Alarmclock

There is very little logic in the idea that the existence of negativity in the world proves that there is a supreme negative being which causes it. 

Where does this negativity come from?  It comes from a separation from one's inner self- from one's source- from love.

Alarm Clock:

At some point during my life I realized I didn't know what Jesus Christ is all about, tried to find out, and had some experiences that let me know that he is a divine reality.  I don't know all of the details, but whatever they are, they aren't oppresive, as some people make them out to be.

Just as you can't truly love and respect another person if you fear he or she, you can't truly love a divine being if you fear it.

Regarding Satan being  able to appear  as a light being, I believe it is a big mistake to conclude that one verse in the Bible trumps all of the light being experiences people have had. To suggest that a demonic being could radiate perfect unconditional love towards a person is a bit much.

I've had lots of contact with the spirit World, and it has been made so clear to me that it is always  up to us. If we choose love and light, an evil minded spirit won't be able to harm us. Of course we need to use our discrimination when we make contact with spirit beings, and not assume that all of them are friendly.

Below is something I wrote that explains that Satan is a myth. Sorry for its length.

I’ll start out by saying that I don’t believe that a being named Satan exists. I believe this for a number of reasons I’ll speak about in a little while. This doesn’t mean that I also believe that there is no such thing as unfriendly spirits. I have various reasons for believing that they exist. Some of them are spirits who used to be human and for whatever reason haven’t moved on to the light. Some might have origins that aren’t human. It’s a big universe out there. Whatever the case, if the human race is going to deal with the problem of unfriendly spirits in the best way possible, it is important to find out what’s true beyond a false belief system.

One of the reasons some people aren’t willing to question if Satan actually exists, is because they listen to the statement, “One of Satan’s biggest tricks is getting people to believe that he doesn’t exist.” I don’t know who the first person to state this platitude is, but it certainly doesn’t come from the Bible. A mythical being doesn’t become a reality, simply because somebody makes a statement that makes it so people are afraid to question the supposed reality of this being. If a person allows himself (or herself) to be influenced in such a way, he allows an unexamined belief system of another person to determine what he believes.

The person who made up the Satan trick statement probably didn’t take the time to thoroughly determine if such a being actually exists. It is very significant to add that a person doesn’t need to believe in a being named Satan, in order to be wary of unfriendly influences. In whatever manner unfriendly influences exist, whether from deceptive spirits, misleading people, or even aspects of a person’s own mind, a person needs to listen to his intelligence, common sense, heart and conscience. Therefore, there is no need to conclude that one gives into evil if one questions the existence of Satan.

One of the problems with relying on a belief system that doesn’t accurately represent how things are, is that people often attribute more power to unfriendly spirits than they have. Going by my experiences, it is essential that unfriendly spirits be stood up to with courage. If we believe that evil spirit beings exist that have the power to overtake us regardless of what we want, how much courage will we have if confronted by an unfriendly spirit? On the other hand, if we clearly understand that God has set things up so that any person who chooses to live according to love and goodness can’t have his free will infringed upon by an unfriendly spirit, we will be more likely to have the courage to stand up to an unfriendly spirit.

In fact, if a person believes that an unfriendly spirit has the ability to get the best of him; his belief might provide the key that empowers the unfriendly spirit. Belief can be a powerful thing. Therefore, it is essential that we seek to empower people rather than unfriendly spirits.

Another problem with concluding that unfriendly spirits have more power than they have is that this conclusion causes some people to become so afraid that they end up creating imaginary demons. This matter will be discussed later.

Another problem with defining unfriendly spirits in a particular way without having an accurate understanding of their nature, is that our lack of understanding will make it difficult to determine the most effective way to deal with them (At this point I have factors other than fear in mind). For example, if we assume that an unfriendly spirit is a demon that is beyond being redeemed, we won’t be inclined to interact with it in a manner that inspires it to change its way and move on to the light. As a result, even if we get it to stop troubling a particular person, it might find another person to trouble. Also, an opportunity to help a child of God who is innately divine and temporarily confused won’t be taken advantage of. I believe that if a person wants to live according to love and divine will, this later point can’t be disregarded.

