164 replies to this topic

[CID Farwin]

Ah, Book of Mormon. Aight then.

It's not the Book of Mormon, but yeah.

Edited by CID Farwin, 10 December 2008 - 04:47 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Was that from The Assumption of Moses CID?

[Arturo]

Was that from The Assumption of Moses CID?

Nah, the Assumption of Moses has nothing to do with Mormons. It must come from the Book of Moses.

[CID Farwin]

The book of Moses, yes.

[MikePetersSucks]

Sorry. When I tried googling "Moses 5", all I got were Latter-day Saints pages. Do you guys have multiple holy books, or something? I honestly don't know.

[spunky-monkey]

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.

What...? You gave me a hypothetical question - and I answered it. You're not behaving rationally in the slightest here. HOW could there be a wrong answer?

If I recall correctly you had a very similar tantrum last time we spoke which somehow turned sour; sticking to my philosophy, next time you try to engage me in discussion asking me to defend my views, I'll just use hindsight and politely ignore you because I'm not risking another display. (Apologies for any distruption Selena.)


Moving on, problem I have is the thread simply hasn't defined "evil" properly; if we judge/analyse character and call Satan out on being the very force of malevolence then, who or what are we comparing him to? We can't speak for the human race, and God behaves like an even bigger tyrant in every respect imaginable. There's too much in the Bible to demonstrate this great and terrible wrath of his; he has hardly any tolerance towards failure and never displayed once he is *all-loving* or makes anyone the receptacle of this supposed infinite love. Take for example God's treatment of his own servants no less in the story of the Disobedient Prophet and the story of Balaam.

[Reflectionist]

Moving on, problem I have is the thread simply hasn't defined "evil" properly; if we judge/analyse character and call Satan out on being the very force of malevolence then, who or what are we comparing him to? We can't speak for the human race, and God behaves like an even bigger tyrant in every respect imaginable. There's too much in the Bible to demonstrate this great and terrible wrath of his; he has hardly any tolerance towards failure and never displayed once he is *all-loving* or makes anyone the receptacle of this supposed infinite love. Take for example God's treatment of his own servants no less in the story of the Disobedient Prophet and the story of Balaam.

The unspoken question, after you address evil, is then "How do we know which is right?" If God exemplifies all of these virtues that He created (as most Christians would tell you) or if He is all-powerful and the originator of everything (as every Christian should tell you), then we have no basis from which to say that God leans toward any of these qualities. Even love; to say that God is all-loving is to marginalize the infinite magnitude of God. Sucks to be bound by the parameters of perfection. To be honest, it sounds contrived to me. When the Bible has so many conflicting views of God (between the Old Testament and New Testament, not even counting all of the Mormon stuff), answers crop up out of nowhere with the same sort of suddenness as making up rules in a made up game to ensure your friend doesn't win, and you do. "Oh, you can't hit one of the light colored bricks with the ball, it's a foul. My point!"

The Bible can be used to justify literally anything that you feel strongly about. Are you against Gay Marriage? The Bible supports you. Are you for Gay Marriage? The Bible supports you. Are you for peace? The Bible supports you. Are you for just killing every mother fucker you want? The Bible supports you.

People have different focal points about God because Scripture's descriptions of God are so vast that they're vague. It's hard to get a sense of the 'true' personality of an infinite God. But, at the same time, to insist that God has a particular personality (as the linchpin of Christianity says that God is Love) is to circumvent God and laugh at his infinite personality and insist that God can only exemplify one aspect of it. That one aspect though is something that changes according to personal desire. Personal prejudices, social standards, etc. and these all change with time.

Who we think God is has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. It has to do with us and what people want to believe. Which is blasphemy. Everyone focuses on a certain aspect of what they think God is, that they insist that every other quality is 'wrong,' and in some extreme cases, 'evil.' Hence why people think Satan is "evil."

Satan is "evil," because God is "good."

There is no such thing as Good or Evil except in Saturday Morning Cartoons.

Edited by Reflectionist, 12 December 2008 - 12:44 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Reflectionist

[Reflectionist]

Reflectionist

Yes?

