Dubious Plot and Cast

[whag]

Really? You can't think of a single instance in all of human history where pride has caused someone to go up against impossible odds and get their butt soundly kicked? Gee, it's almost like you don't want to be convinced that Satan's rebellion isn't as "implausible" as you claim.

No, and you apparently can't, either. The only "impossible odds" rebellions I can think of (that weren't triggered by oppression) are jail riots. Those rebels are typically desperate idiots and/or criminally insane and have nothing to lose. Satan had everything to lose. He wasn't an idiot, and he wasn't mentally defective. He was almost perfect, you believe.

Could Satan win? Of course not. As you've repeatedly pointed out, he was going up against God himself. Did he think he could win? Obviously. Otherwise he and his coconspirators wouldn't have rebelled. What's especially interesting is that it was the other angels who fought against Satan and his army and not God himself (Revelation 12). Perhaps this is a clue that Satan knew that God would not intervene directly, for whatever reason, which gave him confidence that he could actually succeed.

Again, that's mythology informed by the dubious OT verses.

As for the Ezekiel 28 passage, read the whole thing in context and it's pretty obvious that it's referring to Satan. It's a prophecy against the king of Tyre using the fall of Satan as an analogy (for one thing, kings aren't "guardian cherubs".)

Um....no. If it were "pretty obvious," it wouldn't be contested. It's not obvious to me, and it's not obvious to Holding and others who, to their credit, are at least honest about that passage's difficulties.

Bottom line: Satan's rebellion against God is in no way implausible, and you have not presented even a hint of an argument to convince me that it is.

Yes, I have, which is why you're still here rather than bowing out like you said you would.

[Adrift]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._coup_attempts

[whag]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._coup_attempts

You've resorted to ABW. Did you read how many coups were successful, therefore not impossible odds?

Maybe the missing piece here is yours and MM's belief that God kept his glory hidden from the angels to test them and see if they'd fight him. That'd be an interesting perspective.

[whag]

Who needs a counter-argument against an appeal to incredulity? Anything I provided could be shrugged off with a 'Well I don't find that believable.'

Also - there's a certain irony in this: An atheist, who accepts the whole 'completely unguided evolution' thing, and rejects all the fine tuning arguments finds the behaviour of people in the Bible 'implausible' because it's statistically unlikely?

Anything I say will be similarly shrugged off by you, and you know it. That's a moot point. Think of it as an enlightening discussion to sharpen your faith, not a childish contest with victory as the endgoal.

Re: evolution: volumes of hard evidence prove that it happens despite your imagined "statistical unlikelihood." However unlikely you think it is for a limb to evolve into a wing, we have the evidence of that particular morphology and the factors that drive it.

BTW, Mountain Man doesn't believe evolution happened, which means he's incredulous. Interesting.

[Mountain Man]

BTW, Mountain Man doesn't believe evolution happened, which means he's incredulous. Interesting.

Before putting words in my mouth, you might trouble yourself to find out what I actually believe. In fact, I'm agnostic as to the whole "evolution vs creationism" debate. I think there are good arguments on both sides and that the two positions aren't wholly irreconcilable if only the two sides could stop trying so hard to push an agenda and actually look for common ground. I don't much care for the "If evolution is true then the Bible is false/If the Bible is true then evolution is false" dogma which tends to dominate most origins discussions.

[Mountain Man]

[Satan] wasn't an idiot...

I think the facts of the story suggest otherwise. That's the problem with pride, it compels you do sometimes stupid things when you really should know better.

Yes, I have, which is why you're still here rather than bowing out like you said you would.

Whatever helps you hold your head high after closing your web browser, but from where I'm sitting, the debate looks very one-sided. I mean, you're not even trying to mount a decent counter argument which makes my feel like you're just trolling at this point.

Yeah, I really am done.

[whag]

Before putting words in my mouth, you might trouble yourself to find out what I actually believe. In fact, I'm agnostic as to the whole "evolution vs creationism" debate. I think there are good arguments on both sides and that the two positions aren't wholly irreconcilable if only the two sides could stop trying so hard to push an agenda and actually look for common ground. I don't much care for the "If evolution is true then the Bible is false/If the Bible is true then evolution is false" dogma which tends to dominate most origins discussions.

You once called Lucy a hoax. I presumed you rejected evolution from that stunningly idiotic claim. There's no excuse to reject the strong proofs of evolution simply because you observe extreme agendas. You're a primate whether you like it or not.

[whag]

I think the facts of the story suggest otherwise. That's the problem with pride, it compels you do sometimes stupid things when you really should know better.

Hard to imagine God appointing certified idiots to high office. That's a problematic rationalization that helps you believe it. I can't rationalize in a way that creates more problems than it solves.

