Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Does God now share Dominion with Satan?

  1. #1 Does God now share Dominion with Satan? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Does God now share Dominion with Satan?

    In the beginning God had full control of all time and space.
    He began to evolve the universe by adding all we see and us. Creation.
    He had full control till Satan was determined by God to be evil.
    God then created hell. A place for sinners where He will not rule but allow or force Satan to do so.

    Does this mean that God has somehow given up or lost a part of the universe that He, in the beginning, had full control over?
    Is that the same as back sliding?

    An analogy would be like God and all that is, living in a house.
    In the beginning, it was pristine and clean. God then created a blemish/hell and placed it in the far corner of the basement.
    He has effectively lost that space and must live with that blemish forever and a reduced usable square footage, so to speak.

    He does not go there.
    He does not control what happens there and only sends sinners there.
    All there have free will to do whatever they like or are under Satanís dominion. I am not sure which.
    God ignores it. God and evil do not mesh in any way. Some say they cannot exist in the same place.

    In heaven God rules. In the beginning He ruled everything. Now, and in the future, there seem to be two rulers in the universe.
    God and Satan.

    Has God lost or given up some of His time and space to Satan forever?
    Has Satan actually won in His battle with God for some supremacy.
    It seems so because he now has a piece of what was once Godís. Angels demons and human souls.

    I do not particularly like this conclusion but I have painted myself into a logically sound corner.
    Please show me where the logic trail is wrong.

    Regards
    DL


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The OP of this thread makes an a priori assumption of a single religious doctrine and is a theological discussion rather than a philosophical discussion on the nature of religion or an objective and rational evaluation of religious practice.

    I think such a discussion is outside the scope of the forum and I'm going to move it for now, but I'll consult with Mitch and see what he thinks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The OP of this thread makes an a priori assumption of a single religious doctrine and is a theological discussion rather than a philosophical discussion on the nature of religion or an objective and rational evaluation of religious practice.

    I think such a discussion is outside the scope of the forum and I'm going to move it for now, but I'll consult with Mitch and see what he thinks.
    It is hard to understand what GIA is doing in his OP. He seems to be putting forth what He thinks some religious people believe but not to describe it objectively but to sculpt in into an argument for a conclusion that he thinks would shock, revolt and repel.

    What is particularly bizarre is that what he ends up describing is actually close to the beliefs of many religions both existant and historical. The largest and longest lasting such group are the Zoastrians but probably due to their influence there are many other groups particularly some groups that have been associated with Judaism or Christianity but eventually anathematized as heretical. The mythology of Plato shows elements of this and both Platonic thought and Zoastrianism are influences in the development of many of the different strains of Gnosticism as well as Manichaeism.

    I know that many of GIA's threads do not have an OP that is particularly well crafted as a meaningful contribution to a scientific study of religion but they often do, as this one does, touch on an interesting question that is of relevance to this study. I don't think that we can evaluate a thread in terms of the logic of the OP alone because a simple question is a good OP and maybe even the best sort of OP. In fact, I often observe that many posters ignore the OP and only read the title of the thread and thus the question in the title can be considered more significant.

    A better approach to this might be a request to GIA to work on the OP a bit in order to make his intent a little more clear.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A better approach to this might be a request to GIA to work on the OP a bit in order to make his intent a little more clear.
    I can agree with that. GIA?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    GIA?
    Greatest I am = GIA

    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    GIA?
    Greatest I am = GIA

    :wink:
    That I knew. It was intended as a prompting question as in, "GIA, what're you're thoughts? Would you be willing to elucidate your OP?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    That I knew. It was intended as a prompting question as in, "GIA, what're you're thoughts? Would you be willing to elucidate your OP?"
    Ah, lol. My bad. I had a feeling you might've meant something else. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    It did look like a question of the acronym. I just wasn't clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Please may I inquire; What is (an) OP? Would it possibly stand for 'opening premise'? :?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Original Post or, sometimes, Original Poster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Thank you Mr. Walker.

    For mine, there is not too great an issue in the OP; as it is a fundamentally sound observation of the kernel of religion worldwide, even though as Mitch notes; many have somewhat deviated from this (now predominantly Christian) core.

    Having noted this, I would like to further state that it is a whole load of bunkum, once again based upon the premise that there is in existence; the known PHYSICAL, of which we are all well aware on the one hand, and the hypothetical construct spiritual/physical on the other.

    Whilst no-one can have any doubt over the first of these, the second is a man-made concoction, for any detached ethereal/concrete superman entity is clearly a lesson in nonsense and an unmitigated insult to human intellect. It is also a lesson in how a physically focused mindset cannot help but fail to perceive an entirely SPIRITUAL counterpart Ė that is; having zero physicality.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The OP of this thread makes an a priori assumption of a single religious doctrine and is a theological discussion rather than a philosophical discussion on the nature of religion or an objective and rational evaluation of religious practice.

    I think such a discussion is outside the scope of the forum and I'm going to move it for now, but I'll consult with Mitch and see what he thinks.
    It is hard to understand what GIA is doing in his OP. He seems to be putting forth what He thinks some religious people believe but not to describe it objectively but to sculpt in into an argument for a conclusion that he thinks would shock, revolt and repel.

    What is particularly bizarre is that what he ends up describing is actually close to the beliefs of many religions both existant and historical. The largest and longest lasting such group are the Zoastrians but probably due to their influence there are many other groups particularly some groups that have been associated with Judaism or Christianity but eventually anathematized as heretical. The mythology of Plato shows elements of this and both Platonic thought and Zoastrianism are influences in the development of many of the different strains of Gnosticism as well as Manichaeism.