Regarding the statement that unfriendly spirits are confused, I don’t believe a soul of any kind would choose darkness over light if it wasn’t confused in some way. I believe this is so, because there is no way a clear thinking and wise soul would choose darkness over God’s love and light.

Does Satan exist?

People including myself have tried to determine if the Biblical perspective including its history supports the concept of Satan, and have found that it doesn’t, despite the frequent usage of the names Satan, Devil, Lucifer, or adversary. Some people believe that the serpent who talked Eve into picking and eating an apple from a tree God said is off limits, was Satan. Even if one takes the Garden of Eden story literally, there is no basis for concluding that the serpent was Satan. When the story of the Garden of Eden was written the concept of Satan didn’t exist. The serpent was one of the animals God had created. This serpent had no relation to the fallen angel explanation of Satan’s origin that some people believe in.

The meaning of the Garden of Eden story has been interpreted in different ways. One possible interpretation is that all souls who become human originally existed in a pure state, because this is how God created them. When these souls make use of human bodies the negative influences they are exposed to corrupt them in varying ways. These are the influences Paul speaks about in Romans 7:7-25. I’m talking about the self-defense instinct that the human race and animals have. This instinct is all about me, myself, and I. Sigmund Freud referred to this self-centered part of our self as the Id.

I believe the divine powers that be purposely created such an instinct to help us survive as we partake in the competitive nature of this World, and so we can learn about psychological contrast. For example, how can we know about humility without knowing about arrogance? Other innate-brain-based programs and physiological attributes are a part of this process such as our sex drive; drive to eat; over two hundred kinds of molecules that play a part in causing us to experience emotions such as hate, anger, and fear (not all emotions are negative); and hormones that can influence us in a negative way, as when testosterone plays a role in a person becoming overly aggressive.  Just as the divine powers that be were able to create animals so they have the innate ability to do things such as migrate, spin spider webs, build ant colonies, build bee hives, weave bird nests and build beaver dams without having to attend a school that teaches such a thing; the divine powers that be were able to create the human organism so some basic ways of functioning are in place.

These are the words Paul used when he spoke about the influence of the flesh. From Romans 7:7-25:

“God’s Law Reveals Our Sin”

Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is sinful? Of course not! In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, “You must not covet.” But sin used this command to arouse all kinds of covetous desires within me! If there were no law, sin would not have that power. At one time I lived without understanding the law. But when I learned the command not to covet, for instance, the power of sin came to life, and I died. So I discovered that the law’s spiritual death instead. Sin took advantage of those commands and deceived me; it used the commands to kill me. But still, the law itself is holy, and its commands are holy and right and good.

But how can that be? Did the law, which is good, cause my death? Of course not! Sin used what was good to bring about my condemnation to death. So we can see how terrible sin really is. It uses God’s good commands for its own evil purposes.

Struggling with Sin. So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. So I am not the one doing wrong, it is sin living in me that does it.

And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing the wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love God’s law with all my heart. But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? Thank God! The answer is to Jesus Christ our lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God’s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.”

Rather than using terms such as self-defense instinct, sex-drive, etc., Paul uses the word sin. I believe that if he lived today he might speak of the body-based drives that make it difficult to live our lives in a holy way, in a modern way, rather than making use of the word sin. That is of course if he didn’t limit himself to a Biblical way of explaining things. I figure God and Christ have no problem with us making use of 21st century language, as long as we use it with good intentions.

It is hard to imagine that an infinitely wise and loving God would sentence all of mankind to a non-Eden like existence because one person decided to eat an apple. Being all knowing as he is, he would certainly know if Eve would be able to resist eating an apple. If Eve’s state of mind existed in a manner where it wasn’t certain if she could resist temptation, why would God be so strict with her? I find it hard to believe that God would be so strict and unforgiving with a person who hadn’t had the chance to develop the wisdom that would enable her to choose correctly. If a person contends that God provided Eve with the necessary knowledge to choose wisely, then why didn’t she do so? Either God provided her with the knowledge she needed or he didn’t.