[CID Farwin]

Sorry. When I tried googling "Moses 5", all I got were Latter-day Saints pages. Do you guys have multiple holy books, or something? I honestly don't know.

To not derail the thread, I'll just say yes, we have multiple books of scripture.

[Egann]

Evil is any action that rebels against God. Pure and simple. Lucifer rebelled against God, therefore his actions were evil.

Unfortunately, with post-modernism running rampant and "wrong for you, not for me" thought the norm...this definition of Evil is a difficult concept because the ideas contradict head-on. Really, this definition is just a derivation of the statement "God is" (a statement that post-modernism denies can be confirmed, ergo the difference, but I digress.) Basically, given the statements "God exists" and "God created the universe" are true, it follows that the statement "God is the moral point of comparison for operating the universe" is also true. (I'm making a few omissions, but the basic idea is that ethics is a matter of value-statements, and value has to always be created from a higher source, and never a lower one.)

I can understand the Luciferian idea of Lucifer as a Prometheus, but really the idea starts with the assumption that both God and Lucifer are only very capable humans, and not really any different. If God has a fundamentally different character nature from a human, the thought falls apart.

[Reflectionist]

Evil is any action that rebels against God. Pure and simple.

Sure.

Unless there is no God. Which is certainly a possibility you're going to have to entertain if you want your definition of 'evil,' to maintain any objective credibility at all. But you admit that your definition only works given God's existence, so I won't press it. Although, I might add that it is not Scripturally sound. There are places where God appears to be conforming to a moral standard that is above even him. And being that God is supposed to be the originator of said moral standard, you would think that God is beyond it. Hence my spiel about God from my first post in the thread.

Basically, to your post, I ask: What does it mean to rebel against God? I say that you can't. If you mean it as in some sin, like murder, then you can't. God murdered. It's in the Bible. God has no problem killing and telling others to kill. Ever read Deuteronomy? Leviticus? Particularly the parts where God simply encourages the murder of Homosexuals and Children. These are all 'aspects' of God's character. As I said above, God's character spans so many 'moralities' that it's impossible to get a consistent view of what it is, much less to rebel against the whole of God's character.

Thus, there's nothing to rebel against, but at the same time, doing anything at all is rebelling against some aspect of God.

Basically, this whole "God" idea wasn't thought out very well by whoever made it up.

Edited by Reflectionist, 12 December 2008 - 08:22 PM.

[Egann]

^ Am I at least allowed to assume God exists for the purpose of a thread entitled "Why is Satan evil?" Thank you.

There is a distinction between "create" and "allow." Given that Evil is rebelling from God, and that to be human humans are self-aware and are not automatons, Evil was unavoidable (in other words, the act of rebelling Adam made was not eating the fruit, but in choosing to put what the serpent said on par with what God said, and then appointing himself to be the judge.) Yes, God could have changed that by changing the nature of the case to be human. I will not pretend to have the insight to tell you why He chose this way. It's called the "heretical hypothetical" for a reason.

So, God created a universe in such a way that Evil was inevitable. Does this mean that God created Evil? No. Evil is an action (a thought, to be specific) by an individual who is not God, ergo Evil is not a creation, but a choice. Basically, Evil is not created, but spontaneously generates in certain circumstances. Does that make the circumstances that can create Evil Evil? No. Circumstances are not actions, and therefore cannot be judged as evil or not in the same way.

To get to the point, God created a universe (a circumstance) which could create Evil. He did not create Evil itself (and I would beg alternative interpretations for scriptures cited that say otherwise; you can cite one or two verses and interpret them to say just about anything.) God allowed Evil to spontaneously generate, and He allows Evil to continue for His own reasons.

Now with all that in mind, "to rebel against God" means to re-wire the axioms of one's thoughts so that God is not in His proper place of being the master axiom that dictates the rest, but for the individual to assume the right to apply his or her own choice in that place. It's symptoms can be seen with violations of the Ten Commandments, etc. which mirror God's character, but as it is, the root cause is the choice in the mind.

Edited by Egann, 12 December 2008 - 09:02 PM.

[Armeggadon]

Evil is any action that rebels against God. Pure and simple.

So if there were no God, there wouldn't be any evil?

Evil is an action (a thought, to be specific) by an individual who is not God, ergo Evil is not a creation, but a choice.

Why, then, is it that if God murders millions of people with the intent "They don't believe", it's not considered evil, but a snake tells someone to eat an apple and suddenly they are cursed to eternal damnation. Evil is an intention and an action. If your parent's tell you to eat your vegetables and you don't, that's not evil, yet in the case of God you would be damned to hell. Simply going against something is not evil. Satan never had an evil intention when going against God. He didn't like what he saw and thought he could do things better. God disagreed and sent him packing. In my opinion that would make God evil, not Satan... again with the parent analogy, If your parent's tell you to eat your vegetables and you don't, but then they slit your throat because of it... that's evil. There has yet to be any substantial evidence in this thread that Satan is evil... everyone just goes back to "He went against God" but why does that make him evil...

[Reflectionist]

^ Am I at least allowed to assume God exists for the purpose of a thread entitled "Why is Satan evil?" Thank you.

I said I wasn't going to press it... why are you?

So, God created a universe in such a way that Evil was inevitable. Does this mean that God created Evil? No. Evil is an action (a thought, to be specific) by an individual who is not God, ergo Evil is not a creation, but a choice. Basically, Evil is not created, but spontaneously generates in certain circumstances. Does that make the circumstances that can create Evil Evil? No. Circumstances are not actions, and therefore cannot be judged as evil or not in the same way.

To get to the point, God created a universe (a circumstance) which could create Evil. He did not create Evil itself (and I would beg alternative interpretations for scriptures cited that say otherwise; you can cite one or two verses and interpret them to say just about anything.) God allowed Evil to spontaneously generate, and He allows Evil to continue for His own reasons.

Yet, in a conversation about the character of God, you would demote the use of Scripture in favor of logic. Interesting. Even though it specifically says that God creates Evil (Isaiah 45:7), you would deliberately bump it down on the hierarchy simply because it wouldn't agree with you?? Look, if there were no such verse that said that God created Evil, your deductions here would be very admirable. But the truth is, you made those deductions, and seeing that there was a contradiction between what you were saying and what the Bible says, you decided that your own human deduction was more reliable than what was blatantly given to you from God.

In a discussion like this over the character of religious entities, it makes sense that the religious texts associated with said entity be used as the primary axiom in any deductions on character. Unless of course your argument is that the Bible is flawed or otherwise wrong and shouldn't be used to argue from at all, which is probably the greater sin here. Isaiah 45:7 is included in those necessary axioms, and it disproves you. Simple as that - you can't really "beg alternative interpretations," without allowing for the use of any alternative interpretations. And as you so aptly put: "you can cite one or two verses and interpret them to say just about anything," no matter how absurd. Fred Phelps, anyone?

So it's really a packaged deal. If you endorse one interpretation, you endorse all of them, equally. If you try to invalidate every other interpretation than your own, you have also invalidated your own. But in either case, to offer any interpretations over what the Bible clearly states (it really can't get any simpler than: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."), you are expressing your own subjective, human, dissatisfaction with Holy Scripture, considered by Christians to be the very Word of God himself, and that would be considered blasphemy. If you are a Christian, that is.

Now with all that in mind, "to rebel against God" means to re-wire the axioms of one's thoughts so that God is not in His proper place of being the master axiom that dictates the rest, but for the individual to assume the right to apply his or her own choice in that place. It's symptoms can be seen with violations of the Ten Commandments, etc. which mirror God's character, but as it is, the root cause is the choice in the mind.

No one is born a Christian, so there's no 're-wiring' at all. That's what occurs when someone becomes a Christian and goes to church and listens to Christian teaching. They're rewiring their own natural thought processes. And believing in God is often a choice in the mind. (In cases where it is not a choice, it is only because of child indoctrination; hard-wiring the brain to get it to 'work,' in that way, to follow your analogy.) Though, to your credit, disbelieving is also sometimes a conscious choice as well. Just not nearly as often, and certainly not often enough to substantiate this argument.

Though, if I am correct, one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Murder," in which case, I already addressed and disposed of this argument. Two sentences after the question you referenced. The Ten Commandments still do not mirror God's Character. In the future please read all of the post you are responding to so that you can avoid any possible misunderstandings like this.

Edited by Reflectionist, 13 December 2008 - 01:48 AM.

[Alardonin]

In my case, I simply asked myself these questions: Is the flood an act of evil to me? Were the plagues an act of evil to me? Was the killing of progeny, as it is described in the bible, an act of evil to me? Was God, in some ways, exercising the very sins he preached for us not to commit? If I were to exercise any bit of self honesty, I'd have to say: Yes. And so, I did.

I asked myself a hell of a lot more than that, a lot of them forgotten, since I haven't touched anything Abraham related in quite some time now. Still, I know that the questions were there, more than just a few. And should I excuse them because we are talking about a being that is beyond my "comprehension", that is beyond my moral "status"? Perhaps. But I chose not to. Because I didn't see reason to judge this view of God differently from the perceptions of men, because, in all reality, that is all we have. Or perhaps, if you want to see it this way, that is all God gave us.

In the end though, I also found innumerable things to be of good teaching. Teachings that I could easily accept seeing people make an entire life's devotion to them, even if I would not or could not do the same with my life. Most of them related to the teachings of Jesus.

[MikePetersSucks]

Evil is any action that rebels against God. Pure and simple. Lucifer rebelled against God, therefore his actions were evil.

God tells me not to save an innocent child from a fire. I do so anyway. Did I just commit an evil act?

Also, Alardonin wins.

[Poore]

I've always felt Gandalf summed up God's apparent "evil" best: "For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Something may appear "evil" in the short term, or from a limited personal perspective, but when all the various goods and ills of people's lives weave together to form the intricate tapestry of human existence, they're beauty and necessity becomes apparent. Likewise, the "good" that Satan and his teachings represent may only be good in the short term, on a very limited scope, but ultimately mar the threads of our experience here on Earth.

If a small child is caught playing around with a sharp or dangerous object, and their parent(s) sees them, how will they react? With anger. They will take the object away, and then punish the child for their action (a light spanking, time-out, etc.). Now, from the child's point of view, does the parent not appear to have done something evil? After all, the child was having fun, then suddenly the object they were having fun with is stolen from them, and then they were punished for having fun! If the child is very young, they will have a very hard time comprehending why this has happened, and though the parent may try to explain their actions in the simplest terms possible, the child still may not understand.

But what good has come of this apparently "evil" event? A child learns not to play with said sharp or dangerous object, and are thus protected from some accidental harm they might inflict on themselves before they are old/mature/intelligent enough to understand why what they were doing is a bad idea.

[Egann]

^ Largely concur. To disobey God (who is omniscient) requires you to be omniscient to justify properly.

Why, then, is it that if God murders millions of people with the intent "They don't believe", it's not considered evil, but a snake tells someone to eat an apple and suddenly they are cursed to eternal damnation.

I have defined Evil so that such a statement makes no sense. That's kind of my point, though.

Yet, in a conversation about the character of God, you would demote the use of Scripture in favor of logic. Interesting. Even though it specifically says that God creates Evil (Isaiah 45:7), you would deliberately bump it down on the hierarchy simply because it wouldn't agree with you??

No, I believe that while my own personal interpretations of scripture are not limited to previous church interpretations, the previous interpretations do serve as a guide and any interpretation so outlandish as this (even if the text makes it seem like the logical interpretation) is probably heretical. Given that virtually all denominations of Christianity with systematic confessions deny that God "created Evil" as such, and that Isaiah 45:7 is only one verse (with alternative translations and interpretations, to boot), the position that God created Evil as evil is a very long way from being proven.

It's not like Luther used only one verse from Romans to create the Reformation, which is basically what your position would require to have precedence.

EDIT: As that I am defending the Canonical position, it is my prerogative to define terms (as long as I use the definitions consistently), to determine how much scriptural proof is required to effectively assail the Canonical position (which is well beyond the scope of this thread,) and to use whatever means at my disposal (be they logic or scripture) in my counter-arguments. Basically, if this were a Parliamentary debate, I would be the Government and you (plural) the Opposition. I have defender's advantage in this context, and I intend to use it.

God tells me not to save an innocent child from a fire. I do so anyway. Did I just commit an evil act?

Theoretically yes, but in practice that violates God's character (as seen in "Love thy neighbor as thyself") so this is a heretical hypothetical.

Edited by Egann, 13 December 2008 - 11:12 AM.

[Reflectionist]

I've always felt Gandalf summed up God's apparent "evil" best: "For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Something may appear "evil" in the short term, or from a limited personal perspective, but when all the various goods and ills of people's lives weave together to form the intricate tapestry of human existence, they're beauty and necessity becomes apparent. Likewise, the "good" that Satan and his teachings represent may only be good in the short term, on a very limited scope, but ultimately mar the threads of our experience here on Earth.

If a small child is caught playing around with a sharp or dangerous object, and their parent(s) sees them, how will they react? With anger. They will take the object away, and then punish the child for their action (a light spanking, time-out, etc.). Now, from the child's point of view, does the parent not appear to have done something evil? After all, the child was having fun, then suddenly the object they were having fun with is stolen from them, and then they were punished for having fun! If the child is very young, they will have a very hard time comprehending why this has happened, and though the parent may try to explain their actions in the simplest terms possible, the child still may not understand.

But what good has come of this apparently "evil" event? A child learns not to play with said sharp or dangerous object, and are thus protected from some accidental harm they might inflict on themselves before they are old/mature/intelligent enough to understand why what they were doing is a bad idea.

I think you're only somewhat missing the point, here. The point of this "evil," in punishing the child for playing with something sharp, is in the hopes that the child will not touch sharp things in the future. Which, you agree on. However, this is a far cry from deciding that the entire human race should be wiped out via a flood, or deciding to punish certain people with plagues of death. Even with Christianity's afterlife, there is no chance to 'learn' anything if you're killed. Your analogy doesn't work at all. We are talking about God murdering people. And as the Judeo-Christian religions teach, after you die, there is either Heaven or Hell. There are no second chances. You don't get to go back and try again. You don't get to put into practice any lesson you learned in your death. That's it. Game over.

In killing his own people, God wasn't trying to 'teach' anything to them. He was simply killing them.

Yet, in a conversation about the character of God, you would demote the use of Scripture in favor of logic. Interesting. Even though it specifically says that God creates Evil (Isaiah 45:7), you would deliberately bump it down on the hierarchy simply because it wouldn't agree with you??

No, I believe that while my own personal interpretations of scripture are not limited to previous church interpretations, the previous interpretations do serve as a guide and any interpretation so outlandish as this (even if the text makes it seem like the logical interpretation) is probably heretical. Given that virtually all denominations of Christianity with systematic confessions deny that God "created Evil" as such, and that Isaiah 45:7 is only one verse (with alternative translations and interpretations, to boot), the position that God created Evil as evil is a very long way from being proven.

It's not like Luther used only one verse from Romans to create the Reformation, which is basically what your position would require to have precedence.

Luther, nor the Reformation, has absolutely nothing to do with this. Stop bringing up random church-related things to make yourself sound smarter.

Addressing your point, the verse in question says very specifically, that God created evil. And even if you argue otherwise, as you do, you have ignored the contextual Hebrew. The word is "ra' (רשע)" which means 'evil, calamity, danger, adversity, affliction, distress, misery, etc.' or in other words, "bad shit." No matter what interpreation you try to pull out of this verse, it still means evil. It's just worded differently to purport a certain view of God's characteristics. And, as I said before, God cannot possibly lean toward any characteristics, be it love, hate, good, evil, etc. This verse just says that God creates evil. It doesn't say that God is evil, as you think I'm trying to argue. It just says that God creates Evil.

Now, I think out of the battles that you could have picked here, you picked the more detrimental / blasphemous one. You say that God does not create evil. The assertion that God creates Evil is not a problem if you consider God to be all-powerful and the originator of everything. But, being that you have decided to argue that Evil does NOT come from God, you have unwittingly argued in favor of a morality that transcends God himself, and that God is also subjected to. You say God doesn't create evil, he just allows it. If he's just allowing it, then it is akin to the painter who allows a little bit of the blue to mix into the green.