    I know that many of GIA's threads do not have an OP that is particularly well crafted as a meaningful contribution to a scientific study of religion but they often do, as this one does, touch on an interesting question that is of relevance to this study. I don't think that we can evaluate a thread in terms of the logic of the OP alone because a simple question is a good OP and maybe even the best sort of OP. In fact, I often observe that many posters ignore the OP and only read the title of the thread and thus the question in the title can be considered more significant.

    A better approach to this might be a request to GIA to work on the OP a bit in order to make his intent a little more clear.
    It is said that when one knows more than one language that communication becomes more difficult. I agree and recognize this as fact. I know three languages and am probably less coherent than some but most glean what I am speaking to. If not a question for clarification is always good.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    A better approach to this might be a request to GIA to work on the OP a bit in order to make his intent a little more clear.
    I can agree with that. GIA?
    My intent is to find out who people think have dominion and where and to ultimately show that it is likely us.

    That way we can stop blaming God or Satan for what we create.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    GIA?
    Greatest I am = GIA

    :wink:
    That I knew. It was intended as a prompting question as in, "GIA, what're you're thoughts? Would you be willing to elucidate your OP?"
    I actually work hard to show the logic trail that I follow.
    If it cannot be recognized then it is because we all see things differently.
    If and when we do it is rehashed through discussions.

    I get replies from you are crazy to you are right on and all kinds in the middle.
    I cannot please all, all the time. Especially the way I misuse language.
    No one has the same definition of hell for instance. Some think it is the earth, some think it internal and some think it is an actual place of fire.

    It is like saying you are a Christian. The title means nothing anymore. Some have one wife, some many. Some think Jesus divine, some not.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Thank you Mr. Walker.

    For mine, there is not too great an issue in the OP; as it is a fundamentally sound observation of the kernel of religion worldwide, even though as Mitch notes; many have somewhat deviated from this (now predominantly Christian) core.

    Having noted this, I would like to further state that it is a whole load of bunkum, once again based upon the premise that there is in existence; the known PHYSICAL, of which we are all well aware on the one hand, and the hypothetical construct spiritual/physical on the other.

    Whilst no-one can have any doubt over the first of these, the second is a man-made concoction, for any detached ethereal/concrete superman entity is clearly a lesson in nonsense and an unmitigated insult to human intellect. It is also a lesson in how a physically focused mindset cannot help but fail to perceive an entirely SPIRITUAL counterpart Ė that is; having zero physicality.
    We basically agree and the OP brings out those who we have a duty to correct.

    BTW, if I had your eloquence I could correct many more than I do and what the hell my OP is all about could never be questioned.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The OP of this thread makes an a priori assumption of a single religious doctrine and is a theological discussion rather than a philosophical discussion on the nature of religion or an objective and rational evaluation of religious practice.

    I think such a discussion is outside the scope of the forum and I'm going to move it for now, but I'll consult with Mitch and see what he thinks.
    It is hard to understand what GIA is doing in his OP. He seems to be putting forth what He thinks some religious people believe but not to describe it objectively but to sculpt in into an argument for a conclusion that he thinks would shock, revolt and repel.
    ...
    A better approach to this might be a request to GIA to work on the OP a bit in order to make his intent a little more clear.
    It is said that when one knows more than one language that communication becomes more difficult. I agree and recognize this as fact. I know three languages and am probably less coherent than some but most glean what I am speaking to. If not a question for clarification is always good.
    It is SkinWalker's concerns that you need to address. I was doing my best to explain how I saw things, arguing that he should ask you to clarify your OP rather than send this thread to the trash (which he had done). So again the question is what is the intent of your OP and how does this contribute to a scientific study of relgion?
    I have written to him but am confused as to how science can study the unfathomable or made up imaginings of men.

    Science can prove if something exists in a positive way. It can never prove a negative.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Hell and Satan. 
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    God has given Satan a temporary resting place, in the end Satan will be tossed into the lake of fire with the anti-christ and will rule nothing.

    Satan wished to take over all, he has some, and only because God lets him. And in the end his domain will become his place of torment. I do not think that is victory.
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Hell and Satan. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    God has given Satan a temporary resting place, in the end Satan will be tossed into the lake of fire with the anti-christ and will rule nothing.

    Satan wished to take over all, he has some, and only because God lets him. And in the end his domain will become his place of torment. I do not think that is victory.
    Strange that God would build a house and then let someone move in uninvited and let him stay.

    Is that what you would do or would you give him the boot?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Hell and Satan. 
    Forum Freshman Haku_Midori_Shadowsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Haku_Midori_Shadowsong
    God has given Satan a temporary resting place, in the end Satan will be tossed into the lake of fire with the anti-christ and will rule nothing.

    Satan wished to take over all, he has some, and only because God lets him. And in the end his domain will become his place of torment. I do not think that is victory.
    Strange that God would build a house and then let someone move in uninvited and let him stay.

    Is that what you would do or would you give him the boot?

    Regards
    DL
    More like someone you invited in, who then went stark raving crazy. And is huddled in a corner threatening to stab you with a fork.

    Also, God is far more patient and understanding than I.
    -Haku Midori Shadowsong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm


    A dictator God does not need or want a loyal opposition.
    A democratic God who gives free choice does.

    Thoughts?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •