What if God's and Satan's roles are reversed?

[Joe V.]

This is a thought a friend of mine had, although it may have been discussed before, but I've not seen it. What if God's and Satan's roles are reversed? That is to say, everything we know about God has actually been created by Satan, and God, a truly non-interfering being, has let Satan do what he wants, including creating this false history of God, Bible and all. How would we know the difference?

- Joe

[Darth Dane]

No we would not know the difference.

Could they be one and teh same?







DD - Love & Laughter

[Beleg_Strongbow]

What if Satan is really God and God is really Satan? God as we know him is really the devil, trying to deceive us and turn us against Satan, who is really god, and it's working.

[Heathen Dawn]

So the Gnostics and the Deists (http://www.deism.com/adamandeve.htm) think.

[Tyre]

what have you been listening to Pastor Troy? lol.

[Hedshaker]

Well, a smart Satan wouldn't come to earth with horns, fork and cape on display. That would instantly give the show away.

A better approach might be as a handsome and wise messiah.

That might wreak a bit more havoc

[Jinto]

What makes you think God and Satan aren't the same person?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Joe V.
This is a thought a friend of mine had, although it may have been discussed before, but I've not seen it. What if God's and Satan's roles are reversed? That is to say, everything we know about God has actually been created by Satan, and God, a truly non-interfering being, has let Satan do what he wants, including creating this false history of God, Bible and all. How would we know the difference?

- Joe

Something very much like that has happened. Christians are really all worshiping Satan. He, being a clever fellow, tells them he is god, and they don't know the difference. But Satan is a sporting fellow, and gives very many clues to his trick; he tells of "God" commanding the slaughter of children, but people being so stupid, don't catch on that this is really the work of an evil being. "God" in the Bible is obviously an evil being; check out some of the clues conveniently listed at the links below:

Injustice in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/injustices.html)

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html)

Intolerance in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/intolerance.html)

Insults to Women in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women_list.html)

Family Values (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/family.html)

And Satan included some false claims, to help the less foolish figure out that god obviously had nothing to do with writing the Bible:

False Prophecies (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html)

And Satan wrote some contradictions to make it even more obvious that a perfect being did not have anything to do with writing the Bible:

Contradictions in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html)


So Christians, who worship such an evil being, can expect to roast in Hell for eternity.

[Jobar]

Pyrrho, I'm going to use that argument the next time someone tries Pascal's Wager on me.

[SignOfTheCross]

Originally posted by Joe V.
This is a thought a friend of mine had, although it may have been discussed before, but I've not seen it. What if God's and Satan's roles are reversed? That is to say, everything we know about God has actually been created by Satan, and God, a truly non-interfering being, has let Satan do what he wants, including creating this false history of God, Bible and all. How would we know the difference?

- Joe

False history?

Or do you just reject the Christian concept of history (protestant AND Catholic) from face value?

Peace,
SOTC

[Joe V.]

Originally posted by Jinto
What makes you think God and Satan aren't the same person? If that's true, God really is a sadistic bastard.

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
False history?

Or do you just reject the Christian concept of history (protestant AND Catholic) from face value?

Peace,
SOTC I consider the whole Bible to be false history, but hell, for all I know, all of human history was conceived by Satan just to deceive us. How would we know if it was? And for all I know, you're one of Satan's minions trying to lead me astray. How can I ever really know? Just your word that you speak the truth, right? Not very reassuring, but I don't believe any of this nonsense anyways.

- Joe

[orpheus last chant]

Originally posted by Jinto
What makes you think God and Satan aren't the same person?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that's true, God really is a sadistic bastard.




Noooo, really?


And little me thought he lived up to that name by himself.:p

[Heathen Dawn]

The Bible isn't all false history; some events, such as Sennacherib's failed siege on Jerusalem, are definitely historical (there's the name of Hezekiah on Sennacherib's own tablets). However, the history is mixed with a lot of mythology. Creation and the Flood are obviously mythology (we know they didn't happen).

I don't hate the Bible, I just read it as it is meant to be: as a book of mythology. It is the work of neither God nor Satan, but multiple human hands (just like its cheap ripoff, the Qur'an). Some parts of the Bible look satanic to us, because they reflect the morality (or lack thereof) of the day.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jobar
Pyrrho, I'm going to use that argument the next time someone tries Pascal's Wager on me.

I am glad you enjoyed it.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
The Bible isn't all false history; some events, such as Sennacherib's failed siege on Jerusalem, are definitely historical (there's the name of Hezekiah on Sennacherib's own tablets). However, the history is mixed with a lot of mythology. Creation and the Flood are obviously mythology (we know they didn't happen).

I don't hate the Bible, I just read it as it is meant to be: as a book of mythology.[emphasis added] It is the work of neither God nor Satan, but multiple human hands (just like its cheap ripoff, the Qur'an). Some parts of the Bible look satanic to us, because they reflect the morality (or lack thereof) of the day.

I think you are reading it for what it is, though whether it was meant to be taken that way or not is a different matter. Certainly, most people have thought it was meant differently than just as a bunch of stories illustrating the worldviews of ancient people.

