Satan, Lucifer, Old Nick, The Beast, whatever you want to call him. He has been a driving force in the narrative of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for thousands of years.
But hold on, there's a flaw.
Satan is supposedly the embodiment of evil, and rules Hell. Supposedly, sinners go to Hell and are punished. But surely, if Satan was so evil, then he would be congratulating sinners for their behaviour and rewarding them with indulgences and a place in the daemonic legions, so that he may one day rise up against God and finally put an end to his incompetence? This draws me to 3 possible conclusions:
A: Satan is evil, and rewards evil, as mentioned above.
B: Satan feels regret for his treachery and punishes evil, along with himself.
C: Satan is made up (my money is on this one).
Valkyrie, that's a fair point, but not all sinners are the same. On the one hand, a willing unrepentant sinner would earn the respect of Satan, and recieve unholy favour.
On the other hand, evildoers who claimed to he pious and good would simply piss him off and suffer torment.
Satan is angry because he is where he is, and people who yield to him become their own worst tormentors when they think about not being able to be in God's presence because of their actions.
No fire, brimstone, and pitchforks in the butt. Unrepentant sinners have to deal the fact that because of their actions, they would be in worse torment being around God.
It's kind of like settling for a penny in the first hour of the day when those who held out until day's end recieve an unlimited expense account.
Satan doesn't rule hell, its just the place he's to be placed after the rapture for all eternity, as punishment for rebelling.
And He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years. And cast him into a bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand yeasr should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Revelations 20:2-3
and the Devil that deceived them was cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelations 2-:10
He is being punished and tormented side by side with the sinners, not ruling them
Vitruvian XVII wrote:Satan is definitely made up, but so is the entire rest of the bible so its moot.
You're right. All that historical information about the Romans and various nations and historical figures was completely made up.
Squigsquasher wrote:On the one hand, a willing unrepentant sinner would earn the respect of Satan, and recieve unholy favour.
On the other hand, evildoers who claimed to he pious and good would simply piss him off and suffer torment.
Where does it mention or even imply any of that in the Bible? I don't remember anything about earning the respect of Satan or any opportunities to receive unholy favors.
Fair enough, however given that Satan is supposedly capable of possessing people and conjouring armies of Daemons, he would be capable of making his (and his fellow sinners ) existence a little more comfortable...
Where does it mention or even imply any of that in the Bible? I don't remember anything about earning the respect of Satan or any opportunities to receive unholy favors.
That's because most of the cultural depictions of Satan common in modern culture come from folklore rather than the Bible. The Bible actually has very little to say about Satan or Hell.
Squigsquasher wrote:Fair enough, however given that Satan is supposedly capable of possessing people and conjouring armies of Daemons, he would be capable of making his (and his fellow sinners ) existence a little more comfortable...
He's not capable of anything but suffering.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And of course, temptation.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:Satan doesn't rule hell, its just the place he's to be placed after the rapture for all eternity, as punishment for rebelling.
And He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years. And cast him into a bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand yeasr should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Revelations 20:2-3
and the Devil that deceived them was cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelations 2-:10
He is being punished and tormented side by side with the sinners, not ruling them
So why the constant babbling about making pacts with the Devil, being possessed by the Devil etc. He must still have some power (or at least he wouldif he weren't the Bible's Macguffin).
Squigsquasher wrote:Fair enough, however given that Satan is supposedly capable of possessing people and conjouring armies of Daemons, he would be capable of making his (and his fellow sinners ) existence a little more comfortable...
Supposedly according to what?
LordofHats wrote:
Where does it mention or even imply any of that in the Bible? I don't remember anything about earning the respect of Satan or any opportunities to receive unholy favors.
That's because most of the cultural depictions of Satan common in modern culture come from folklore rather than the Bible. The Bible actually has very little to say about Satan or Hell.
Exactly. Which is why I'm suggesting the original poster actually read the few parts of the Bible that actually say anything about Satan or Hell if we're going to have a conversation about Satan and "where the Bible went wrong."
Squigsquasher wrote:Fair enough, however given that Satan is supposedly capable of possessing people and conjouring armies of Daemons, he would be capable of making his (and his fellow sinners ) existence a little more comfortable...
He's not capable of anything but suffering.
.
