only Satan would exist and not God; that, if anyone exists, it is the one in the background of the Bible with no favorable evidence instead of the clearest one. That is the opposite of scientific. It sounds more like you're keeping your bases covered by saying, "If I'm not right, you're not right either."

[passionatefool]

God doesnt exist, Satan doesnt exist, demon doesnt exist, spirit doesnt exist, no supernatural beings exist. End of story.

[brotherlylove]

That's because Caesar was a big practitioner of "keep your enemies close". He forgave and took back a lot of people who opposed him with Pompey and he made a lot of Gauls senators. If anything, it makes more sense for him to give someone he considered a threat a position of power. If your enemy has a lot to lose by moving against you, he'd hesitate to do so. On the other hand, if he has nothing to lose, then he's even more dangerous.

You don't put a potential enemy in charge of your entire power base. The quote "Even you, Brutus?" reveals that Caeser was betrayed unknowingly. Again, you show your desperation; the quote itself is the quintessential illustration of betrayal by your closest friend (an unknown enemy).

The fact that you still don't understand the argument shows that you have no intelligence at all.

The problem here is that you don't actually have an argument because it is built on a false pretense:

Satan had a choice - he could remain hidden, but that would mean that he wouldn't be able to act and therefore he wouldn't be able to influence anyone. Or else, he could come out in a manner of his choosing. He chose the latter.

And here is the false pretense; that Satan needed to reveal himself to act, which is patently false. Satan is a spirit, he doesn't need to reveal himself to act. He is freest to act when there is no revelation of his existence.

Do you really think everyone is as stupid as you? That they wouldn't stop to examine their own actions and motivations to figure out if they are acting on their own or being deceived and manipulated by someone else?

The definition of being deceived is not to know you are deceived.

Oh, right, you would think that. After all, it is because you didn't examine your own beliefs, actions and motivations that you are being so deceived by Satan

Without God to open your eyes to it, you will be unaware of any deception.