Would satan advocate for atheism?

>Thing is: God isn't manipulative by nature.
Hahaha, oh wow.

Look up Job, Abraham and the ten plagues of Egypt story.

Well then he's pretty decent at being manipulative despite his nature.

Why would Satan want people to believe in him? With God, that's conducive to his aims, with Satan that's counter productive.

Not at all, given how starved people are for the divine the opposite would be his best bet, in modern terms imagine what it would be like if he came to the UN in his angelic form and btfod skeptics.

Historically think of what it would be like if he impersonated the Angel Gabriel when he talked to Muhammad or Jesus when he appeared to Paul. Atheism leaves a void for God, false religion fills that void.

>Why would Satan want people to believe in him?

His arrogance.

Satan's arrogance has to do with resentment of authority higher than himself, not with being narcissistic.

I don't think Satan really likes to fuck around in human affairs. That seems to be God's domain

>Satan's arrogance has to do with resentment of authority higher than himself, not with being narcissistic.

I know, which is why having humans believe in him with or in the place of God would be conducive to his nature

Satan is fine with you worshiping anyone, as long as it isn't God.
God is jealous and hates worship of anything other than Himself.

Seems like Satan isn't the one who has trouble dealing with the authority of others.

>tfw you were in that thread
>tfw you saw satan himself

Not it wouldn't, since that would just make humans more likely to be wary of him and worship God.

Satan is liar, he doesn't care what the lie is so long as it's not the truth.

God is the truth, the truth doesn't compromise with lie.

My post there was a corollary to which explains how it would be easier for him

>God is the truth

Refer to and Jeremiah 8:8, then fuck off of this board.

>doesn't compromise
See? Like I said, He seems like the one with authority issues.

Does an educated christian believe in satan and angels as actual beings?

A beliving one does

Witches are real too.

Of course witches are real. Aquinas gave us the tools to deal with them, after all, and Aquinas' philosophy is both elegant and perfect.

I'm not sure why you want me to look them up, I'm familiar with all of them

The word used in Jeremiah 8:8, often translated as falsehood, simply means "emptiness". It's more properly translated in the King James as "in vain". It doesn't mean Scripture is a lie

If they're Orthodox or Catholics, yeah.

Aquinas literally advocated idolatry of the cross (giving latria to it on grounds that it partakes of Christ's self), anyone who thinks he's a great theologian hasn't read him.

Classic greek humility there.

Atheism doesn't exist in the Bible universe because miracles are commonplace. People can renounce Yahweh and/or worship another god/demon instead, but nobody says the big pillar of fire or whatever isn't real.

Source?

newadvent.org/summa/4025.htm#article4

Thanks, do you have any other good sources of criticism for scholasticism in general?

Yes, it places Aristotle as a higher source than the Church Fathers. For instance, there are many instances of the Church Fathers describing God in terms of energy-essence distinction: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383

However, the Scholastics redefine God as Actus Purus. This is wholly and only derived from Aristotle, it has ZERO precedent in Patristic writings.

Cool idea. But thats completely unbiblibal. If that was what he was going for.

Yea that was mentioned in the actually thread, still good for shitposting though.

Kek I was there for that. Would /rel/ even work? I assume they would need strict as hell mods and perseverance against the initial onslaught of /b/tards

>Yes, it places Aristotle as a higher source than the Church Fathers. For instance, there are many instances of the Church Fathers describing God in terms of energy-essence distinction

I thought they took him down a peg in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnations_of_1210–1277

Do you have any videos or debates between scholastics and the orthodox or things which arent one sided?

>However, the Scholastics redefine God as Actus Purus. This is wholly and only derived from Aristotle, it has ZERO precedent in Patristic writings.

The basic argument they make being that God is unknowable therefore attaching attributes is heretical?

>Would satan advocate for atheism?

Yes, he also advocates for jesus, the antichrist.

He's also the reason why the bible is a convoluted mess.

First it was: Man, pig is delicious and you get cured ham out of it, let's forbid it and claim this is God doing it.
Fucking hell, now I have to extend my lies everywhere and the laws I made for "pure" food are so stupid and retarded everybody would be so very suspicious that this is so fucking impossible to follow because no one that isn't pure can touch your food or something impure be near to it or it becomes impure, so I will change the law at the same time I claim that my antichrist whom I will claim was the christ says that he is here to accomplish the law and not change it.

