God Vs Satan which one is really good.

[AFPheonix]

That's patently a myth. The modern catholic church was not the first church.
There were likely many sects right after Jesus' death, assuming he ever existed and wasn't a melding of multiple people.
The problem being that the bible is mostly vague and some verses are just plain evil. Modern people call these "easily misterpreted words of man" and pick and choose the rest.

Let me qualify that by saying that it was the first, best organized church, overseen by Peter.
There were many other sects like the Gnostics, but they did not survive. The Catholics were better at politics and message control.

You are right about scripture, though. We also have to remember that the Epistles that were chosen to become scripture were frankly Cliff Notes of sermons delivered by their respective authors, too. We don't even get the full benefit of the whole message.

[Flyndaran]

Let me qualify that by saying that it was the first, best organized church, overseen by Peter.
There were many other sects like the Gnostics, but they did not survive. The Catholics were better at politics and message control.
...

I don't even acknowledge that as that assumes modern christianity is true. I'm not sure that Jesus existed let alone his troupe.

[Rapscallion]

There's a site called www.jesusneverexisted.com if you want to view an alternate side of things. I've not got the time or inclination to agree or disagree with the assertions there, but it makes for interesting skimming.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

But moving on to another point. Adam & Eve got kicked out of heaven for eating the apple that satan said for them to eat.

And that was the apple of knowledge, wasn't it? Satan, also known as Lucifer the lightbringer, gave us the capacity for reasoning and understanding, when God would keep us stupid and happy. I submit that anyone who deliberately punishes a population for learning is evil, and those who would break them from complacency is good.

Or to throw a huge freaking sci-fi wrench in, Satan is the Ori, only with less subjugation and killing (which is why the Ori were evil), and God is the Ancients (judging, withholding knowledge, 50 bajillion rules for the faithful). Ah, Stargate. Is there no situation where you can't make an analogy?

[AFPheonix]

I don't even acknowledge that as that assumes modern christianity is true. I'm not sure that Jesus existed let alone his troupe.

In this particular thread, since we're kind of debating over the goodness or evilness of God and Satan, one must make the assumption that they have to exist. A non-entity would neither be good nor evil.

[Flyndaran]

In this particular thread, since we're kind of debating over the goodness or evilness of God and Satan, one must make the assumption that they have to exist. A non-entity would neither be good nor evil.

Why not? The problem with religious arguments is that they contradict too much to make much sense of.
This is pretty hard to debate when there is not only no true answer but no true assumptions or givens on which to base one's point on.

[Nyoibo]

Why not? The problem with religious arguments is that they contradict too much to make much sense of.
This is pretty hard to debate when there is not only no true answer but no true assumptions or givens on which to base one's point on.

That's a pretty flimsy arguement for it, it's like saying you can't debate wether Lestat was good or evil because he was a fictional character.

[Mr Slugger]

In this particular thread, since we're kind of debating over the goodness or evilness of God and Satan, one must make the assumption that they have to exist. A non-entity would neither be good nor evil.

Yup. The original debate never tried to get into debating each point brought up, or whether God or Satan was real, or if things happened in the bible like the bible says. If it was from a bible, some kinda of encyclopedia, etc. Then it was to be taken as fact. That's why movies were not allowed because that was one person's opinion. You could do it as a "maybe it's like this movie." But like Nyoibo you can debate even fiction characters, so long as you've got enough of a story behind it.

Plus like I said the original was more for fun because in reality you'll never come to a conclusion.

[Flyndaran]

That's a pretty flimsy arguement for it, it's like saying you can't debate wether Lestat was good or evil because he was a fictional character.

Books by a single author tend to be a little more internally consistant than horribly self-contradictory holy texts.

[AFPheonix]

Why not? The problem with religious arguments is that they contradict too much to make much sense of.
This is pretty hard to debate when there is not only no true answer but no true assumptions or givens on which to base one's point on.

If you wish to debate whether they exist, then debate that. There are even threads dedicated to that very purpose. But that's not what this thread is questioning.

Not that I disagree with you on the existence part, but if we take part in this particular thought exercise, then we must at least assume for the moment that there are actual characters that have characteristics to talk about

[Fire_on_High]

Anyway, the way I choose to see things... Lucifer Morningstar, the first and highest of God's angels, wasn't happy that God would choose to create a race which was clearly inferior, but to give them a much higher standing... thus, Lucifer got a little bit pissed (s/he and a few of the others), and said "Sod this crap, we deserve better!" and took up a strike, and God told them to get the hell out... my golf course, my rules!

Very interesting POV you have, and one I've agreed with for many years myself.

[Ghel]

Part of the issue with this debate is WHAT books do you reference? As others have mentioned, there are many different bibles, many different books of the bible, and verses that are quite often contradictory.

The God of the OT is angry, strict, and selfish. He not only expected a lot from his people, but he encouraged (or was justification for) many wars and atrocities against neighboring peoples. The God of the NT is no better. Jesus says (and I may be paraphrasing), "I come not to bring peace, but the sword." He essentially said that anybody who valued their family over him was not a true follower. And he's the one who introduced the notion of hell in the bible - eternal fire, without the release of death.

What did the devil ever do? Tempt people. Send his demons to possess people. Torment people after death in the hell that God created, and where God sent them. It might be evil, but nowhere near the level of God's evil.

[Slytovhand]

Pulling in Flyn's arguments as well.. who says JC was actually part of God's plan? Maybe he (or his lack of he) was all about a demonic plan to trick people into being sheep? Maybe the whole Jesus thing is a falsehood propagated by one of those aforementioned entities, for some other nefarious purpose??

Given that God in the OT seems to like war and strife and conflict, who's to say that wasn't the original idea?? (of course, the same could be said of a Devil entity as well....). So, best way to keep war and strife and conflict going?? Put a new belief into people's heads... that's the one thing that's kept the wars etc going for centuries.