Perhaps God hopes that we will use the intelligence he has given us to find a less literal explanation for what the story of Eve’s temptation symbolizes. The moment when souls temporarily decided to become human, so they could learn the lessons that being human provides. Perhaps God didn’t force us to do so--we had a choice. Perhaps God provided a warning that was loving-in-nature, a statement in fact, not a threat. A test framework just doesn’t make sense because an all-knowing God wouldn’t need to conduct a test.

The story told in Numbers 22 provides one of many examples of how the word Satan means something other than the red-skinned, horned being some people imagine (John Milton brought this fictional image into human consciousness with his story Paradise Lost). A man named Balak asked a man named Bil’am to meet him so he could curse Israel. God instructed Bil’am not to do so. Bil’am disobeyed God’s command and traveled on a donkey to meet Balak. God sent an angel referred to as Satan (in the Hebrew translation) to stop Bil’am from doing so. Because this angel served the purpose of being an adversary to Bil’am (while at the same time serving God), it was referred to as a Satan.   

Another adversary/satan/devil is written about in the book of Job. This being paid a visit to heaven and even though God is all knowing, God asked it where it came from. Satan responded: “I have been patrolling the earth, watching everything that goes on.” God asked, “Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth. He is blameless—a man of complete integrity. He fears God and stays away from evil.” Satan responded: “Yes, but Job has good reason to fear God. You have always put a wall of protection around him and his home and his property. You have made him prosper in everything he does. Look how rich he is. But reach out and take everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face!” (Job 1:6-11) To make a long story short, according to the Book of Job, God allowed Satan to do all kinds of negative things to Job including killing many of his servants, his seven sons and his three daughters (Job 1:13-19), in order to prove to Satan that there is one man who fears him (God).

I believe the story of Job is symbolic rather than literal and serves the purpose of instructing people to maintain love and faith in God even when they experience difficult times. Therefore the story does nothing to prove the existence of an adversary named Satan. I believe the story isn’t literal for several reasons:

1.      If God is all-knowing, then certainly he would know about the existence of an adversary who patrolled the earth. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to conclude that God had to ask such a being where it came from.
2.      God wouldn’t have the need to prove something to a being that is as evil as Satan is considered to be.
3.      Even if God did feel compelled to prove something to Satan, I don’t believe that in order to do so he would allow a being to do all of the negative things Job’s adversary supposedly did.
4.      People who have made contact with the spirit World have found that beings vibrate at different rates according to how spiritually developed they are. In order to make it to heaven, a being would have to vibrate at a fast rate. The ability to vibrate at a fast rate has a lot to do with how much a being lives according to love. There is no way a being as negative as Satan is believed to be would vibrate fast enough to find his way to heaven. Even if a person doesn’t believe in the vibratory rate viewpoint, if as some people believe Satan is an angel who was expelled from heaven, would he be allowed to re-enter heaven so he could speak to God about Job? Even if there are some things God doesn’t know about, wouldn’t he know about an angel who was expelled from heaven? If somebody contends that I’m being too literal when it comes to God not knowing where Satan came from, please remember that I’m contending that the story of a being who afflicted Job is symbolic, not literal.

Even if a person decides to believe that the Book of Job is about events that actually took place, it is significant to note that the Adversary was able to do the negative things it did only after God gave it permission to do so. This way of viewing Satan is clearly different than the belief that Satan and his demons mess with people without God’s permission. I don’t believe it is reasonable to conclude that after the Job affair God decided to change his policy and allow Satan to do whatever he wants. What would be the point of such a decision? Certainly we have enough negative influences to contend with without having Satan and his supposed demons added to the formula. For example, the flesh-oriented influences Paul spoke about, the influences of our environment, and the manner in which unfriendly beings do exist.

