Pleasing Both God & Satan

[Johnson Chong]

If you pleases both God and Satan, you will receive both spiritual blessing and all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor(Matt 4:8) The 2 won't nullify one another, God and Satan will assure you that.

[Johnson Chong]

Originally posted by Johnson Chong:
If you pleases both God and Satan, you will receive both spiritual blessing and all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor(Matt 4:8) The 2 won't nullify one another, God and Satan will assure you that.

Yes, God & Satan can strike an agreement like that (Job 1:9-12)

[Mapraputa Is]

But you are still in trouble with Allah because of improper garments...

[Sahir Shibley]

The archfiend rebelled against God and was thereby expelled from heaven. Isn't it naive to assume that God who forgives man's transgressions will not forgive Satan for his rebellion? Of course, a precondition to this is that Satan should be prepared to eat humble pie and withdraw his rebellion.
Sun Tzu in "The Art of War" says a protracted war where victory is not foreseeable should be avoided at all costs . Is it possible that Satan who is supposed to be devilishly clever does not know this ?

[This message has been edited by Sahir Shibley (edited September 02, 2001).]

[Jim Yingst]

For an interesting fictional take on Sahir's question, I recommend To Reign In Hell by Steven Brust. One of my favorites (but remember, I'm an atheist...)

[Aamir Khan]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
But you are still in trouble with Allah because of improper garments...

Allah tells you the ways how to spend your life in this world.He loves His peaple more than 70 times a mother loves her kids.He is the most mercifull and forgiver.He will not forgive , however, if you do anything bad with another person untill that person forgives you.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
For an interesting fictional take on Sahir's question, I recommend To Reign In Hell by Steven Brust.

After reading Amazon's reviews... Jim, could you lend me your copy, please?

[Greg Harris]

i know that i should never get into a debate about politics, religion or football, but i have to set Johnson's post straight.
Matthew 4:8 is about the temptation of Christ by Satan... starting at Matthew 4:7

4:7 Jesus said to him (satan), "On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
4:8 Again, the devil took Him (Jesus) to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory;
4:9 and he said to Him, "All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me."
4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only!"

so, it does not say that you can please both God and Satan... it says you have to choose one or the other.

[Sahir Shibley]

Furthermore our religious beliefs seem to take a homocentric universe for granted. The earth is a rather small planet that revolves around the sun which is a rather small star in the milky way. There are billions of stars in this galaxy and there are billions of such galaxies in the universe. So according to the laws of probability intelligent life forms must exist in billions of planets (or even stars) in this universe. So what is the basis of the assumption that man holds an exalted position in this universe. If we assume God values the life of a human being more than that of a chicken or an egg plant , it must be on the assumption of his intelligence. Using the laws of probability again, at least a small percentage of intelligent life forms in this universe should be far more intelligent than man. Hence the ratio of importance of a human being compared to a being x in planet y in galaxy z could be the same as the ratio between man and chicken . If all of this is false then God loves cabbage as much as he loves man and values it's life as much as that of a human being. So drinking cabbage soup is a cardinal sin .
[Note: The word homocentric means circles with a common center but I have used the word here in the same sense as ethnocentric in the absence of a suitable word. The homo in homocentric comes from homosapiens, it is in no way a reference to the gay community ]


[This message has been edited by Sahir Shibley (edited September 02, 2001).]

[Johnson Chong]

Originally posted by Greg Harris:
i know that i should never get into a debate about politics, religion or football, but i have to set Johnson's post straight.
Matthew 4:8 is about the temptation of Christ by Satan... starting at Matthew 4:7
so, it does not say that you can please both God and Satan... it says you have to choose one or the other.

Oh....sorry about that...T'was a photocopied bible I'm reading...guess it's not photocopied right

[Jim Yingst]

> Note: The word homocentric means circles with a common center
> but I have used the word here in the same sense as
> ethnocentric in the absense of a suitable word
Usually the rest of us use "anthropocentric" or "anthropic" in this context.

[Sahir Shibley]

Thanks. However I dont quite like the sound of "anthropocentric" or "anthropic", so I shall use the same licence that was used for "the most unkindest cut of all" and let it stand .

[Mapraputa Is]

"Homocentric" sounds perfectly OK to me. I did not think about connotations Sahir pointed out, until he pointed them out But then my expertise in English is dubious, so...

[Tony Alicea]

I only read the first msg as I found amusing the title of the thread.
My reply: There is no God nor Satan.
Therefore any statement that assumes the existence of either, is incorrect.