Surely nobody will notice this convoluted mess.

Now, on to sex, boy do I hate them having sex...

An example of how this retard thinks.

>giving latria to it on grounds that it partakes of Christ's self

Wasnt that only reserved for the true cross and only to the blood of Christ upon it and not the wood itself? You make it sound like he thinks all crosses deserve latria.

How do you refute criticisms that Christian thought is "neoplatonic"?

probably by claiming that any similarities were just ideas stolen by neoplatonists

I assume you mean while posing as a mortal, as otherwise that would rather defeat the purpose.

Depends on the tradition, but in those variants of Judeo-Christianity that view Satan as an angel who loves God, and finds mankind unworthy of His love, then yes. His whole purpose in existence is to cause mankind to fall from God's grace.

Even if, yes, the post Thomas Aquinas era where "all knowing" is taken literally, makes this whole conflict rather pointless, unless Satan just somehow forgot God had this attribute... Though I recall a certain vampire novelist had some ideas about that...

...

please, tell me more about the nature of a super physical entity that you have no supported access to

but remember, be sure to claim it with complete confidence despite complete ignorance on the grounds of having complete faith

I can give two fucks about how many times this has been said because Veeky Forums is still constantly infested with debates on the nature of religious supernatural phenomena and smearing heretical denominations/ interpretations of religious texts.

Veeky Forums is a philosophical board focused on human endeavors, founded on rational discourse. How the fuck do we allow topics like "why are catholics/ orthodox/ protestants so retarded hurr hurr" on this board??

/x/ is the place to discuss supernatural phenomena. THIS INCLUDES DEBATES ON THE INTERPRETATION OF TEXTS CLAIMED TO BE WRITTEN BY SUPERNATURAL ENTITIES.

This board needs a systematic purge. Get the fuck off your asses mods.

...

Depends how it all "works". If the Creationtards are right and only express and overt submission to Jesus can lead to salvation then sure, an atheist in such a situation is as fucked as a Satanist. But if salvation is keyed to deeds, or is based on some principle we can't even understand and so seems random to us, then Satan would do better setting up cults and infiltrating churches to lead people astray and to favor the odds, as Satan understands them, of keeping souls from God.

>Thing is: God isn't manipulative by nature.

Strange of him to create a universe that appears to be billions of years old, and that appears to have evolved via natural forces. Seems to me either the Bible is wrong or god is a liar by nature.

Actus Purus says God is purely attributes, ultimately, since it identifies God purely with his acts, without any transcendent being beyond acts. God is both immanent and transcendent, and God as immanent is the one we physically and spiritually commune with, which is far beyond merely knowing.

The major debate between Orthodox and Scholastics was the Hesychast controversy.

Have it be a mix between generals and regular threads.
>generals are bad
I know but it can only help the situation.

No, because then he would cease to exist.

No one knows about shit about muh 'God.' Closest thing -- empirically -- to God is the human being, or groups of human beings doing shit.

Talking about God on this board is like trying to jack off to pictures of your own mother: You spend a whole lot of time never actually busting a nut.

I want to see that thread

also another thread which is also awesome
#72000000

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/71995757/#72000000

I was the german poster btw

literally believing in nothing or believing in coincidences

says you, I'm into incest

>I'm not sure why you want me to look them up, I'm familiar with all of them
>God is the truth
>god lies and acts dishonestly chronically
>dishonesty=truth

Some more of that epin christian philosophy.

...

Satan has never taken a single human life

Do a miracle.

well, that is quite a lie

this

Reminder that in the Old Testament Satan is not a bad-guy. He is an angel that does God's dirty work for him. He also isn't meant to be the keeper of hell nor the snake in Eden. He is also a separate entity from Lucifer.

The New Testament is what started the smear campaign against him.

> speaks about atheism
> involves a character which is based on a religion to speak for atheism

I don't really see it a "demonic" thing to do that you don't believe in made up Satan/God crap which has been proved false and illogical multiple times.

Prove it then

No.

He'd want everyone to be Muslim.

>God is the truth
Liar will not tell you that he's a liar.