Whatever helps you hold your head high after closing your web browser, but from where I'm sitting, the debate looks very one-sided. I mean, you're not even trying to mount a decent counter argument which makes my feel like you're just trolling at this point.

Yeah, I really am done.

I will miss you.

[Mountain Man]

Re. Lucy: I know I said I was done, but I can't let a falsehood like that stand. I never called Lucy a hoax in the sense that the bones were fabricated. The bones were genuine enough. It's some of the claims made about them that were dubious, calling it a "missing link", for one, and drawing the broadest of conclusions from the slimmest of evidence.

And calling Satan a "certified idiot" is just more of your pigheaded question begging. I should have known better than to enter a debate with a moron who's sole argument is "I don't believe it." Maybe my pride got the better of me.

[Mountain Man]

Double

[whag]

Re. Lucy: I know I said I was done, but I can't let a falsehood like that stand. I never called Lucy a hoax in the sense that the bones were fabricated. The bones were genuine enough. It's some of the claims made about them that were dubious, where they drew the broadest of conclusions from the slimmest of evidence.

And calling Satan a "certified idiot" is just more of your pigheaded question begging.

You called him an idiot.

I should have known better than to enter a debate with a moron who's sole argument is "I don't believe it." Maybe my pride got the better of me.

You called it a hoax with the implication that an atheist agenda was being pushed based on a small sample. You did that without thinking to check if other A. afarensis fossils found since Lucy corroborated the claims about Lucy. That's classic creotard. You used the talking points of the Christian anti-evo agenda you claim makes you "agnostic" about evolution. No one who's impartial would make that grievous mistake in an evolution discussion.

[MaxVel]

Anything I say will be similarly shrugged off by you, and you know it. That's a moot point. Think of it as an enlightening discussion to sharpen your faith, not a childish contest with victory as the endgoal.

But you haven't really said anything, apart from 'I find it unbelievable.' Citing and criticizing the limited evidence that supports this particular sub-area of Christian theology doesn't really show that it is incorrect or false, especially in the larger context of the whole Christian worldview, which is supported by 'volumes of evidence.'

Re: evolution: volumes of hard evidence prove that it happens despite your imagined "statistical unlikelihood." However unlikely you think it is for a limb to evolve into a wing, we have the evidence of that particular morphology and the factors that drive it.

BTW, Mountain Man doesn't believe evolution happened, which means he's incredulous. Interesting.

You're responding to something I didn't say.

[whag]

But you haven't really said anything, apart from 'I find it unbelievable.' Citing and criticizing the limited evidence that supports this particular sub-area of Christian theology doesn't really show that it is incorrect or false, especially in the larger context of the whole Christian worldview, which is supported by 'volumes of evidence.'

I've said much more than "I find it unbelievable," and you know it.

You're responding to something I didn't say.

I responded to your absurd comparison of evolution statistics to the Satanic mutiny, which has no evidence and that you accept without question. Choose to believe it or not, I don't care. I doubt it because I've thought it through.

[Tassman]

But you haven't really said anything, apart from 'I find it unbelievable.' Citing and criticizing the limited evidence that supports this particular sub-area of Christian theology doesn't really show that it is incorrect or false, especially in the larger context of the whole Christian worldview, which is supported by 'volumes of evidence.'

What "volumes of evidence" that support the "larger context of the whole Christian world-view"? I know of no substantive evidence that does this.

[37818]

That paragraph by Adrift mentions the fall of man, but looks to me to be more about Satan.

OK. You only cited the part about man.

You say two prophecies of the fall of Satan, does that mean the fall had not happened at the time Isaiah and Ezekiel were writing? When (approximately) do you think it happened?

OK, maybe you are not following the interpretation. It would be before the creation of man. In the fall the Serpent we interpret to be Satan, tempts Eve with his sin to be as God (Genesis 3:5).

Given you see Isaiah 14 as referring to the King of Babylon, in what sense is that a reference to Satan? Was Satan the King of Babylon? Lucifer is a name derived from a sarcastic description, the shining one. The shining one is not a name in the Hebrew. Most (all?) modern Bibles have dropped the word Lucifer altogether.

A fallen one from heaven is the basis of the association, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!" Again in the Latin, "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer."

Similarly, given Ezekiel was talking about the Prince of Tyre, I wonder about the connection to Satan. Sure, the hyperbole used mentions "an anointed guardian cherub" and "You were in Eden, the garden of God", but this is to emphasise the arrogance and pride of the human prince.

Yes. And that association is the basis of the interpretation regarding the fall of the anointed cherub to become Satan.

Look at the Parallel Commentaries on the verses towards the bottom of this page:
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/28-13.htm

Again, those two prophecies are against those two rulers. And because of perceived association and the language, they are interpreted to be also explanations about the fall of the one we call Satan.

There is what the text says and there are interpretations. Two different things.