Love your enemies - should we even love Satan?

[acrossandasong]

I've asked myself numerous times whether or not satan should be considered an enemy to love-> but i do believe that he represents enequity and sin, and i believe God loves him as a creation or wouldnt he have done away with him a long time ago, and i've also heard that satan and God have like meetings?-> as in Job:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. Rev. 12.10

12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

So is Satan still allowed in heaven? it seems like a very strange arrangement aye.
[/quote]

[YLTYLT]

God's love is a tough study, as there are many attributes of His love. He loves all of His creation, yet hates the wicked and Satan. It is said by some that"God loves the sinner but hates the sin". However, this draws an unbiblical distinction between the sinner and his sin. For what is there in a sinner, except for His sin?

I see your point on this PL but it seems to me this logic would conclude that if God hates sinners then he hates us all. Am I confusing something in your ideas?

I think God loves all, but our confusion is on what it means to Love. It does not necessarily mean to have positive feelings toward or want to associate with someone. But Love does encourage us to grow and sometimes that Love includes discipline. You can be angry with someone you love.

But I have to agree that the idea that God loves satan is hard to swallow. But I would think he must. Should we love Satan?? I do not know. But I think possibly so. But, if so, definitely not in the same way we love God. God says "If you love me you will keep my commandments". But I do not think we should obey Satans commands. The only way I can see that we could love satan could be that we should desire that he would turn from sin even though we know that he never will. The Bible tells us to pray for our enemies. Should we pray for satan? Would it help Him return to God? The bible indicates there is no hope for satan. If there is no hope, then why pray? Does God wish that satan would return to Him, but knows that he won't?

This is a very tough and paradoxical question....

[Sadasius]

And how might one actively oppose satan?

David

By spreading the gospel. The thing that defeats evil in the human context is the blood of Christ, a pillar of the gospel.

Gee wasn't that done with the Crusades by spreading the blood of millions of Muslims to accept the gospel? Yeah I bet Satan took a mighty blow with that one!

[Swamper]

And how might one actively oppose satan?

David

By spreading the gospel. The thing that defeats evil in the human context is the blood of Christ, a pillar of the gospel.

Gee wasn't that done with the Crusades by spreading the blood of millions of Muslims to accept the gospel? Yeah I bet Satan took a mighty blow with that one!

The Crusades were primarily the result of the spread of militant Islam, not just some guys saying, "Hey, let's go kill some Muslims because it's fun!".

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nigel.nich ... exFAQ.html

[bizzt]

And how might one actively oppose satan?

David

By spreading the gospel. The thing that defeats evil in the human context is the blood of Christ, a pillar of the gospel.

Gee wasn't that done with the Crusades by spreading the blood of millions of Muslims to accept the gospel? Yeah I bet Satan took a mighty blow with that one!

The Crusades were primarily the result of the spread of militant Islam, not just some guys saying, "Hey, let's go kill some Muslims because it's fun!".

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nigel.nich ... exFAQ.html

Taken from that...

On the history of Christian violence, see my article Serious Violence: Church justification for violence in the Middle Ages.

In fact, my spies inform me that the pope did not actually apologise (that's apologize in U.S. spelling) for the crusade; he apologised for things that were done in the course of the crusades. But commentators in the media seemed to assume that he was apologising for the crusades themselves. These commentators would have been influenced by the modern trend for politicians to apologise for other people's actions. We may ask how appropriate it is for people to apologise for other people's actions, but such apologies often have a political agenda.

When people apologise, they usually mean that they would like to reverse the results of their actions and return the situation to how it would have been if the action had never occurred. In the case of the crusades, the assumption seems to be that the big, strong Christians attacked the poor, weak Muslims without provocation. For the reasons behind the crusades, see question above. The Muslims were not poor and weak but militarily strong, wealthy and administratively efficient. The Muslims won; the crusades to the Middle East and the Balkans were unable to prevent the Muslim Ottoman Turks invading and conquering eastern Europe from the fourteenth century onwards. So if we apologise for the crusades, does that mean that the Muslim advance should not have been hindered? Would it have been better for the Muslim advance to have proceeded without check? Had this been the case, the whole of Europe might now be Muslim. As it was, the Ottoman Turks did not reach Vienna until 1529, and were turned back by a crusade. Should the Christians of eastern Europe simply have allowed themselves to be slaughtered and conquered? What do you think?

The European Christian conquests in Syria and Palestine in the twelfth and thirteenth century only survived while the Muslim powers in the area were divided; whenever they were united the European Christians lost ground. The European Christians were finally driven off the mainland in 1291. However, the Muslim rulers of Syria and Palestine continued to allow Christian pilgrims to visit the holy places. Perhaps they would not have been so happy to do this had they not been aware that preventing pilgrim access to the holy places might lead to another crusade. The networks of European religious orders which existed in the Middle East to assist pilgrims dated from the time of the crusader states. Had the crusader states not existed, the pilgrims to the Holy Land would have found their journey much more difficult and dangerous. Would this have been a good thing?