[Jim Yingst]

> "Homocentric" sounds perfectly OK to me.
Well, if we were making up words from scratch, it would be. "Homo" is Latin for "man", while "anthropos" is Greek for "human being". "Center" comes from Latin "centrum", which came from Greek "kentron" - all of which mean the same thing. So either construction is equally valid I think , if we simply ignore that facts that (a) most all other words ending in "centric" use Greek roots rather than Latin ones (including the real "homocentric"), (b) there are already two words in the dictionary for what Sahir wants, and (c) the word he's creating anew already means something else.
> Thanks. However I dont quite like the sound
> of "anthropocentric" or "anthropic",
I see. And will we be renaming "anthropology" to "homology" as well?
I'm curious - what about "anthropic" do you dislike? I'll concede that "anthropocentric" has more syllables than it needs, which is probably why there's an "anthropic cosmological principle" rather than an "anthropocentric cosmological priciple".
> so I shall use the same licence that was used for "the most
> unkindest cut of all" and let it stand.
Ah, but at least Shakespeare didn't co-opt an existing word to mean something totally different. Still, the "artistic license" argument has merit, and you did take the trouble to define your new word, after all. I just wanted to point out that there's a perfectly good one already available, and if you google it you will find all sorts of links with people talking about similar concepts to what you were discussing. Which won't work for "homocentric".
[This message has been edited by Jim Yingst (edited September 03, 2001).]

[Mapraputa Is]

Ok, Jim, you won. This time.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
I only read the first msg as I found amusing the title of the thread.
My reply: There is no God nor Satan.

Rats. We lack two most important things.

[Sahir Shibley]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Ok, Jim, you won. This time.

Yeah. We will concede the point and accept "anthropic" (on second thoughts it doesnt sound too bad ). However I am not editing the post to replace the word as it would make this page confusing to the reader .

[Sahir Shibley]

I am disappointed by this passive acceptance. I expected some heated response from the staunch believers, particularly the Islamic scholars here .

[Mapraputa Is]

It's probably better not no bother Islamic scholars. See, what a sexual revolution here they already provoked?

[lehmanra]

Who are what is Satan?
Why would there be a Satan?
Why would G-d create such a thing?

[Thomas Paul]

It's that darn free will thing. You give someone free will and who knows what the hell they will do with it!

[Shama Khan]

I am disappointed by this passive acceptance. I expected some heated response from the staunch believers, particularly the Islamic scholars here .

I felt I was invited Now am I scholar? No, sorry to disappoint you.
From an Islamic point of view, life on earth is a tiny fraction of our total life. So really there is no point in befriending Satan to get a satisfaction that'll last only a second or so of our total life span.
To me it's like a married person losing one's wits and spend an afternoon with some nameless person only to lose the hard earned marital relationship that took years to build.
Shama

[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited September 04, 2001).]

[Angela Poynton]

OK I'm agnostic so am neither here nor there on the issue of God and therefore Satan.
My opinion is that all Religions are man-made and therefore to follow them are to follow the rules given by a man not by any other entity that may be considered God. In such instances as the receipt of The Ten Commandments for instance, where God was supposed to have conveyed these to a man, since I don't ignore the possibility of there being some kind of "God" I believe what we have is a man's interpretation of what that "God" gave him. This is one possibility of how Religions are created .... or they could be completely made-up by another human being.
I hold a great respect for anybody's "faith" (I don't consider faith and religion to be one and the same, although they are often closely related) and believe that everyone should go through life with their faith/beliefs and as long as they feel they are leading a "good" life (as defined by their faith) then that's OK!
I believe in good and not-good but my definitions of these are shaped by my beliefs as are everyone elses.
You'll note I said "not-good" rather than evil, since I don't believe in evil, not-good people just have a different perception.
So for me to please both God and Satan is a matter of perspective. I just find it interesting that it was a Christian text that was referenced. I'll admit to being rather ignorant of the entities other religions reference. Do other faiths have a comparitor to Satan?

[Sahir Shibley]

Yes, the laws of religion do an admirable job of telling us how to conduct ourselves in areas of our lives that are beyond the reach of common law. Of course they do overlap quite a bit. Some sins are also defined as crimes by common law. Usually it is the agnostics and the atheists who tend to follow these rules scrupulously and the fervent believers who break them. Most of the atheists I have known have been men and women of the highest moral calibre (one of them's my old man ). The atheist negates his words with his actions . If there is a life after death and if there is heaven and hell, people like Angela, Jim and me will go to heaven. As for the rest of you , ................... . But I promise to send you guys crates of chilled beer when the fires get too hot
[This message has been edited by Sahir Shibley (edited September 05, 2001).]

[Sahir Shibley]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
So for me to please both God and Satan is a matter of perspective. I just find it interesting that it was a Christian text that was referenced. I'll admit to being rather ignorant of the entities other religions reference. Do other faiths have a comparitor to Satan?

Yes. Jews and Muslims. The only difference between these religions is that the Jews do not acknowledge Jesus and Muslims see Jesus as the second last of their prophets (in chronological order).

[George Brown]

Originally posted by Sahir Shibley:
Yes. Jews and Muslims.

There are also other religions that refer to 'demons' of various sorts, cf hindu and buddhist texts for instance. It's not exactly the same, but similar, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

[Mapraputa Is]

Splitting What Is Beyond Our Understanding into two "opposite" concepts of God and Satan looks desperately... homocentric for me Ok, Ok, anthropocentric Aren't they essentially the same thing?
P.S. Sahir, I also wonder why these are mostly atheists who are seriously concerned with such problems

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Sahir, I also wonder why these are mostly atheists who are seriously concerned with such problems

Yeah, it is the atheist who is more anxious to discover God,
particularly Jim .
Since the entertaining "women , crime and derssing" thread has been deleted, I have a question I would like to ask the wise ranchers. Its based on a fictional scenario. Lets say ten or fifteen years from now a spacecraft has been launched on a mission to search our galaxy for a suitable planet to establish a human colony on . You are the commander of the vessel . During this mission you manage to find a planet which seems to be populated by intelligent beings and from all evidences their level of intelligence and technology is either equal to or perhaps greater than ours. Now as a geek your first instinct is to jump in and say hello. But in this story you aren't a geek but a Colonel in the US Airforce and the commander of a space mission. You must radio back to earth for instructions. The order can be, either to establish contact with the aliens or sneak away unseen . Now you realise that the next order will probably come from the President himself and you realise that he isn't authorised to take a decision on behalf of the entire human race. So you must have your authority from someone who you think is entitled to speak on behalf of the entire human race ? If such a situation arises who has the authority to issue an order ? The United Nations , The Holy Father in Rome , The Dalai Lama , Tiger Woods ?

[Cindy Glass]

I would stand behind what the UN decided. Its the best thing that we have going. But I feel a whole lot better if I could hear that supported by my President.
I think the US has been TRYING to abide by the UN decisions on international issues for quite a while. It is just very difficult when it is entirely optional and there is (as always) alot of pressure in other directions.

[Jamie Robertson]

I would definitely radio the Psychic Network Hotline. That way I would know for sure what the outcome would be . Actually, I would not radio back but mingle with the intelligent life, see what I could learn, quit the army, then try to market all my new ideas for profit on earth . Maybe even sell some communication technology to Bill Gates to complete his world domination!
Jamie

[Thomas Paul]

As a colonel in the US AirForce, my orders would come from the President of the USA. The opinion of the UN would be of little interest to me since it would probably be something like, "convince the aliens to attack Israel since Zionism is racism."

[Eager Beaver]

But I promise to send you guys crates of chilled beer when the fires get too hot

Hehe....and you will have earned God's ire for dispatching that potentially sinful drink to us heathens and while we would be engaged in bouts of bacchanalia a resounding thud would be heard....lo behold! Is that him our benevolent provider of the pitcher...err crates....

[Tony Alicea]

Angela:
"In such instances as the receipt of The Ten Commandments for instance,..."
It was in fact FIFTEEN commandments. Three stone tablets, not two. However Moses tripped and accidentally dropped one of the Tablets, and instead of admitting to it, he said that there were only TEN commandments (i.e., two tablets instead of three).
This is all well documented in Mel Brooks film "The History of the World, Part I (or II)".

[George Brown]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
It was in fact FIFTEEN commandments. Three stone tablets, not two. However Moses tripped and accidentally dropped one of the Tablets, and instead of admitting to it, he said that there were only TEN commandments (i.e., two tablets instead of three).

It makes me wonder what the other 5 were...

[This message has been edited by George Brown (edited September 08, 2001).]

[Manku Thimma]

I'm just guessing here
> Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's computer.
> Thou shalt not hack a website.
> Thou shalt not eavesdrop on others cordless phone conversations.
> Thou shalt not visit forbidden websites.
> And if you do, Thou shalt delete all cookies.
And here's more suggestions

[This message has been edited by Manku Thimma (edited September 08, 2001).]