After the rapture, as per Revelations. Right now he is wandering the universe tempting whoever he can,
And remember that "Demons" are the other fallen angels that fell with Lucifer so they don't appear as evil beings.
I haven't read the not particularly good book itself, but I have read extracts. Twas a while ago, and I couldn't quote anything, but I got the gyst of it.
Plus, depends which Bible we are talking about. It has been translated, retranslated, mistranslated and deliberately edited so many times that even if the events described were real it is an unreliable record of said events, unless you can find me the original Bible.
Squigsquasher wrote:Satan, Lucifer, Old Nick, The Beast, whatever you want to call him. He has been a driving force in the narrative of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for thousands of years.
But hold on, there's a flaw.
Satan is supposedly the embodiment of evil, and rules Hell. Supposedly, sinners go to Hell and are punished. But surely, if Satan was so evil, then he would be congratulating sinners for their behaviour and rewarding them with indulgences and a place in the daemonic legions, so that he may one day rise up against God and finally put an end to his incompetence? This draws me to 3 possible conclusions:
A: Satan is evil, and rewards evil, as mentioned above.
B: Satan feels regret for his treachery and punishes evil, along with himself.
C: Satan is made up (my money is on this one).
Thoughts?
D: Satan is pissed off that humans got more from god than Angels did and sought to overthrow God so that he could rule over mankind as he thought fit.
He hates us all so he doesn't care about whether we did right or wrong, he wants to make us all suffer.
Squigsquasher wrote:I haven't read the not particularly good book itself, but I have read extracts. Twas a while ago, and I couldn't quote anything, but I got the gyst of it.
Plus, depends which Bible we are talking about. It has been translated, retranslated, mistranslated and deliberately edited so many times that even if the events described were real it is an unreliable record of said events, unless you can find me the original Bible.
I guess you didn't get the gist of the Satan and Hell parts. I recommend that you peruse them for a bit. It won't take long, there aren't that many of them.
The translation part is the fun part. You can consult a variety of different translations from different periods if you like. You can even get access to the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The information is out there, if you choose to seek it out.
Squigsquasher wrote:I haven't read the not particularly good book itself, but I have read extracts. Twas a while ago, and I couldn't quote anything, but I got the gyst of it.
Plus, depends which Bible we are talking about. It has been translated, retranslated, mistranslated and deliberately edited so many times that even if the events described were real it is an unreliable record of said events, unless you can find me the original Bible.
I guess you didn't get the gist of the Satan and Hell parts. I recommend that you peruse them for a bit. It won't take long, there aren't that many of them.
The translation part is the fun part. You can consult a variety of different translations from different periods if you like. You can even get access to the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The information is out there, if you choose to seek it out.
exactly, the only two books from the 66 you need to read on the subject are revelations and Job
I do actually know about the Dante description of Satan, however I don't count it as it wasn't "official". Looks a very interesting read though, and I will read it.
@Hordini, fair enough. Over the holidays I will try and get a copy of the Bible (or 2) and read the whole thing. I can't say I'm going to like what I see though.
Squigsquasher wrote:I do actually know about the Dante description of Satan, however I don't count it as it wasn't "official". Looks a very interesting read though, and I will read it.
@Hordini, fair enough. Over the holidays I will try and get a copy of the Bible (or 2) and read the whole thing. I can't say I'm going to like what I see though.
I'm not saying you have to like it. Just that it's worth a read, especially if you want to consider it critically.
Squigsquasher wrote:Ok, and thank you, because I probably won't like it, so I'm glad to know there's no obligation.
There can be a lot of value in reading books you don't particularly like. I've gotten a lot out of some books that I didn't necessarily like, enjoy, or agree with. I've also enjoyed books as an adult that I would have thought were horrifically boring as a kid. Just try to approach it with an open mind in order to more easily draw your own conclusions, that would be my biggest recommendation.
Squigsquasher wrote:Plus, depends which Bible we are talking about. It has been translated, retranslated, mistranslated and deliberately edited so many times that even if the events described were real it is an unreliable record of said events, unless you can find me the original Bible.
The errors tend not to be that bad. The wording/context for 85-95% of the books are universal across all translations since the 1st Century AD. Blatant errors typically come from the Byzantine texts which had numerous translation errors but haven't been used for anything other than NES and NKJ since the 19th century.