Unfortunately, the painter does not make the paint itself. The painter does not invent the colors, nor produce the paints, nor the canvas, nor the brushes - these things are not a part of the creation, and already exist. The point behind God is that God creates a beautiful painting out of thin air, without any need for brushes, paints, an easel, or a canvas. You can certainly argue that God did not create evil. But then you'd be arguing that God is not really a god at all. Which are you arguing for?

Edit: Oh, and how many times have I told you that I have no position? I don't argue from positions, I argue points. And you had good points in the last post of yours. I even admitted it, and said that they were admirable. They weren't valid, though, because of prior evidence to the contrary. But I digress: no, I have no position, I just find your points to be invalid / wrong / poorly thought out. I'm simply trying to help you, now. Not debate.

EDIT: As that I am defending the Canonical position, it is my prerogative to define terms (as long as I use the definitions consistently), to determine how much scriptural proof is required to effectively assail the Canonical position (which is well beyond the scope of this thread,) and to use whatever means at my disposal (be they logic or scripture) in my counter-arguments. Basically, if this were a Parliamentary debate, I would be the Government and you (plural) the Opposition. I have defender's advantage in this context, and I intend to use it.

Really, Egann?

This is not substantial, this does nothing to add to your argument, this is just pure superfluous pretense. Basically you said, "I reserve the right to redefine what I am defending at random when I feel you are coming too close to disproving me." You intentionally reference the way you redefine what it is you're defending to avoid refutation.

I find it a bit odd, considering you once said to someone else doing the same thing, "It may be ingenious, but really you've only turned your position to jello. And while I am no longer able to nail it to the wall... at least now I don't have to worry about any offense of yours because it would have to be every bit as flabby as the logic used to create your defense." I think it only serves to show the inconsistencies of your own argumentative style. You don't have the defender's advantage. You simply have more possible routes to argue. But, that's okay, because I already argue comprehensively enough. Apparently comprehensive enough to address and disprove most of your argument before you even make it.

And as this is the case at hand, my disposal of your argument about 'heretical interpretations,' still remains completely unchallenged. This will be the second time in this thread that you have apparently failed to read the entireity of the post you are replying to. Please be more careful in the future, because it's making you look incompetent as a debater.

I have defined Evil so that such a statement makes no sense. That's kind of my point, though.

...yeah. Nothing further, Your Honor.

Edited by Reflectionist, 14 December 2008 - 03:39 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Theoretically yes, but in practice that violates God's character (as seen in "Love thy neighbor as thyself") so this is a heretical hypothetical.

That's a copout. Whether or not it goes against his character, the implication here is that obeying God without a second thought is a better moral axiom than empathy or kindness. You can't justify the murder of a child (or anyone) with "My authority figure (divine or otherwise) told me to."

[Raien]

I am reminded in this topic of a quote from Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman: Dream Hunters":

"But what good did it do?" asked the raven.

"Good?" asked the King of All Night's Dreaming.

"Yes," said the raven. "The monk was to die, and he died. The fox who tried to help him fail to help him. The onmyoji lost everything. What good did it do, granting her wish?"

The king stared away at the horizon. In his eye a single star glinted and was gone.

"Lessons were learned," said the pale king. "Events occured as it was proper for them to do. I do not perceive that my attention was wasted."

"Lessons were learned?" said the raven, bristling its black neck feathers and raising its head high. "By whom?"

"By all of them. Particularly the monk."

"But he is dead," said the raven, after some time.

"Come to that, so you are, my raven, but there were lessons in here for you as well."

"And did you also learn a lesson?" asked the raven, who had once been a poet.

[Selena]

So, whether God is "evil" or not, is Satan a rogue force or is he just God's agent when it comes to the less than pleasant aspects of life? The thread is about him, after all.

[TheAvengerLever]

There really is no clear answer to that question though. It all boils down to what you choose to take from the text that is the Bible, like [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of other things. And I know, people don't like that conclusion, but it's what you got.

[Lexxi Aileron]

If he is not a rogue force, but a pawn of God, then he simply serves God's will and cannot be evil.
If he is a rogue force, permitted to exist by God in order that God's will might be served, then he is evil, but evil is allowed to exist so that free agents might be inclined to good.

