164 replies to this topic

[Lexxi Aileron]

if God is all things good, why could he see no other resolution with Satan than to cast him down?

Evil cannot be allowed to exist in heaven, for then heaven would cease to be what it is, a paradise blessed perfectly by the presence of God.
Angels have freedom of will, which means that they have the ability to submit their will to good or evil. Thus, even angels that are in heaven can become evil.
By consequence of the fact that evil cannot be allowed to exist in heaven, evil that arises from heaven must be cast out.

Satan existed in heaven.
Satan submitted his will to evil.
Thus, Satan had to be cast out from heaven.

What happens when someone is cast out from heaven? They are separated from God.
What do we refer to this separation from God as? Hell.

The Earth is not heaven and thus is not perfect, but enjoys many blessings of the goodness of God and a certain level of His presence.
Because the Earth is not perfect, even though it enjoys God's blessings and a limited level of His presence, evil can exist there.
For human beings, Earth is something of a choosing ground, an in-between world for us to form and temper our wills while still enjoying some level of God's goodness and presence. Our experience of God is entirely limited, and can be broadened by our own goodness or limited further by our evils. Inevitably this in-between ends with the course of the end of our earthly lives, at which point our will is laid bare.

A repentant soul rejects evil, and thus with the addition of God's grace, either experienced on Earth or through Purgatory can be united with God's forgiveness to expel evil from the sinner's will. An unrepentant soul's will is not united with God, and even in the face of His presence this conflict of will rejects God's offer of forgiveness and the evils of the sinner's will are retained.

Since evil cannot be allowed to exist in heaven, as evil does not exist in a paradise, the unrepentant cannot inherit paradise. God respects the decisions made by free persons and only extends His graces insofar as free persons accept it.

[Green Goblin]

that still doesn't prove that Satan in himself was necessarily evil.

[Lexxi Aileron]

What possibly good intention could someone have for trying to overpower a perfectly benevolent creator-being?

[Green Goblin]

he thought her could run it better. Questioning authority isn't something that is definitively evil. True, it might've been a bit arrogant of him, but it certainly doesn't seem malevolent.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Such a lust for power is a vice, no?

[spunky-monkey]

So in the Old Testament, at least, Satan seems to be a kind of agent of God. Like what Steve mentioned. He does less than pleasant things, and wanders the earth instead of heaven, but he still follows rules. So did Satan's fall conveniently come between the Old and New Testament?

It almost brings the frightening implication, that Satan is really serving God's will, that in the grand scheme of things, being our accuser and tormentor, he's only following the divine law making him effectively God's puppet.

To summarise that in another way: why get mad at the puppet hitting you when the puppeteer is indirectly causing us the harm?

Mere mortals in the eyes of the divine or not, something like that should raise some red flags of morality. Job's insignificant in the grand scheme of things, at least to them, but that makes it seem like it's just two divine entities tossing a living thing around as if it meant nothing. Two humans do something like that to a dog or rabbit (a lesser 'insignificant' creature), and they get called insane and sadistic.

Yes, the wheel of morality didn't like that story at all - that indifference between man and God is what beget hatred in me towards this almighty from the start; throughout this Bible he treats us rather badly – he allowed the death of Job's servants and children for Christ's sake! And people continue to argue Satan was the villain/rival/nemesis of the Job story, okay then why didn't he wise up to the prospect that God's challenge might've been a trap? i.e. God is all-knowing yeah, so Job is obviously going to win this wager no matter what I do. Satan isn't stupid and why is he in Heaven anyway? In actuality Satan suspected nothing wrong... as you said "God gave him the all-clear" ...as if he were merely doing what he was always created to do.

What he feared, what he didn't want to do, is become sin. In order for his death to have meaning, he had to take all the sins of the world (past, present, and future) into himself, and become the one thing that he hates most.

Jesus' prime fear was to be become separated from God in death. Its no real loss for us mere mortals since we're at enmity with this God-guy, but Christ is his son, so that's the equivalent to a very small child in the mall/shopping centre realising to his horror he can't see or find his father/mother.

Suppose you are God. You know everything. You know all the events that will transpire after you create the Universe (i.e. the fall, man's corruption, etc.), and you know that a large number of your children - mankind - will be lost, but that a small number will find salvation and attain paradise. Do you abandon all of existence? Do you hope you're wrong and do it anyway? Do you do it for those few who can be saved? What is your solution to this problem?

We're flesh and blood Poore, not fit to be called God's children or anything for that matter. Which is fine with me btw...

God (the artist)
Jesus (artist's son)
Angels (artist's friends & critics)
---
Animals (artist's early work)
Man (artist's paintings)
The saved (artist's best work framed in a gallery)
The damned (the artist's scraps that are promptly binned/destroyed)

Get it right people. >.>

And to answer your question, no, I wouldn't doom a large portion of mankind to ETERNAL death and/or fiery damnation for ALL TIME, even if they deserved it. Not for all the riches in Heaven nor the stars and glory/power in the entire Universe and cosmos of reality. It's... just not worth the awful loss Poore, but apparently God doesn't have my morals.

Were that the only end result possible, I would not create mankind to start with; non-existence instead of a miserable world filled with chaos would be a far kinder and far more merciful thing to do. How can preachers justify God mercy accomplishing the salvation of only a measly few for the sacrifice of innumerable casualties and claim that to be a *miraculous* event - that's simply corrupt.