If we apologise for the crusades, does this also involve reversing the results of the crusades in the Iberian Peninsula, north-eastern Europe or the New World? Are Portugal and Spain to return to Morocco all territory south of 41 degrees north? Are the Balearic Islands to be returned to Morocco? Should Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania immediately agree to be amalgamated into Russia? I don't think so! Should all the descendants of Europeans in the New World return to Europe? (But do we want them back?)

Is the king of Morocco about to apologise for invading and conquering Christian Spain in the early eighth century? I shouldn't think so, and what would such an apology gain? How can we set the clock back now, for events that happened so long ago?

In the case of the pope, his statements on the past actions of the Catholic Church laid the foundations for his policy towards Western military action in the Middle East. By apologising for things that were done during the crusades he set out what he believed the Catholic Church's policy should be in the future. He also apologised for the persecution of heretics.

What about the rest of us? After all, many people reading this webpage are descended from people involved in the crusades. Should we be apologising, too? Perhaps an apology is a way of saying that we have learnt from the past, although, watching the British government in Northern Ireland, I'm not so sure that people do learn from the past. Let's face it, for most of us it is too easy to apologise for other people's mistakes and to ignore our own. When it comes to apologies, let us look to our own actions before we start criticising our ancestors

[Judah]

For some credible and authoritative information on the subject of Islam, Christianity and the Crusades, the following papers are essential reading.
Those who believe that Christians or the West were the aggressors need to take a much closer look at the expansion of Islam (through unconscionable and outright violence - not "trade" as their apologists want you to believe) before being so quick to judge, and a realistic understanding of motives and strategies is also an important corrective.

Professor Thomas Madden is a Crusades historian and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. He writes…

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word “crusade” in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn't the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades' brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren't the Crusades really to blame?

Here is his very readable paper on The Real History of the Crusades.

James Arlandson is another Crusades historian who writes…

Westerners—even academics—accept the notion that the West alone was aggressive. It seems that Islam is always innocent and passive. It is difficult to uncover the source of this Western self-loathing. It is, however, a pathology that seems to strike Westerners more than other people around the globe. This anti-West pathology shows up in Westerners' hatred for the European Crusades in the Medieval Age.

It must be admitted that there is much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the mission and ministry of Jesus and the first generations of Christians, then the Crusades do not look so good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant?

The purpose of this article is not to justify or defend European Crusades, but to explain them, in part—though scholarship can go a long way to defend and justify them.

To read his paper, here is the link:
James Arlandson, The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism, published in The American Thinker, 10 February 2006.

[Sadasius]

Well I would not believe what he wrote and for a very damn good reason. Next ace out of my pocket would be the inquisition. A time of Christian paranoia and murderous torture and here I even have a link to check out as well here <a href="http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Inquisition.html" target="new">"Inquisition Link"</a>.

The writter or scholar who wrote that is obviously trying to cover it up and even states that much 'truth' is yet to be uncovered. Translation "We are still trying to find a suitable story to make this stain go away". The 1100 centruty was a time of fear and death. Fear was taught and implemented on all levels in churchs, homes and yes even in politics as the two were once married but now since people are realizing the destructive power of religion is finally now erradicating it from the government, thank goodness and about time too! Which is why I find it disgraceful that hell, Satan and such things and eternal burning and knashing of teeth etc is still being taught. Heck I have seen it on this board. Didn't you learn from history? Well if you got guys like who wrote that little spiel did then you will not learn at all. The horrors of Christianity are very well documented with times, places, names and the heads involved. It is a stain that cannot be erased ever and people will always remember and it is good to do so because that is what we learn not to do again. So do away with the fear mongering, Christianity is not about that and saving someone's soul from burning hell. It's getting old and has been proven throughout history to be a bad program. It should also be illegal as it is a form brainwashing.

[bizzt]

Well I would not believe what he wrote and for a very damn good reason. Next ace out of my pocket would be the inquisition. A time of Christian paranoia and murderous torture and here I even have a link to check out as well here <a href="http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Inquisition.html" target="new">"Inquisition Link"</a>.