Regarding fallen angels, this way of thinking is primarily the result of later versions of the Book of Isaiah. Initially Isaiah spoke of a fallen king of Babylon, a physical person. It is believed that Isaiah (depending upon which chapter is considered) was written somewhere between 681 and 734 B.C. More than 1,000 years later (A.D. 382) a man named Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damascus to make an official revision of the Latin versions of the Bible.

Jerome made a translational error and changed the Hebrew word heylel to the Latin word Lucifer. Lucifer means light (lux) bearer (ferrous), which is different than what heylel means. Heylel comes from the primitive root word halal. Halal is used 165 times in the Old Testament and means either praise (117 times), glory (14 times), boast (10 times), mad (8 times), shine (3 times), foolish (3 times), fools (2 times), commended (2 times), rage (2 times), celebrate (1 time), give (1 time), marriage (1 time) or renowned (1 time). Heylel is used just one time in Isaiah 14:12 (depending on the translation) and in this case means Satan. Not a fallen angel, a fallen king, a physical person. It is just that Jerome’s erroneous use of the word Lucifer has caused many people to believe that a fallen angel named Lucifer (aka Satan) exists.

Here is the relevant verse from Isaiah 14:12: “How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer (“Heylel” in the Hebrew version), son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

Regarding the usage of the word heaven, this way of speaking was romantic, not literal. A similar approach can be found in Exodus 20:22, when God told Moses “Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.” Heaven in this case means the mountain in which Moses saw a burning bush.

As a side point, there are a number of new age sources of information that speak of Lucifer as if he is in fact a fallen angel. They speak of Lucifer in different ways and therefore contradict each other. Some of these sources are the words of an allegedly channeled high level spirit being. I find it hard to believe that such a being would believe that a fallen angel named Lucifer exists. For, even if such a being didn’t know about the mistranslation Jerome made, why would it speak of a being that doesn’t exist?

Some people believe that the Book of Revelation supports the fallen angel concept when it speaks of a dragon with seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 12:3). In the form of a letter, Revelation was written by a man named John while He was a prisoner on the Island of Patmos. Christians were going through a lot of difficulty at the time, and John wrote them a letter that was very symbolic so the Romans wouldn’t be able to understand what he was talking about. The seven heads of the dragon have a double meaning. They represent seven hills in Rome and seven kings. They don’t represent a literal description of how an odd looking fallen angel looks. As far as I’m concerned, a dragon with seven heads and ten horns has a stranger look than a man with red skin, a tail, a pitch fork, and just two horns. The ten horns also have a double meaning, they refer to ten future kings and ten provinces of the Roman Empire.

The antichrist that is referred to with the number 666 is Emperor Nero Caesar. In Hebrew, Nero Caesar’s name was Nrwn Qsr – n,e,r,o,n; q,s,r. Archaelogical findings show that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero’s name provides the value of 666. Some Biblical manuscripts read 616. The difference between 666 and 616 isn’t an accident, because the two aren’t similar in appearance in the original Greek. However, a strong case can be made that John (the author of Revelation), a Jew, used Hebrew in order to spell Nero’s name and resultantly came up with 616. It is hard to believe that it is just mere coincidence that whether you use 666 or 616 it is reasonable to conclude that Revelation 13:18 refers to Nero. There are other reasons for believing that 666 refers to Nero; however, it is beyond the scope of this book to them. I recommend Reverend Kenneth L. Gentry Jr’s article The Beast of Revelation Identified (this article can be found on the internet at www.reformed.org/eschaton/beast).

Some of the Words attributed to Christ in the Book of Revelations show how the names Satan and Devil could very possibly refer to a physical person, not a fallen angel. Consider the following verses from Revelation 3:9-10:

“I know about your suffering and your poverty—but you are rich! I know the blasphemy of those opposing you. They say they are Jews, but they are not, because their synagogue belongs to Satan. Don’t be afraid of what you are about to suffer. The devil will throw some of you into prison to test you. You will suffer for ten days. But if you remain faithful even when facing death, I will give you the crown of life.”