By extension, to claim that God, by his very nature of existing beyond the confines and rules of our own Universe, can be understood in His motives, His actions, and His decisions by our mere examination of a human record (even if divinely inspired) of Him is foolish.

Oh please, to argue we cannot understand God is the ultimate cop-out argument, like me saying he moves in "mysterious ways" or something roughly to that degree.

From my own personal experience, it is only through suffering that true joy can be understood. I wouldn't want to live in a world without it. That might seem strange, but without pain, without failure, without sadness, accomplishments mean nothing. If everyone who ran the race got a first place medal, first place means nothing. Everyone who worked hard, who agonized through hours and hours of training, were wasting their time. The joy that one experiences from having their hard work pay off would disappear. No activity is rewarding without the possibility for failure that actually has consequences.

A world without failure stagnates. A life without pain is trivial, boring, and meaningless.

Wow, now you're doing exactly what I hate most - you're justifying the presence of evil in God's universe, not merely excusing or ignoring it anymore. Like others, I've experienced the loss of family and I'll never see them ever again, so what has this God-guy ever truly lost that he loved? He has Angels and other celestial beings singing and praising his glory 24/7. He knows absolutely nothing of human suffering and heartache, or what it means to be alone in this world with worries; he's completely alien to us.

All those examples are leagues different from eternal suffering and damnation. If God equates the eternal loss of one of his children to a mundane accomplishment like first place in a race, he's an even bigger monster.

I second that statement.

HAVE to quote this. If that's the case, why the hell would anyone want to go to heaven??

Well I don't. Even if it were possible to be admitted in, Heaven can easily become Hell if you don't approve of God's actions or judgements, and you're now -stuck permanently- in his great and terrible all-knowing presence. I'd rather face the alternative and be outside Zion alone in the darkness than that.

Satan existed in heaven.
Satan submitted his will to evil.
Thus, Satan had to be cast out from heaven.

Submitting to evil... hang on, are you implying there are not one but two Gods Lexxi?

A repentant soul rejects evil, and thus with the addition of God's grace, either experienced on Earth or through Purgatory can be united with God's forgiveness to expel evil from the sinner's will. An unrepentant soul's will is not united with God, and even in the face of His presence this conflict of will rejects God's offer of forgiveness and the evils of the sinner's will are retained.

We're born into a tiny world, one called Earth. We live out our lives as best as we can, but not always. Those who do always keeping the values taught by family and/or those picked up or self-taught through many hardships encountered. Yet no matter what choices or path you decide to take you -will- die alone.

Its depressing I know, but Mankind has endured much up to this point, then at an indeterminable time in the future we're all forcibly brought back to life by a God who's never had anything to do with our trials and tribulations, and he now demands repentance for them? One question - Why seek forgiveness when our transgressions were not properly explained?

Oh yes, then God judges us, having his Angels throw all of us who fail to meet his holy standards into a fiery vortex of his own making? Believe me, that is not a God worth asking for forgiveness, well unless you enjoy punishing others, of course. <.<

[Lexxi Aileron]

Submitting to evil... hang on, are you implying there are not one but two Gods Lexxi?

There is submission to God's will, and there is resistance of God's will. Duality comes in God vs. no-God, in good and evil, life and death, heaven and hell.

One question - Why seek forgiveness when our transgressions were not properly explained?

Innocent ignorance is not a sin, thus why would it be punished or need to be forgiven?

Edited by Lexxi Aileron, 08 December 2008 - 05:00 PM.

[Poore]

It almost brings the frightening implication, that Satan is really serving God's will, that in the grand scheme of things, being our accuser and tormentor, he's only following the divine law making him effectively God's puppet.

To summarise that in another way: why get mad at the puppet hitting you when the puppeteer is indirectly causing us the harm?

So, instead, he should rob humanity of their ability to decide and turn us into a bunch of robots/zombies? You can't have it both ways. Either accept pain alongside free will, or give up your free will along with your suffering. I'll hang on to my ability to decide, to learn, to grow, thank you very much. It's ironic that most atheists call Christians unitellectual or ignorant, then complain primarily about the tenets of the faith (read: free will, the fact that God doesn't save everyone including those who deny him, etc.) that allow us the ability to gain knowledge. After all, if learning brings no advantage (i.e. we do research now to improve our lives because we know we can better ourselves; if God hands you everything on a silver platter, there's no reason to move forward because you already have everything you need), why learn?

Yes, the wheel of morality didn't like that story at all - that indifference between man and God is what beget hatred in me towards this almighty from the start; throughout this Bible he treats us rather badly – he allowed the death of Job's servants and children for Christ's sake! And people continue to argue Satan was the villain/rival/nemesis of the Job story, okay then why didn't he wise up to the prospect that God's challenge might've been a trap? i.e. God is all-knowing yeah, so Job is obviously going to win this wager no matter what I do. Satan isn't stupid and why is he in Heaven anyway? In actuality Satan suspected nothing wrong... as you said "God gave him the all-clear" ...as if he were merely doing what he was always created to do.

...IF you take the story of Job to be a literal truth instead of a colorful story that illustrates the overall principle of the faithful being rewarded for enduring through life's hardships in order for an ultimately greater reward in the end? Like how you will be persecuted for your faith (fact: more Christians are persecuted worldwide in modern times than at any other time in history), but your reward of being united with God in the afterlife will be worth it? Fun fact: Christ often taught through parables - fictional, earthly stories with a truer spiritual meaning. Considering he was God's son, I wouldn't be surprised if his Dad used this trick as well. Look at the story as allegory rather than history and it makes a lot more sense.

We're flesh and blood Poore, not fit to be called God's children or anything for that matter. Which is fine with me btw...

God (the artist)
Jesus (artist's son)
Angels (artist's friends & critics)
---
Animals (artist's early work)
Man (artist's paintings)
The saved (artist's best work framed in a gallery)
The damned (the artist's scraps that are promptly binned/destroyed)

Get it right people. >.>

And to answer your question, no, I wouldn't doom a large portion of mankind to ETERNAL death and/or fiery damnation for ALL TIME, even if they deserved it. Not for all the riches in Heaven nor the stars and glory/power in the entire Universe and cosmos of reality. It's... just not worth the awful loss Poore, but apparently God doesn't have my morals.

Were that the only end result possible, I would not create mankind to start with; non-existence instead of a miserable world filled with chaos would be a far kinder and far more merciful thing to do. How can preachers justify God mercy accomplishing the salvation of only a measly few for the sacrifice of innumerable casualties and claim that to be a *miraculous* event - that's simply corrupt.

Glass half empty, glass half full: In your world view, no one is saved - you've damned EVERYONE to a permanent death. In mine, at least those who accept the free gift of salvation are saved. If you want to make it a numbers game, you've just condemned more people than God ever has. Moreover, yours is a life without even HOPE of salvation, and a painful world without hope is much more terrible than non-existence in my mind.

Oh please, to argue we cannot understand God is the ultimate cop-out argument, like me saying he moves in "mysterious ways" or something roughly to that degree.

You (and others) have misunderstood my original intention. What I meant to say is that God is more powerful than we can comprehend, so they used the world "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" to describe Him. When people try to use that definition to create paradoxical scenarios ("Can God make a rock so big he can't life it?", "Why can't he create a world with free will AND no corruption?"), I believe it using the technical definition of "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" rather than simply interpreting it as "more powerful than we can imagine" specifically for the purposes of using human definitions of reality from a limited scope to catch God in a "lie". In other words, when people try to invoke the Omnipotence Paradox (as I believe someone did earlier in this thread), I feel it's really a straw man more than anything else, as omniscient and omnipotent are earthly definitions that are being used to limit a spiritual being.

Wow, now you're doing exactly what I hate most - you're justifying the presence of evil in God's universe, not merely excusing or ignoring it anymore. Like others, I've experienced the loss of family and I'll never see them ever again, so what has this God-guy ever truly lost that he loved? He has Angels and other celestial beings singing and praising his glory 24/7. He knows absolutely nothing of human suffering and heartache, or what it means to be alone in this world with worries; he's completely alien to us.

Other than having to turn his back on his own son at the moment of said son's ultimate suffering. Other than watching a large portion of his creation (read: mankind) use the free will he benevolently allowed them to spit in his face.

1 Timothy 2:1-6 For this is good and acceptable in the eyes of God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time.

You want to know what he's truly lost that he loves? You. Look in a mirror. He wants you to be with Him in eternity. He's extending the hand of mercy to you, saying "Accept this gift, and you will be with me forever." And you say, "No." Using the free will He gave you, you're spitting in His face. And that hurts Him. Now imagine the bulk of humanity doing that, for two thousand years, after His Son suffered through the most horrible experience imaginable for those same people who reject Him. The bible says that the angels rejoice in Heaven whenever someone accepts Christ, so what do you think happens when someone rejects Him? Probably not a party. Probably something more akin to a funeral.

Yeah. Let your own child take the blame for the whole of humanities crimes, let them tell you they hate you and reject you, and then tell me God doesn't know what suffering is.

But enough about that: you want me to justify why failure has to be possible for life to have meaning?
Excerpt from "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein:

If you can't listen, perhaps you can tell the class whether 'value' is a relative, or an absolute?'

I had been listening; I just didn't see any reason not to listen with eyes closed and spine relaxed. But his question caught me out; I hadn't read that day's assignment. 'An absolute,' I answered, guessing.

'Wrong,' he said coldly. ' 'Value' has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each living human - 'market value' is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values, all of which must be quantitatively different or trade would be impossible.' (I had wondered what Father would have said if he had heard 'market value' called a 'fiction' - snort in disgust, probably.)

'This very personal relationship, 'value,' has two factors for a human being: first, what he can do with a thing, its use to him . . . and second, what he must do to get it, its cost to him. There is an old song which asserts that 'the best things in life are free.' Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted . . . and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.

'Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain.' He had been still looking at me and added, 'If you boys and girls had to sweat for your toys the way a newly born baby has to struggle to live you would be happier . . . and much richer. As it is, with some of you, I pity the poverty of your wealth. You! I've just awarded you the prize for the hundred-meter dash. Does it make you happy?'

'Uh, I suppose it would.'

'No dodging, please. You have the prize - here, I'll write it out: 'Grand prize for the championship, one hundred-meter sprint.' ' He had actually come back to my seat and pinned it on my chest. 'There! Are you happy? You value it - or don't you?'

I was sore. First that dirty crack about rich kids - a typical sneer of those who haven't got it - and now this farce. I ripped it off and chucked it at him.

Mr. Dubois had looked surprised. 'It doesn't make you happy?'

'You know darn well I placed fourth!'

'Exactly! The prize for first place is worthless to you . . . because you haven't earned it. But you enjoy a modest satisfaction in placing fourth; you earned it. I trust that some of the somnambulists here understood this little morality play. I fancy that the poet who wrote that song meant to imply that the best things in life must be purchased other than with money - which is true - just as the literal meaning of his words is false. The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion . . . and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself - ultimate cost for perfect value.'

All those examples are leagues different from eternal suffering and damnation. If God equates the eternal loss of one of his children to a mundane accomplishment like first place in a race, he's an even bigger monster.

I wasn't saying that it seems like that to God. In fact, winning the race isn't important. The analogy wasn't even about God's feelings on the matter - it was about how accomplishments mean nothing if there wasn't a struggle to achieve them. See example above. It's purely to explain why difficulties are meaningful, why never having to work for anything renders our existence meaningless.

HAVE to quote this. If that's the case, why the hell would anyone want to go to heaven??

Their is no PHYSICAL suffering or pain in Heaven, but never does it state that their won't be anything to do there. That there will be no new challenges to overcome. That we won't struggle with new spiritual difficulties as opposed to the earthly ones we deal with in our current existence. As much as I hate to use Stargate as reference material in a serious debate, it's like when Daniel Jackson ascended - sure, he was immortal, but he found a new and exciting plane of existence with it's own trials and tribulations. That's what I believe Heaven is: a new realm of experience, where interaction with God is possible, and where the spiritual is as easily accessible as the physical.

We're born into a tiny world, one called Earth. We live out our lives as best as we can, but not always. Those who do always keeping the values taught by family and/or those picked up or self-taught through many hardships encountered. Yet no matter what choices or path you decide to take you -will- die alone.

Its depressing I know, but Mankind has endured much up to this point, then at an indeterminable time in the future we're all forcibly brought back to life by a God who's never had anything to do with our trials and tribulations, and he now demands repentance for them? One question - Why seek forgiveness when our transgressions were not properly explained?

Oh yes, then God judges us, having his Angels throw all of us who fail to meet his holy standards into a fiery vortex of his own making? Believe me, that is not a God worth asking for forgiveness, well unless you enjoy punishing others, of course. <.<

In a world without God, there is no "best" way to live your life. Right and wrong have no basis other than the abstract ideals of humanity. Since humans are not a united front, there is no common basis for right and wrong, and thus all beliefs are subjective, and therefore equally valid.

But wait? What's that? Values are "self-taught" through "hardships encountered"? So, if there were no hardships, you wouldn't gain those values, right? Who was justifying suffering again? By this logic, without suffering, the world would have no values. No morals. Your definition of living the "best" life is entirely dependent on the very thing you hated me trying to justify.

As to your other point: Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved!"

His standards are to be perfect, true, but failing that, saying "Hey, save me, dude" is a perfectly acceptable alternative. Not so hard. Ridiculously easy, in fact. I would say it is unfair to imply that God makes it difficult for you to get into Heaven.

Edited by Poore, 08 December 2008 - 05:37 PM.

[Arturo]

I would say it is unfair to imply that God makes it difficult for you to get into Heaven.

He asks us to rennounce rationality, to lose everything we have to get something that is objectively very unlikely to exist. I'd say that's putting things difficult.

[Lexxi Aileron]

He asks us to rennounce rationality, to lose everything we have to get something that is objectively very unlikely to exist. I'd say that's putting things difficult.

"Love one another as I have loved you" is definitely asking us to renounce rationality, right. =/

[Arturo]

"Love one another as I have loved you" is definitely asking us to renounce rationality, right. =/

No. But "Leave everything you have and follow me" definitely is.

[Lexxi Aileron]

No. But "Leave everything you have and follow me" definitely is.

The man asked what he could do to ensure he received eternal life. Of course the best answer will be "leave everything else behind and devote yourself to God completely."

[wisp]

Glass half empty, glass half full: In your world view, no one is saved - you've damned EVERYONE to a permanent death. In mine, at least those who accept the free gift of salvation are saved. If you want to make it a numbers game, you've just condemned more people than God ever has. Moreover, yours is a life without even HOPE of salvation, and a painful world without hope is much more terrible than non-existence in my mind.

Why do you need to believe in an afterlife in order to live happily? I don't think I would want to exist forever ad nauseum. Give me my one lifetime and then let it be over. Not having an afterlife should just make you want to get the most out of this one, and to make it the best possible place for yourself and others. Let's face it; while Billy Joe may believe in an afterlife and Bobby Joe might not, when you get right down to it, neither one of them really knows if he's right or not, OR whether the afterlife is even as good as people say it is, anyway. I think that believing in an afterlife just cheapens this one and makes it seem like it's not worth too much.

Edited by wisp, 08 December 2008 - 06:39 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Why do you need to believe in an afterlife in order to live happily? I don't think I would want to exist forever ad nauseum. Give me my one lifetime and then let it be over. Not having an afterlife should just make you want to get the most out of this one, and to make it the best possible place for yourself and others. Let's face it; while Billy Joe may believe in an afterlife and Bobby Joe might not, when you get right down to it, neither one of them really knows if he's right or not, OR whether the afterlife is even as good as people say it is, anyway. I think that believing in an afterlife just cheapens this one and makes it seem like it's not worth too much.

That depends on your view of the point of this life.

And I do know that there's an afterlife. And there will be no lack of things to do.

I wish I had more time to go further in depth(Night classes are FUN!,) but I'll just have to leave with adressing Goblin's original point: Satan made a pact with Cain to kill Abel. Is accomplice to murder evil enough for you?

[Selena]

Guys - remember, this is a thread about Satan. It's okay to mention God or even Jesus... so long as it somehow ties back to Satan and his function/nature/personality. Or whether Satan is an agent of God, and stuff like that. This hopefully won't digress too far into just a Christianity debate in general. With this 'saved' discussion, we're getting close to that. You all know we've had about 4,000 of those threads. You can make another one if you really want, but it'd save your fingers typing pain if you'd just read through some of the older ones.

---

It's ironic that most atheists call Christians unitellectual or ignorant, then complain primarily about the tenets of the faith (read: free will, the fact that God doesn't save everyone including those who deny him, etc.) that allow us the ability to gain knowledge. After all, if learning brings no advantage (i.e. we do research now to improve our lives because we know we can better ourselves; if God hands you everything on a silver platter, there's no reason to move forward because you already have everything you need), why learn?

Look at Genesis and read over God's original intention - we weren't intelligent, we lived in paradise, we had everything we could have wanted. Our only rule was to not become intelligent (eating from the tree of knowledge). God wanted us blissfully ignorant and docile. It was the serpent to baited humanity with intelligence. And if you equate the serpent with Satan, as many do, then our intelligence stemmed from him rather than God. The only real way that God could be the giver of intelligence is if you argue that it was all part of his master plan. But then he's also the one responsible for the fall of humanity and for introducing sin into his own world. That would obviously be a stark contrast to what Genesis is portraying. God is angry that humans have had their eyes opened, and as a result he casts them out.

Look at the story [of Job] as allegory rather than history and it makes a lot more sense.

It makes sense either way, it's just that if you look at is as an allegory it's morally easier to digest. Is there any real indication of Job just being an allegory?

Satan made a pact with Cain to kill Abel. Is accomplice to murder evil enough for you?

There is no mention of Satan in chapter 4 of Genesis.

[Poore]

Look at Genesis and read over God's original intention - we weren't intelligent, we lived in paradise, we had everything we could have wanted. Our only rule was to not become intelligent (eating from the tree of knowledge). God wanted us blissfully ignorant and docile. It was the serpent to baited humanity with intelligence. And if you equate the serpent with Satan, as many do, then our intelligence stemmed from him rather than God. The only real way that God could be the giver of intelligence is if you argue that it was all part of his master plan. But then he's also the one responsible for the fall of humanity and for introducing sin into his own world. That would obviously be a stark contrast to what Genesis is portraying. God is angry that humans have had their eyes opened, and as a result he casts them out.

Actually, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, both of which are human conceptions. The best explanation for this I've ever found is this:

Earlier, I alluded to Maimonides' view of our story. In his Guide to the Perplexed, Maimonides suggested that Adam and Eve were already aware of right and wrong, in some fashion, before eating from the tree. According to Maimonides, the tree did not give us moral awareness when we had none before. Rather, it transformed this awareness from one kind into another. Before eating from the tree, we would not have chosen to call virtuous moral choices "good" and vile choices "evil". We would have had a different way of thinking about such things; we would have used different words.

What were these "other words", this more "accurate" way of looking at things? Well, according to Maimonides, in the pre-tree world -- in the more pristine world -- virtuous choices would have been called "true", and reprehensible choices would have been labeled "false". In short, doing the right thing was called "truth"; and doing the wrong thing was called "falsehood".

What does Maimonides mean by this? At first glance, it seems bizarre. The word false would seem to describe "2+2 = 5" a lot better than it would describe, say, robbing a bank. What does it really mean to see morality as a set of choices between "truth and falsehood"? And how does this differ from saying that morality means choosing between "good and evil"?

I don't know for sure, and Maimonides doesn't elaborate all that much on what he means by this. But here's one way, I think, we might understand what he's getting at.

Let's think about it. How are "true" things different than "good" things?

When I say something is true, I'm describing objective reality. I'm telling you that something is out there; it's real. And it's real whether I like it or not. If we talk about morality as a matter of true and false, then, this might be shorthand for saying that making moral choices involves discerning something objective. It involves figuring out what the right thing to do is; what my Maker expects of me -- and then trying to align my behavior with that "truth".

How then, do we see virtue differently when we call it "good" rather than "true"? While the word "true" has a core meaning of "real", the word "good" is not quite as objective a term. For example, what else does "good" mean besides "that which is ethically correct"? Its other meaning is: "that which is pleasing". When I say something is good, what I am really telling you, in a subtle way, is that I approve of it; that it is desirable.

Perhaps, then, Maimonides means the following: The shift from a world of true and false to a world of good and evil was a shift between a world where my essential choice was an objective one, to a more subjective world -- a world in which my desire intrudes and becomes an inescapable part of the moral calculus...

As we suggested earlier, the "Tree of Knowledge" was deeply associated with desire -- it appealed to us at all conceivable aesthetic levels, from the most base (taste) to the most profound (mind). Perhaps the mysterious tree of knowledge was really a tree of desire. And perhaps the most fundamental ramification of our choice to eat from it was simply this: The role that desire plays in our lives would become forever changed.

To explain: In the pre-tree world, desire was more easily controlled. It was a natural part of man -- but a part that was in equilibrium with the rest of us. It was less likely to blind-side us. In the post-tree world, that can no longer be taken for granted. Desire brandishes a higher profile in man's psyche. It remains ever present, in the background, always a force to be reckoned with. Desire becomes a lens through which I view things. I no longer see a clear world of "true" and "false"; I now see something that is ever so slightly different. I see "good" and "evil".

So, before, while we still had choices (God did not force Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree - He told them not to, but still let them have the free will to disobey Him), the world was, quite literally, black and white. After the choice to disobey God, shades of gray entered into the world, and determining what it right or wrong become, essentially, impossible. Thus, sin enters the world. Thus, redemption is necessary.

But let me again stress that it was a free will choice that Adam and Eve made that brought about their being cast out of Paradise.

It makes sense either way, it's just that if you look at is as an allegory it's morally easier to digest. Is there any real indication of Job just being an allegory?

Other than the fact that a significant portion of the Bible is told from an allegorical point of view, and nothing is ever claimed to be fact (Truth, yes. Fact, no.)? And that Christ taught almost exclusively through parables, which are essentially allegory? Or that a lot of the prophets (read: the guys who wrote a large portion of the Bible) also used allegory and symbolism frequently in their teachings? No, I don't know of anywhere where God says, "Hey, this is just an allegory, guys." Then again, neither does Crime & Punishment, so I guess we have to take that as a literal story, too, eh?

I apologize for any thread hijacking - it was an unintentional consequence of responding to arguments that arose individually. That's the nature of the beast, though - all parts of the Christian doctrine are inextricably linked in at least some small way, so discussions about any one part of Chrisitianity can quickly and easily spiral out of control.

Edited by Poore, 08 December 2008 - 08:51 PM.

[Selena]

Actually, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, both of which are human conceptions. The best explanation for this I've ever found is this:

--quoted text--

So, before, while we still had choices (God did not force Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree - He told them not to, but still let them have the free will to disobey Him), the world was, quite literally, black and white. After the choice to disobey God, shades of gray entered into the world, and determining what it right or wrong become, essentially, impossible. Thus, sin enters the world. Thus, redemption is necessary.

I don't know what your quoted article (or what seems like an internet post) is from, as you did not leave a source, but I can't say I agree with it. Desire wasn't really more "easily controlled" before the fruit was picked. Desire had been part of humans from the start, meaning that God had made them that way to begin with. The only reason desire was more easily managed was because they essentially had a free run of Eden and all things in it. They could act on their desires. God hadn't really set many ground rules down at that point, other than the one. The fruit gave them knowledge, certainly of good and evil, but also a general external knowledge. Being naked isn't really good nor evil, but it is embarrassing. Their first reaction after eating the fruit wasn't just more desire, it was embarrassment and shame after learning that they had been naked the whole time and the guy in charge had just decided not to tell them. They didn't, with their newfound knowledge, think God's choice to keep them naked was 'evil' and they never spoke back to him about it. They just proved that they knew they were naked and reacted in the expected fashion upon learning it.

But regardless of what the tree actually did, there's another more pressing question that's relevant to the thread: God could have easily just not put the tree there in the first place, but he did anyway. Which makes one wonder whether the tree was just an elaborate test for humans. If that is the case, then is Satan really trying to deceive Adam and Eve just because he's a bad guy... or because he's playing a part in God's test?

Given God and Satan's later actions, one could argue that Satan is continuing the test even after the fall of man - to tempt and to punish in order to see if anyone will stray again. If that's the case, is he really 'bad?' It should be noted that in Islam, still a sister-religion to Judaism and Christianity despite all the warring between them, Satan doesn't submit only because he loves God too much, not because he's purely rebellious or evil.

Other than the fact that a significant portion of the Bible is told from an allegorical point of view, and nothing is ever claimed to be fact (Truth, yes. Fact, no.)? And that Christ taught almost exclusively through parables, which are essentially allegory? Or that a lot of the prophets (read: the guys who wrote a large portion of the Bible) also used allegory and symbolism frequently in their teachings? No, I don't know of anywhere where God says, "Hey, this is just an allegory, guys." Then again, neither does Crime & Punishment, so I guess we have to take that as a literal story, too, eh?

Well... had to ask. Most Christians I've debated with in the past take the exact opposite stance you are when it comes to the Bible - that it's pure fact and never allegory.

Allegory or not, Job does portray Satan as being at least mildly obedient to God, which goes against the popular image portrayed of him, which seems more rooted in Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno than it does the Bible.