Arguments that the Bible is poorly translated are crap and they always have been. Most of the sections where known glaring errors exist aren't even important. The words are generally accurate. Its the meanings people spend all their time bickering over.
Here's a point maybe if after Lilith got cast out eden for asking adam if she could go on top, and then after she shacked up with Satan and they had all those daemon children, maybe God should have left them be, they reckon that parenthood chills people out. Satan could have got into the whole domestic bliss thing. But no God comes along and steals the children, and now Satan ain't a happy camper and has to be all angry and that and its all unnecessary. Give Satan back his kids, that's what I say.
Originally a demon of Babylonian or Akkadian mythology who was adopted into the later Jewish pre-Tulmudic myth. She was Adam's first wife, but refused to lay beneath him and was subsequently cast out of Eden and replaced with Eve. Later stories have connected her to Samael, an angel of death who may or may not have rebelled against god.
As I said above, her relevance is in question. No primary sources can verify if Lilith is anything more than a translation error.
Samael and Liltith are not featured in the Bible (they're from Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism). And if your using Darksiders as your source, we might as well stop talking now, cause it has nothing to do with Revelation.
I'm not using Darksiders as a reference point, just saying I remember him from it. Heck, I may have not read the Bible, but I'm not using a (admittedly awesome) videogame as a reference. Just tbought it was worth mentioning.
LordofHats wrote:Lilith never got with Satan, she got with Samael, who some have argued is Satan but there's no textual evidence for a connection between the two.
That Lilith is even relevant is debated, as there are no primary sources whose accuracy hasn't been called into questions.
Why was a Dark Eldar Succubus getting with the Master of the Ravenwing?
LordofHats wrote:idk, Why are the leaders of the Dark Angels named after a Demon, two angels of death, and a prophet You'd think they'd all be named after angels.
Which is an assumption arising from the idea that Satan is a fallen angel, which also has little textual evidence to back it up (though there is some). EDIT: It's actually interesting, as the idea that Satan was once an angel is actually a Muslim belief adopted by Christians just before or during the Crusades.
Originally a demon of Babylonian or Akkadian mythology who was adopted into the later Jewish pre-Tulmudic myth. She was Adam's first wife, but refused to lay beneath him and was subsequently cast out of Eden and replaced with Eve. Later stories have connected her to Samael, an angel of death who may or may not have rebelled against god.
As I said above, her relevance is in question. No primary sources can verify if Lilith is anything more than a translation error.
Samael and Liltith are not featured in the Bible (they're from Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism). And if your using Darksiders as your source, we might as well stop talking now, cause it has nothing to do with Revelation.
She's also used as a bogeyman in Jewish folklore to scare children, had her children stolen and so steals other peoples, if you're naughty Lilith comes and steals you.
Didn't know it was Samael she shacked up with, but Samael rebelling against God is interesting. Where can I find all the cool stories about these crazy cats. The Greeks are a great soap opera but i'd imagine this lot might be even better.
As an aside-- the original Satan ("ha-Satan") in the Jewish holy book was not an evil guy, he was basically god's "devil's advocate" or adversary, and god's prosecutor of sorts. He is charged by god to tempt humans and come back to god to report those who go against god's decrees.
You're not way off as many people associate Samael and Satan as being one and the same, even though the only connection is that the word Satan means 'accuser' and Samael was an accuser of men. But, seeing as Samael seems to be in god's service in most lore, its unlikely he's Satan as in the Devil. EDIT: See Melissa's post as well. The Accuser is featured prominently in Job, and is often translated in some texts as Satan, resulting in confusion even though they're different entities.
See if you can get a book on Kaballah. It'll cover a lot of this stuff. Do take what you read with grains of salt though. There are a lot of quacks in this field of study who literally make it up as they go or resort to huge logical leaps.
LordofHats wrote:See Melissa's post as well. The Accuser is featured prominently in Job, and is often translated in some texts as Satan
"Ha-Satan", to be specific; literally, "the opposer", or "the adversary". Christian religious beliefs changed "Ha-Satan, which means the Opposer" to "Satan, who is the Devil".
I was given to believe the Jewish God didn't need an evil entity as he often did unsavoury things himself, but people accepted it because "god moves in mysterious ways," and had a greater plan. Rather than the Christian, God is Good, no evil came from him, but from man and the fallen angel.
Jewish religion has very little about God's nature, the after live, or evil forces. To them evil was not doing what God told them to do, and their religion was heavily focused on the Law. In the classical style of Mesopotamian religions, Yehweh was pretty cool when you did what you were supposed to do, but not all that happy when you didn't. You'll notice most Old Testament texts are about people doing what God says, what happens when they don't, and talking about returning to the proper way and what not (along with lots of Legal code).
Christians changed this dynamic, adopting at some point that there was an evil anti-godly force that tempted men and was the primary source of evil. While God may at times appear cold to us, he really does care. Christians are a lot less focused on Law, a much more focused on faith than their Jewish counterparts. Likewise, this is very apparent in New Testament texts.
sirlynchmob wrote:I thought god made satan so he'd have a poker buddy. Its no fun gambling with angels, they can't bluff
Seeing as Satan was originally an angel, I put it to you that angels can indeed bluff. It's just that winning more than the acceptable amount of rounds against God gets you kicked out.
I might be wrong cos I've read more Quran than bible since I hit 20, but I don't think half of that's in the bible mate.
You know, all the cool gak about placing sinners into the demonic legions as officers and kicking Gods ass in a big war is from books like Paradise Lost, and all the Hollywood gak like Constantine and Spawn.
I'm pretty sure the bible version is like the rest of the bible, boring as feth.
I think the whole christian mythology is bs, it's a collection of various pagan beliefs from many cultures. Many of the saints were local heroes of legends, many of the demons were old gods.
mondo80 wrote:I think the whole christian mythology is bs, it's a collection of various pagan beliefs from many cultures.
Connections between primordial Judaism and the religions of Mesopotamia (namely the Akkadians, Babylonians, and the Pre-Semetic cultures) are well known. Hell, you can see the Jews were once Henotheistic in Genesis. The effect of Zorastrianism on Judaism is well documented and studied as well.
But the fact that religions evolve over time isn't really proof against them. Hinduism today is radically different from Hinduism 500 years ago, let alone 1000 or 2000. Compared to them, Judaism, Islam and Christianity and remained remarkably consistent. EDIT: From about the Crusades onwards, we don't really see that much change in the basics of Christian cosmology.
Many of the saints were local heroes of legends,
The saints aren't in the Bible. Well some of them are, but they aren't called saints. That's a Catholic thing, and arguably a hold over from Roman paganism given how they're venerated by some Catholic practices. It was one of Martin Luther's complaints with the church.
many of the demons were old gods.
Some of them yes. Baal most remarkably (despite there literally being dozens of gods by that name in Mesopotamian history). EDIT: And that ignores that demons aren't even a Christian idea (the Bible doesn't even talk that much about demons, and very few are named). They're a very old Mesopotamian idea.
Squigsquasher wrote:Satan, Lucifer, Old Nick, The Beast, whatever you want to call him. He has been a driving force in the narrative of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for thousands of years.
But hold on, there's a flaw.
Satan is supposedly the embodiment of evil, and rules Hell. Supposedly, sinners go to Hell and are punished. But surely, if Satan was so evil, then he would be congratulating sinners for their behaviour and rewarding them with indulgences and a place in the daemonic legions, so that he may one day rise up against God and finally put an end to his incompetence? This draws me to 3 possible conclusions:
A: Satan is evil, and rewards evil, as mentioned above.
B: Satan feels regret for his treachery and punishes evil, along with himself.
C: Satan is made up (my money is on this one).
Thoughts?
Your first two conclusions are bullocks. You are forming them out of assumptions that you 'surely' believe to be true, but you provide nothing to back it up, because it does not exist. That's a big flaw in your reasoning.
First, satan is the embodiment of evil. In hell, evil rewards are pain, exhaustion, slavery, sickness, torture, and death. Not these indulgences you speak of. Any indulgent rewards were taken by fools during life on earth, and quickly take away again after death. That is why it is called 'hell'.
Second, if satan truely felt regret for his treachery, he would not be evil, and would not be in hell. He feels no remorse or regret for his evil deeds. Regreat for his treachery? Where are you getting this bull?
Your third conclusions is entirely valid, however.