The writter or scholar who wrote that is obviously trying to cover it up and even states that much 'truth' is yet to be uncovered. Translation "We are still trying to find a suitable story to make this stain go away". The 1100 centruty was a time of fear and death. Fear was taught and implemented on all levels in churchs, homes and yes even in politics as the two were once married but now since people are realizing the destructive power of religion is finally now erradicating it from the government, thank goodness and about time too! Which is why I find it disgraceful that hell, Satan and such things and eternal burning and knashing of teeth etc is still being taught. Heck I have seen it on this board. Didn't you learn from history? Well if you got guys like who wrote that little spiel did then you will not learn at all. The horrors of Christianity are very well documented with times, places, names and the heads involved. It is a stain that cannot be erased ever and people will always remember and it is good to do so because that is what we learn not to do again. So do away with the fear mongering, Christianity is not about that and saving someone's soul from burning hell. It's getting old and has been proven throughout history to be a bad program. It should also be illegal as it is a form brainwashing.

Interesting the Site you picked http://www.exposingchristianity.com/
But that will be about enough... Thanks for Sharing

[Judah]

Yes, Sadasius has exposed himself and does not meet the guidelines and purposes of this forum.

What many unbelievers do is confuse the behaviour of people with the message of the gospel, with the character and nature of Christ and the need for God's redemption. They attempt to discredit Christianity by propagating this confusion.

It is critically important to realize that the way mankind behaves is NOT a reflection on the way God behaves, and that Christ is the sacrifical lamb who died for our sins to redeem us and restore us to God.
If wanting to learn about Christianity, look to Christ. Mankind is flawed, but Christ is the true representative of Christianity.

[YLTYLT]

Christianity is not about that and saving someone's soul from burning hell. It's getting old and has been proven throughout history to be a bad program. It should also be illegal as it is a form brainwashing.

Sadasius,

Unless I misunderstand you, I would have to disagree with this statement. Christianity IS about saving people from hell. At least Christ would have wanted us to represent that it should be about saving people from hell. But it is also about Love. If you love someone and you know they are headed down a path of destruction, then it would be your obligation to inform them of it if they are willing to listen. But in a sense you are correct that there have been times in the past where the focus on hell may have seemed to great. But certain people are motivated by different stimuli. Some are more motivated to action by fear. Some are more motivated by pleasure. So both ideas need to be comunicated. The word Gospel means "good news". But there is no need for the good news if the bad news does not exist. (The bad news being of our sinful state sending us to hell.) It would be like me telling you that I paid your fine for chewing gum, when you did not beleive that chewing gum was against the law(assuming chewing gum was illegal ). It would seem ridiculous to you, and possibly offesive. But when you realize that chewing gum is against the law, you would be greatful.

But I do see that historically Christians have taken the evangelism idea to the extreme by trying to brow beat people into believing. This is the sin in man trying to do the work of God. This never works because "A Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

Some Christians may have thought that they would receive rewards based on HOW MANY people they lead to Christ. Although, there will be rewards in Heaven for those that continue in the faith, these rewards are based on using your spiritual gifts for His Kingdom, not necessarily the number of souls won. And it is not even our job to win them anyway, it is only our job to WARN them. Salvation is the work of GOD. Regardless of whether they choose to accept it or not, God will still be glorified - either in the Judgement of those that did not choose or the Grace of those that do choose to believe. Show we should still warn them.

Please do not judge Christianity on the actions of men. Judge it on the words of God.

[madscientist]

Wewll honestly that was the 1st time i ve seen something like thta it was the muslims who were evil. ive been taught for all my life (im europena) that it were christians who came to middle east an forced muslims to convert. who refused were killed. that is waht i learned in schoola and been always told. an then i also haerd stuff like "christians casued wars" and thats thr reason they are not liked etc. which i interepreted as "the ""christians"" who did so were not real but hypocrites - like crusaders and ppl of similar sort" - so although they caused wars etc it was not what religion teaches - do not listen Jesus, make him a bad name by saying they "kill in God's name" althought that is not what he says nad teaches - i.e. "false" christians., donno if this is correct; if it is then it meas that christianity is regarded as it is because of this - ppl are extreme like the crusaders. it is often muslims and christinas that are in conflict... and btw what exactly does muslim religion teach?
btw i also heard that buddhism is the religion that would cause the greatest peace, dont know xactly y but thats what i heard... does anyone know more about it??

[Judah]

Wewll honestly that was the 1st time i ve seen something like thta it was the muslims who were evil. ive been taught for all my life (im europena) that it were christians who came to middle east an forced muslims to convert. who refused were killed. that is waht i learned in schoola and been always told. an then i also haerd stuff like "christians casued wars" and thats thr reason they are not liked etc. which i interepreted as "the ""christians"" who did so were not real but hypocrites - like crusaders and ppl of similar sort" - so although they caused wars etc it was not what religion teaches - do not listen Jesus, make him a bad name by saying they "kill in God's name" althought that is not what he says nad teaches - i.e. "false" christians., donno if this is correct; if it is then it meas that christianity is regarded as it is because of this - ppl are extreme like the crusaders. it is often muslims and christinas that are in conflict... and btw what exactly does muslim religion teach?
btw i also heard that buddhism is the religion that would cause the greatest peace, dont know xactly y but thats what i heard... does anyone know more about it??