[Lexxi Aileron]

I'd prefer to say that God permits evil, both in the Job story and in general, rather than that God imposes it. His allowance of Satan to test Job (rather than his command that Satan test Job) would indicate this, I think.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is obviously an allegory, and represents a fall from a state of grace, in which good and evil are not "known" but goodness is a part of one's nature. I would say that the allegory more or less is telling us that human beings' attempts to master the knowledge of good and evil without the guidance of God, through their own power, ultimately misleads them. They tried to claim this power/knowledge for themselves but ultimately it led to their destruction. And it is true, for from that path springs bigotry, hatred, and war.

[MikePetersSucks]

Such a lust for power is a vice, no?

Vice != Evil.

So, instead, he should rob humanity of their ability to decide and turn us into a bunch of robots/zombies? You can't have it both ways. Either accept pain alongside free will, or give up your free will along with your suffering.

Yea, except no. Have free will, but don't punish people for making a choice you don't disagree with. Problem SOLVED.

Glass half empty, glass half full: In your world view, no one is saved - you've damned EVERYONE to a permanent death. In mine, at least those who accept the free gift of salvation are saved. If you want to make it a numbers game, you've just condemned more people than God ever has. Moreover, yours is a life without even HOPE of salvation, and a painful world without hope is much more terrible than non-existence in my mind.

Reality doesn't conform to what people want. You can't just ignore his position like that because it's unpleasant.

I wish I had more time to go further in depth(Night classes are FUN!,) but I'll just have to leave with adressing Goblin's original point: Satan made a pact with Cain to kill Abel. Is accomplice to murder evil enough for you?

I never read anything about Satan encouraging Cain to kill Abel. He seemed to that on his own.

Actually, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, both of which are human conceptions.

Good and Evil, in Christian mythos, are defined by God, otherwise he wouldn't cast evil out of his sight and he wouldn't instate moral laws.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Vice != Evil.

Actually, in the Christian sense, yes, a vice is something that inclines you to sin, so doing something vicious (full of vice) is evil.

Good and Evil, in Christian mythos, are defined by God, otherwise he wouldn't cast evil out of his sight and he wouldn't instate moral laws.

An eternally existing self-evident being doesn't define its own nature nor the opposite, it can merely report it. Here I use "define" in the sense meaning "construct." I seriously doubt you are using that meaning, that you are implying that God constructs the nature of good and evil, but I wanted to clear that up while I was thinking about it.

[spunky-monkey]

So, instead, he should rob humanity of their ability to decide and turn us into a bunch of robots/zombies? You can't have it both ways. Either accept pain alongside free will, or give up your free will along with your suffering.

That was not the point I was arguing at all. What I'm hinting at is why are we continually blaming Satan for establishing evil, if he's only carrying out orders from a higher authority?

...IF you take the story of Job to be a literal truth instead of a colorful story that illustrates the overall principle of the faithful being rewarded for enduring through life's hardships in order for an ultimately greater reward in the end? Like how you will be persecuted for your faith (fact: more Christians are persecuted worldwide in modern times than at any other time in history), but your reward of being united with God in the afterlife will be worth it?

Maybe I forgot to emphasise the part where God permitted Satan to not only ruin Job financially, but kill all of his children as well? God then callously blesses him with a new batch of offspring, like as if saying: "Hey, you lot down there are insignificant merchandise that can be bought, used and disposed of on the Heavenly Market with no real consequence!" Job manages to do even worse than Satan - he betrays the very memory of his own children by claiming whatever God gives, he alone, has sovereignty to take away again.

Glass half empty, glass half full: In your world view, no one is saved - you've damned EVERYONE to a permanent death. In mine, at least those who accept the free gift of salvation are saved. If you want to make it a numbers game, you've just condemned more people than God ever has. Moreover, yours is a life without even HOPE of salvation, and a painful world without hope is much more terrible than non-existence in my mind.

I've haven't damned anyone, that's the beauty of my plan. Don't try and you can't fail. I never gave them life to begin with, so how can they possibly die?

You (and others) have misunderstood my original intention. What I meant to say is that God is more powerful than we can comprehend, so they used the world "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" to describe Him. When people try to use that definition to create paradoxical scenarios ("Can God make a rock so big he can't life it?", "Why can't he create a world with free will AND no corruption?"), I believe it using the technical definition of "all-powerful" or "all-knowing" rather than simply interpreting it as "more powerful than we can imagine" specifically for the purposes of using human definitions of reality from a limited scope to catch God in a "lie".

It's relatively easy to understand how powerful God is, take a gander at the Universe. Look at the hypergiant star VY Canis Majoris then you get a true appreciation of how we really measure up in the so-called grand design. What I can't figure out is why people insist God's good and Satan's bad when their actions in the Bible speak otherwise.

1 Timothy 2:1-6 For this is good and acceptable in the eyes of God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time.

That's unrealistic and daft considering even man can boast he can do anything - I can easily create similar spin that I want all poverty in the third world to stop as of right now. You see? Just because my intentions were good doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.

You want to know what he's truly lost that he loves? You. Look in a mirror. He wants you to be with Him in eternity. He's extending the hand of mercy to you, saying "Accept this gift, and you will be with me forever." And you say, "No." Using the free will He gave you, you're spitting in His face. And that hurts Him.