I believe John meant a Roman leader of the time period when he said Satan, not a supernatural being. Even today there are examples of people referring to people as Satan, such as when Saddam Hussein referred to the United States as Satan. Perhaps it wasn’t appropriate for the members of the referred to synagogues to give in to Roman control to the extent they did; however, it is a bit much to contend that they had it in mind to follow a supernatural being known as Satan, and that Satan actually controlled their synagogues. To the extent they were devoted to God and had a higher purpose, God was in their synagogues.

My thoughts are synced in throughout your write-up:

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


I don't know why you're placing so much spotlight on the person who came up with the Devil's greatest trick quote. I admit, it's a great quote, but bringing them up in an argument that the Devil doesn't exist -- it's just unproductive.

Suggesting that one is giving into evil when questioning the existence of Satan is pushing it as well. Where does it say this? I think every single one of us at one point in time questioned his existence and along with whatever helped mold our core beliefs, we came to a solid decision we believed in.

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


What this has to do with proving the non-existence of Satan, I have no idea. You mention people who "rely on a belief system that doesn't accurately reflect how things are" at one point. This is troubling to me, simply for the fact that even though you may have had conscious experiences in the "after life", how does this mean that you have somehow been given the answer to whether the Devil exists or not? Not to be mean or anything, but why in the world would he expend any energy in revealing himself to you in your little OBE's? The fact that you talk about a belief system that doesn't accurately reflect how things are when you yourself have only likely seen but a small portion of the overall picture, I just can't come to grips with that at all.

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


So you suggest that you have some kind of accurate understanding of evil spirits nature... why? Because you may have encountered some here and there in your little OBE adventures? Can you please elaborate on this some more? I'm not saying that it would be completely unrealistic for a person to completely understand the motives and inner spiritly-psychological workings of an evil spirit based on brief encounters with them during an out of body experience, but I really, really doubt it. Something tells me that there's a lot of layer and confusing depth to what exactly makes an evil spirit an evil spirit.

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


Clever use of using a Scripture verse to help support your theory and lend it credence. Except for the fact that the verse does absolutely nothing to help prove that Satan doesn't exist. Also, you misunderstood what Romans 7:7-25 is actually talking about. Paul is talking about what happens when people knowingly sin and what it does to them; he also talks about how even when people do good things according to the Law of God, evil influences are always there to tempt them. If anything, this verse actually helps support the fact that Satan exists as it suggests that all people who do good and live according to the Word of God are tempted and tested by evil.

Nice try, though.

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


Adam and Eve had the life. They lived in relative paradise and were given one simple and easy to understand rule. Since we've already started to reference the Scriptures, I will gladly do so here. From Genesis 3:2-3:

" 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

Uh, hello? Call me crazy, but that's quite easily the most basic and easily understandable statement I think I've ever read. Eve chose to disobey God because of the serpent who was in her ear the entire time, whispering sweet nothings about how nothing bad at all would happen if she ate from the tree that God said she would die if she ate from.

Who do you think this serpent was, just some wily, disobedient talking serpent? Seriously, I would be fascinated to hear your explanations of just what exactly this serpent was or what it was being controlled by. I highly doubt all the serpents in the Garden of Eden could talk and were blatantly disobedient and evil. But I mean, if that's what you believe, then that's what you believe.

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


He gave us free will to do what we would with ourselves and our actions. Are you trying to say that Eve ate the apple from the tree in which she was strictly forbidden to eat from because... she knew that it would culminate in some metaphysical transformation into something that could ultimately learn lessons to better understand itself? Because if so, then that sounds like B-list science fiction at best.