[Heathen Dawn]

Oh, of course. :o As we see it now, probably not as it was meant to be. But such is true of all mythology: all myths were once believed to be literally true.

[DMB]

all myths were once believed to be literally true
What's the difference between myth and truth? Personally, I believe that Odin gained wisdom by hanging on the Yggdrassil, and that's where the xian story of the crucifixion of Jesus was stolen from.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by DMB
What's the difference between myth and truth?


Myth is factually false. It did not happen that God created the world in six days. It did not happen that Utnapishtim was saved from a global flood by the Babylonian gods. Truth is what actually happens or happened. Myth never happened.

Of course, one can always escape this predicament by saying myth is symbolic ... but such an evasion usually happen later, when people see that their myths don't stand up to the test of reason and evidence.


Personally, I believe that Odin gained wisdom by hanging on the Yggdrassil, and that's where the xian story of the crucifixion of Jesus was stolen from.

I think Dionysus, Osiris and Mithra are the sources of the Jesus myth. Germanic myths didn't have any influence on the Roman Empire at the time of the making of the Jesus myth.

[DMB]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
[B Germanic myths didn't have any influence on the Roman Empire at the time of the making of the Jesus myth. [/B]
Prove it. ;)

How is what you think different from what I believe?

I don't see how you can prove that Odin's hanging on the tree is factually false, so perhaps according to your definition it isn't myth.

Generally speaking, "myth" seems to be applied to defunct religions and not so much to ones with living believers. But some myths may well contain elements of true history, even though we may now discount their more supernatural elements.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by DMB
Prove it. ;)


In the first century CE the influx of Germanic tribes into the Roman Empire had not yet begun. The Germans were a marginalised group of barbarian tribes, without any noticeable influence on Roman culture.

In contrast, the gods of Egypt and Greece and Persia had considerable influence upon Roman culture. Cults of Isis, Osiris, Dionysus and Mithra were widespread in the empire.

Thus in all likelihood it is the Risen Saviour-God of Egypt, Greece or Persia that influenced the Jesus myth. Odin's influence was not until much later, well after Christianity had been established as the state religion of the empire.


I don't see how you can prove that Odin's hanging on the tree is factually false, so perhaps according to your definition it isn't myth.


I can't prove it but I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the Odinist, Osirian, Mithraist, Dionysian, Jew, Christian or anyone who believes in a god or gods. The EoG debate applies as much to Odin as to the Christian god: the hypothesis of a human-like intelligence above us remains unevidenced.

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn:

One can always escape this predicament by saying that myth is symbolic...

Just a terminology distinction: I don't think myth is symbolic. I think it's more analogous to historical fiction. You know, if you write a story about fictional events that George Washington experiences when he's twenty-five, that's neither literal truth nor pure fiction nor symbolism; its purpose is to create a personality portrait of Washington, to use the imagination to allow people to know Washington's personality in a way no other art form would be able to do as well.

all myths were once believed to be literally true.

Now, I'm not sure that that's always true. We must distinguish between explanatory myths and non-explanatory ones. For instance, the myth of Pluto and Proserpina (Persephone) is expanatory; if you take it for literal truth, it explains why we have seasons. The myth of Odysseus is non-explanatory, being a story about one man's journey home to Greece; it's clear that the Persephone myth could have been written to explain the seasons, but is there an obvious way that the Odysseus myth could have had that primary purpose?

Did some people think the Odysseus myth was literally true? Probably so. But it didn't make a whole lot of difference to their worldview whether they did; it was more like believing James Bond was historical than like believing in YEC.

So I think that if you have some fairly similar myths, but some purport to illuminate the world we see while others don't even try, then myths must have some purpose other than literal truth (even if they are also believed to be literal). I also reject the symbolic interpretation (the gods are not literally real and personal) simply because it's obvious that the priesthood didn't believe this.

[DMB]

HD:
In the first century CE the influx of Germanic tribes into the Roman Empire had not yet begun.
In terms of their taking over, agreed. But surely they were occasionally fighting the Romans or even serving in the Roman army. As you so rightly imply, it's difficult to prove a negative. Who can tell at this distance in time what did or did not influence early xians? Just one German could have been more influential than all the mithraists, osirians, etc.

As for Odin's godhead, I haven't claimed him for a god. As far as I am concerned it is possible that some shaman may have hung on a tree and claimed wisdom as a result.

Insofar as I was trying to make a serious point (and it's not all that far), I think it entirely possible that many myths have a true story at their core. So there may have been a war between the Myceneans and the Trojans. Some of the detail in the Iliad is claimed to correspond to reality. That doesn't mean that the war was caused by the abduction of a woman called Helen or that the Olympian gods took sides, etc.

I think it is simplistic to say that myth is factually false. Myths are multilayered. Most of us on this board probably think most of the xian story is mythic. We shall probably never have definitive evidence to prove that Jesus did or did not exist or was or was not crucified. But those things could be true without his being the god-begotten son of a virgin.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by DMB
Insofar as I was trying to make a serious point (and it's not all that far), I think it entirely possible that many myths have a true story at their core. So there may have been a war between the Myceneans and the Trojans. Some of the detail in the Iliad is claimed to correspond to reality. That doesn't mean that the war was caused by the abduction of a woman called Helen or that the Olympian gods took sides, etc.

I think it is simplistic to say that myth is factually false. Myths are multilayered. Most of us on this board probably think most of the xian story is mythic. We shall probably never have definitive evidence to prove that Jesus did or did not exist or was or was not crucified. But those things could be true without his being the god-begotten son of a virgin.

OK, I get it. It reminds me of a passage I came across in the Sikhs' holy book, the Guru Grant Sahib: "mythical bull holding the earth". I doubt if the original Punjabi has the word "mythical", but they had to insert "mythical" in order to avoid a contradiction with natural fact. Myths are acknowledged as such when people no longer believe them to be literally true. You'll never hear a young-earth creationist calling Genesis a "creation myth".

For my part I'm not a Jesus myther. I do believe Jesus was a historical person, a charismatic revolutionary who challenged the rabbinate of his day and for this was executed for blasphemy charges. He was made a Resurrected Messiah just as modern-day Lubavitcher Hasidim have made their last rabbi a Resurrected Messiah, I believe (see here (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=243) - it's mine). And later the story was fused with the pagan Risen Saviour-God myth that was prevalent in the Roman Empire.

[Braveheart]

Originally posted by Joe V.
This is a thought a friend of mine had, although it may have been discussed before, but I've not seen it. What if God's and Satan's roles are reversed? That is to say, everything we know about God has actually been created by Satan, and God, a truly non-interfering being, has let Satan do what he wants, including creating this false history of God, Bible and all. How would we know the difference?

- Joe


For starters Jesus would not have died on the cross let alone been resurrected.


b

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Braveheart
For starters Jesus would not have died on the cross let alone been resurrected.


That's classic: Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected gives the Christian god a clean bill of health.

But you Christians never think of this: in the end result, only a select few will be saved, and the majority of mankind will be consigned to eternal flames. So that the Christian god stays the way he was from the beginning: the embodiment of very evil, a satanic character.

[Pyrrho]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Braveheart
For starters Jesus would not have died on the cross let alone been resurrected.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
That's classic: Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected gives the Christian god a clean bill of health.

But you Christians never think of this: in the end result, only a select few will be saved, and the majority of mankind will be consigned to eternal flames. So that the Christian god stays the way he was from the beginning: the embodiment of very evil, a satanic character.

Additionally, requiring that a supposedly innocent man/god be horribly killed to satisfy "god's" blood lust is an additional proof of how evil the "god" of the Bible is. After all, "god" makes the rules and decides what is needed; no sacrifice would be required if "god" did not require it.

In other words, the story of Jesus being killed is just another proof that the "god" of the Bible is really Satan.

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by Braveheart
For starters Jesus would not have died on the cross let alone been resurrected.


b

Ahhhh....so only a good person would unneccesarily torture and kill his own son... (Unneccesarily of course because, well, isn't god...god? If he didn't want to Kill his son to save us from himself he wouldn't have to. For example, the only reason I have to pardon you from the death sentence I just pronounced upon you IS the fact that I just pronounced a death sentence on you!)

Anyways, just wondering...

[Gothic_J]

it has been a long standing view of mine that satan is the good guy and god the bad, as portrayed in the bible. yahweh is stalin's dream of tyranny, while satan looks like just another aclu member.

[sugarbeth]

Joe, the role reversal is how I always think about it too. What would make the perfect devil? He would make people give up their lives for a false promise of heaven. That's why I believe that the real god loves atheists. :D

beth

[exi]

This thread reminds me of a quote from British philosopher Galen Strawson which some of you may have seen:

"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument-their intellect-which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously."

Quoted in Independent (London, June 24, 1990).

[sugarbeth]

exi - I love that quote! Thank you for posting that! That is exactly how I feel about it.

[exi]

Originally posted by sugarbeth
exi - I love that quote! Thank you for posting that! That is exactly how I feel about it.

You're welcome! I felt it was appropriate... ;)

[Acar]

Dear friends, please consider this:

The Lord God of the Scriptures subjected His people to the Law.

Satan is depicted in those same Scriptures as the one who tempts those, who are subject to the Law, to be lawbreakers.

Isn't it obvious that the one who imposes law, by that very action, also invites the breaking of the law?

Where there is no law, there is no transgression.

Therefore, my opinion is that the Lord God and Satan are One and the same.(Please note that I am speaking about the Lord God, the One Who inspired the writing of the Bible.)

However, please don't construe what I've just written as a criticism of either the Lord God or Satan. It is inevitable and good for both roles to be filled by the same individual.

Although I think that there is sufficient evidence to be found in the Scriptures themselves to support the opinion I've just voiced, it has not been well received at several Christian message boards. LOL

Acar