It sounds like a little of the truth of what Islam is about would help you understand those crusades of the Middle Ages better too, madscientist.
If you are interested, I shall point you to my own website and this page where I have compiled credible and authoritative resources on the subject. Historically, Islam has always had bloody borders. Their prophet was a very violent man of war and their holy book is extremely violent. Muslim apologists will have you believe that is not so, but should you read the Qur'an for yourself, and according to the correct theological principle of nasikh (abrogation) - this is explained on my site - then you will learn what it really is about.

I will leave others to speak of Buddhism - it is Islam that I studied - but you do not hear of Buddhists taking up arms and being the violent aggressors as you do Muslims who practise the full and correct interpretation of their faith.

[madscientist]

It sounds like a little of the truth of what Islam is about would help you understand those crusades of the Middle Ages better too, madscientist.
If you are interested, I shall point you to my own website and this page where I have compiled credible and authoritative resources on the subject. Historically, Islam has always had bloody borders. Their prophet was a very violent man of war and their holy book is extremely violent. Muslim apologists will have you believe that is not so, but should you read the Qur'an for yourself, and according to the correct theological principle of nasikh (abrogation) - this is explained on my site - then you will learn what it really is about.

I will leave others to speak of Buddhism - it is Islam that I studied - but you do not hear of Buddhists taking up arms and being the violent aggressors as you do Muslims who practise the full and correct interpretation of their faith.

Ya looked a little at ur site... ya ive heard that islam is both violent and peaceful. ive heard ppl say its peaceful ideology etc.

Ok then if this is so is it that people could be partly forgiven or excused for what they do in liufe? It is still our decisions and life etc. but if we are born into a religion and brainwashed ideas into us, let them be good or bad - it is most likely how a person will be. And we cant choose where and when we are born etc - the same debate over an over... And arent there some good islam believers who practice faith etc, pray and believe they have to do good to others? For example ina book i read some time ago - The Kite Runner, talks about Afghanistan and islam etc - where the main characters are islamists but are actually good people who are against taliban etc - so they are good etc. so dont such people have a way to salvation? if they never know it is CHRISTIANITY thaths needed etc. -
and also a question whcih also bothered me - that if we, as christians dont accept other religions and consider our to be the only "true" one then shoudln't we expect others to say the same about theirs? And if they pray to their imaginary "god" then who will really listen to them? Will our God of Chrisitanity bother with such people and hear their prayers? If lets say they pray to Allah, but maybe mistake him for our God - will our God be ignorant of them or listen to them as if he were Allah? (Because for us, Christians, no such things as Allah, Buddha etc exist). So what is the life of such people?

[terry]

I've been reading this thread . . . and it seems that no one has really addressed the topic-- should we love Satan?

Jesus, (in the Sermon on the Mount quoted in Matthew 5, and in another sermon quoted in Luke 6) does say "love your enemies," but in context, both of those statements refer to people not to spiritual entities. The Jews were being persecuted by the Romans. Jesus was being persecuted by the Pharisees (who would eventually inspire the Romans to kill Him). He knew His followers would be persecuted as well. In the Law, it was an eye for an eye, etc. Jesus was giving His followers new guidelines about how to respond to (human) persecutors.

We are not to "rail" against the devil (calling him stupid names like tormentors through a fence) , but Jesus left no instruction for, and demonstrated no pattern to "love" or to pray for Satan. Jesus came to save the souls of people, He died for people, and He will return for people. His dealings with angels are something altogether different.

Regarding other religions . . . i.e. Muslim and Buddhist . . . while completely different in their methods and teachings-- in essence both rely on works and knowledge rather than the Savior.

Jesus was the only one who ever claimed to be THE Way and THE Light. The founders of other religions only claimed to be way showers or light bearers. As far as I know, Christianity is unique in it's claim that we cannot do enough or learn enough to be saved-- that we need only to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus who died in our place.

While Buddhism and other Eastern religions seem like a different deal altogether because of their teachings about reincarnation-- this simply becomes the "law" of performance (doing) in a prolonged form. Instead of being judged by the law for ONE lifetime (and being found guilty by that law), one is judged by the law for multiple lifetimes (and still falls short).

People absolutely have the right to believe in the methods/teachings of other religions, but I don't believe those religions are "equal" (in claims, means, or results) to what we are offered in Jesus Christ.

[Judah]

Very well said, Terry. I totally agree with you.