[Reflectionist]

There really is no clear answer to that question though. It all boils down to what you choose to take from the text that is the Bible, like [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of other things. And I know, people don't like that conclusion, but it's what you got.

It's not that some 'people don't like that conclusion,' it's just that it's a very, very, very shaky conclusion and it's flat-out impossible to justify, much less substantiate. It's more about what people want to believe, because as I said: you can take anything from the Bible and justify anything you want. Hence all of these xenophobic, homophobic fundamentalist right-wing Christians. (From the second paragraph, starting with "The Bible can be used to justify...")

If he is not a rogue force, but a pawn of God, then he simply serves God's will and cannot be evil.
If he is a rogue force, permitted to exist by God in order that God's will might be served, then he is evil, but evil is allowed to exist so that free agents might be inclined to good.

Odd. Scripture would say that Satan is a rogue force, but also a pawn of God. In either case, Satan is no real danger, not evil, and is actually just a tool for God that exists for one purpose: to control us. This is messing with free will a bit, wouldn't you agree?

Edited by Reflectionist, 14 December 2008 - 02:07 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

It's not that some 'people don't like that conclusion,' it's just that it's a very, very, very shaky conclusion and it's flat-out impossible to justify, much less substantiate. It's more about what people want to believe, because as I said: you can take anything from the Bible and justify anything you want. Hence all of these xenophobic, homophobic fundamentalist right-wing Christians. (From the second paragraph, starting with "The Bible can be used to justify...")

But that's the reason people don't like that conclusion. Yeah, it's shaky and impossible to justify.

Also about your second point, yeah, that REALLY sucks. People like that ruin it for Christians like me who DON'T use the Bible for hate/war mongering or discriminating against groups of people.

Plus, the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't even use relevent verses to back up their hate. They just pick a random verse and and are like, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." if THAT doesn't convince you that God hates gay people, then I don't know WHAT DOES!" *HATE* *HATE* *HATE*

[Reflectionist]

It's not that some 'people don't like that conclusion,' it's just that it's a very, very, very shaky conclusion and it's flat-out impossible to justify, much less substantiate. It's more about what people want to believe, because as I said: you can take anything from the Bible and justify anything you want. Hence all of these xenophobic, homophobic fundamentalist right-wing Christians. (From the second paragraph, starting with "The Bible can be used to justify...")

But that's the reason people don't like that conclusion. Yeah, it's shaky and impossible to justify.

Also about your second point, yeah, that REALLY sucks. People like that ruin it for Christians like me who DON'T use the Bible for hate/war mongering or discriminating against groups of people.

Plus, the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't even use relevent verses to back up their hate. They just pick a random verse and and are like, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." if THAT doesn't convince you that God hates gay people, then I don't know WHAT DOES!" *HATE* *HATE* *HATE*

I really hope this isn't pouring salt in the wound, but the reason I bring that up, is that the Bible can still justify perfectly either view. Your view is just as Biblically sound as Fred Phelps' view. To allow the room for one interpretation, one subjectifying of Scripture, you allow for all possible interpretations, no matter how benevolent or belligerent... Yes. It sucks. But that's the Bible - that's how it was written.

Edited by Reflectionist, 14 December 2008 - 03:45 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

I concur.

[Poore]

I really hope this isn't pouring salt in the wound, but the reason I bring that up, is that the Bible can still justify perfectly either view. Your view is just as Biblically sound as Fred Phelps' view. To allow the room for one interpretation, one subjectifying of Scripture, you allow for all possible interpretations, no matter how benevolent or belligerent... Yes. It sucks. But that's the Bible - that's how it was written.

To a point, that's true. However, that's only if you pick and choose little bits and pieces of scriptures and ignore the whole. For example, if you use a single scripture to validate your view on homosexuality, you my call that "Biblically sound". However, when you bring the New Testament into consideration, and the message of Christ's sacrifice which overrules the law of Moses, then that view is less valid.

It's like quoting an article with ellipses and taking it as a legitimate portrait of the whole: "I don't agree with racial discrimination against African Americans" becomes "I don't agree with...African-Americans." Can you say that the article contains both sets of data? Yes. Can you say they are equally legitimate? No.