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


God didn't let Satan do negative things to Job so that it would prove that Job feared Him, He let Satan do all those negative things to him to prove that Job's faith was stronger than Satan's temptations. To say otherwise is to try and take the verses out of context, which is apparently something you enjoy doing based on your next statement:

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


So you use the story of the Garden of Eden as a basis for explaining away that Satan doesn't exist, yet at the first chance you downplay the story of Job as symbolic and not literal? How convenient.

recoverer wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 4:26pm:


1. You're grasping for straws here, friend. What better way to prove to Satan that he was wrong then to have him openly vocal of the entire situation? He also could have asked him to see if he would lie, which he probably did often.
2. Why? Satan was being openly disobedient and questioning everything that God was and all He stood for. Being such an egotistical being, the perfect way to put him in his place was to prove to him, with no doubts what-so-ever, that he was wrong.
3. Why? God is all-knowing (you even said so yourself) and knew that Job would remain faithful.
4. The specifics of their conversation aren't discussed, but it's doubtful that Satan would be allowed to enter and bask in the paradise of Heaven. Has it occurred to you that perhaps God met him at the gates of Heaven and they had their discussion there?

Quote:


It is logical that negativity is caused by separation from one's inner being/love for a couple reasons.  One, and the most important, is personal experience.  I have witnessed throughout my life how this separation has caused pain and hardships.  It wasn't until I reestabilshed a conscious connection with my inner self that this negativity ended, and my life took a turn for the better.  In fact, my situation improved so much that I actually never imagined it could be this good.  It is no coincidence that this postive change was facilitated by my new spiritual outlook.  Many other people I know and know of have undergone this same change.

The other reason it is logical requires a breakdown of the actual negative action.  When looking at any negative act, it can always be broken down to a belief that one had which caused them to commit the misdeed.  In virtually every case of an "evil" action, it is clear that the one acting it out had some sort of negative/false belief which caused the action.  When one lives in a state of spiritual unity with their higher being, their thoughts consist of love, for love is the nature of the higher self.  I have learned this through my experience and accounts of many, many others.  So it is logical to say that if negativity is caused by negative and false beliefs, and that when one is in touch with their true spiritual nature they live in a state of love, and that love and negativity/falseness cannot exist together(for they are polar opposites), then logically those under a negative influence are not living in a state of oneness with there inner being, for if they were, their thoughts would not be negative in nature, but would instead be loving.

Now, please, humor me.  Where is the logic in the idea that "satan" causes the negativity in the world, and what is your personal experience which proved to yourself that "satan" exists?

Also, on an unrelated sidenote OutOfBodyDude, your signature seems to abruptly cut off where I don't think it should.

Of course, it could be some after life/phase walker inside joke/knowledge point or something that I'm not aware of, but from my perspective, I think it just got cut off. Just wanted to let you know so you could fix it (if you want)!

supermodel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 7:19pm:


When did I say that I was "in the beginning"? All of the "Truth" that I speak of (thank you for capitalizing it! ) comes from the study of the Scripture that is the Word of God. As you might of noticed, I didn't deem it appropriate to force such quotations of the Scriptures until Recoverer opted to use them.

To the best of my knowledge, I've been quite compassionate and caring while trying to wake you all up from the false path you are on. However, it seems as if everything you've said to me has been mocking and full of spite. From a belief system that suggests you all "truly" know love, you've certainly shown quite the opposite of what I deem "love" here on these forums.

Regardless, it is your right and freedom to openly disagree with everything that I say. If you do feel that I was condescending in a hurtful way though, and have not already apologized for it, then please feel free to bring it to my attention and I will give it strong consideration. It is simply not in my nature to act or behave in such a way.

Thanks!

supermodel wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 7:38pm:


I do admit that some of the things that I posted in the beginning may have been insensitive. And for that, I sincerely apologize.

On a somewhat related and hopeful topic, it seems we both share somewhat of a tendency to try and insert witty humor into our posts. The snooze button thing gave me a smirk, I won't lie. But that also reminds me, you can all call me by my first name: Jay. Being called Alarm Clock has become far too weird for me it seems...