Ugh, I find that bogus scenario to be really unappealing, almost thankful that'll never happen. Which Universalistic website did you dump that from? You preach free will Poore, yet have unwittingly stated God expects us to say "Yes." to his gift of salvation regardless and we face terrible punishments if we reject him... so much for independent-thinking.

But wait? What's that? Values are "self-taught" through "hardships encountered"? So, if there were no hardships, you wouldn't gain those values, right? Who was justifying suffering again? By this logic, without suffering, the world would have no values. No morals. Your definition of living the "best" life is entirely dependent on the very thing you hated me trying to justify.

Not so fast Eager McBeaver, I wasn't justifying the presence of evil there, not even close.

I would say it is unfair to imply that God makes it difficult for you to get into Heaven.

God has many times manipulates man's free will, like for example hardening the heart of Pharaoh, enabling the almighty to display his full wrath against him and achieve glory (yet again). The hardening of Pharaoh's heart basically prevented the ruler from taking any opportunity to repent, reconsider his decisions, abandon stubbornness, and/or surrender to Moses. This doomed the man to a one-way trip ending in the destruction of ancient Egyptian civilization and the death of his only son.

Guys - remember, this is a thread about Satan. It's okay to mention God or even Jesus... so long as it somehow ties back to Satan and his function/nature/personality. Or whether Satan is an agent of God, and stuff like that. This hopefully won't digress too far into just a Christianity debate in general. With this 'saved' discussion, we're getting close to that. You all know we've had about 4,000 of those threads. You can make another one if you really want, but it'd save your fingers typing pain if you'd just read through some of the older ones.

Sorry if it appears to waffle a bit, although after studying the text and passages in the Bible with a little more depth I find we've left with the irremediable revelation that God has instigated everything and is actually controlling the devil.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 09 December 2008 - 01:36 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Actually, in the Christian sense, yes, a vice is something that inclines you to sin, so doing something vicious (full of vice) is evil.

A property that can lead to sin is still not the same as the actual sin, however, no matter what semantics you use.

An eternally existing self-evident being doesn't define its own nature nor the opposite, it can merely report it. Here I use "define" in the sense meaning "construct." I seriously doubt you are using that meaning, that you are implying that God constructs the nature of good and evil, but I wanted to clear that up while I was thinking about it.

Well, he did create everything, including the laws which define what are good and evil. Unless good and evil, and God's sense of justice, are so objective that they supersede even him.

[CID Farwin]

My mistake, I was thinking of a not universally accepted version.

29 And Satan said unto Cain: ^aSwear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.
30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his ^acommands. And all these things were done in secret.
31 And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great ^asecret, that I may ^bmurder and get ^cgain. Wherefore Cain was called Master ^dMahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.
32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.
33 And Cain ^agloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the ^bflocks of my brother falleth into my hands.
34 And the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother’s ^akeeper?
35 And the Lord said: What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s ^ablood cries unto me from the ground.
36 And now thou shalt be ^acursed from the earth which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.
37 When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her ^astrength. A ^bfugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
38 And Cain said unto the Lord: Satan ^atempted me because of my brother’s flocks. And I was wroth also; for his offering thou didst accept and not mine; my ^bpunishment is greater than I can bear.
39 Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the Lord, and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that he that findeth me will slay me, because of mine iniquities, for these things are not hid from the Lord.

[MikePetersSucks]

Ah, Book of Mormon. Aight then.

[Poore]

Don't try and you can't fail.

That might be the single most depressing thing I've ever heard. I honestly cannot fathom this world view, independent of ANY religion. If you really believe this, your very existence is hypocritical. If life isn't worth living, why are you still alive? Either you're living a lie, or you're wrong. This line of reasoning leaves you with no other options. If you thin it does, you're fooling yourself.

I'm abandoning this argument, because it's obviously never going to come to a conclusion. Our perceptions of existence, regardless of Christianity, are completely incompatible, to the point that finding common ground seems impossible. Any more back and forth will just clutter up this thread with rephrasing of the argument of whether or not life is worth living if the possibility of failure exists. Actually, I think the possibility of consequences for failure is the issue. You want to be allowed to mess up, and then not have to answer for any mistake you make. It's a nice sentiment, but it makes success meaningless. Once again, stagnation. Pointlessness. Life becomes hollow, shallow and dull.

But we've had this discussion already. We disagree, and we probably always will. Let's agree to disagree and go our separate ways, and let the thread fall back to the discussion about Satan's portrayal as being 'evil' instead.

[Lexxi Aileron]

A property that can lead to sin is still not the same as the actual sin, however, no matter what semantics you use.

Well, we're arguing in the context that Satan desired to be greater than God (lust for power; and you're right: if not acted upon, then it's a vice, not a sin) and then made an effort to overthrow him (vicious greed-driven action; sinful).

[MikePetersSucks]

Still not worth Eternal Damnation, imo. Maybe Satan had some legitimate work-related complaints and God wasn't checking the suggestion box.

[Lexxi Aileron]

I think the idea is that Satan just wanted to be God, and that this desire was inordinate enough to be evil (at least ungrateful).

[MikePetersSucks]

He thought he would better, implying that he perceived a flaw in God's system.

[Lexxi Aileron]

Not necessarily. That's certainly not the understanding historically, as Satan usually tries to wreck havoc in God's world, be it paradise or earth.