Most of the current lore about Satan and Demons comes to use special thanks to the Greeks (look up Daemon, the word from which Demon is derived) with a mix of traditional pagan evil spirits and an influx of some Muslim ideas about the devil during the Crusades.
Squigsquasher wrote:Satan, Lucifer, Old Nick, The Beast, whatever you want to call him. He has been a driving force in the narrative of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for thousands of years.
But hold on, there's a flaw.
Satan is supposedly the embodiment of evil, and rules Hell. Supposedly, sinners go to Hell and are punished. But surely, if Satan was so evil, then he would be congratulating sinners for their behaviour and rewarding them with indulgences and a place in the daemonic legions, so that he may one day rise up against God and finally put an end to his incompetence? This draws me to 3 possible conclusions:
A: Satan is evil, and rewards evil, as mentioned above.
B: Satan feels regret for his treachery and punishes evil, along with himself.
C: Satan is made up (my money is on this one).
Thoughts?
Ok, you need to take another look at the theological base for what you are asking, then you can relook at the candidate conclusions.
1. Satan is not actually currently in Hell. Satan is destined to go to Hell. The casting down of Satan from heaven is a past event, the casting of Satan into the lake of fire is a future event as described in the Bible.
2. Noone rules Hell, everyone and everything in Hell is there as punishment.
3. Only a third of the angels rebelled, so even if God is somehow out of the picture Satan is outnumbered two to one in angelic strength.
4. God controls/ordains the topography, Biblical accounts refer to 'great chasms' separating the damned and the elect. An invasion from Hell is unlikely at best even if Satan happens to have more human recruits than God.
The above holds true for all three Judaic religions to the best of my knowledge so you need to adjust your paradigm. Much of the misconcentions of Satan stem from the Malleus Malificarum and the Divine Comedy. Dante's Divine Comedy misreads the Biblical account to base the book on, or more probably just took creative license for a better story. There are no 'Dukes of Hell' in the Biblical account.
Squigsquasher wrote:Satan, Lucifer, Old Nick, The Beast, whatever you want to call him. He has been a driving force in the narrative of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for thousands of years.
But hold on, there's a flaw.
Satan is supposedly the embodiment of evil, and rules Hell. Supposedly, sinners go to Hell and are punished. But surely, if Satan was so evil, then he would be congratulating sinners for their behaviour and rewarding them with indulgences and a place in the daemonic legions, so that he may one day rise up against God and finally put an end to his incompetence? This draws me to 3 possible conclusions:
A: Satan is evil, and rewards evil, as mentioned above.
B: Satan feels regret for his treachery and punishes evil, along with himself.
C: Satan is made up (my money is on this one).
Thoughts?
D. Satan has no power, because God slapped him silly and told him to sit down, shut up, and burn.
Melissia wrote:As an aside-- the original Satan ("ha-Satan") in the Jewish holy book was not an evil guy, he was basically god's "devil's advocate" or adversary, and god's prosecutor of sorts. He is charged by god to tempt humans and come back to god to report those who go against god's decrees.
The Old Testament is clear about who Satan is.
Isaiah 14: 12-15
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
13 You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north; [b]14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’
15 But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.
Some scholars of the Old Testament have argued that Isaiah makes no reference to Satan the devil (ignoring of course that Ancient Jews had no such concept and obviously wouldn't write about it). Its generally believed now that Isaiah 14 12-15 refers to a Babylonian King, as there is similar textual evidence from other sources.
The modern concept of Satan didn't come into existence until the 2nd century AD at the earliest. Satan as he is portrayed in the Gospels bears no theological difference from the Jewish concept as all he does is tempt Jesus in order to test his righteousness. It's one of those weird things that the Catholic church invented probably.
LordofHats wrote:Some scholars of the Old Testament have argued that Isaiah makes no reference to Satan the devil (ignoring of course that Ancient Jews had no such concept and obviously wouldn't write about it). Its generally believed now that Isaiah 14 12-15 refers to a Babylonian King, as there is similar textual evidence from other sources.
Thats refered to as a prophetic type. Something on earth standing in as a substitute for a heavenly matter.
The Old Testament is full of such references, some are clear, others vague. Examples include Hosea and his wife which is a prophetic type for the relationship between God and Israel..
Amaya wrote:The modern concept of Satan didn't come into existence until the 2nd century AD at the earliest. Satan as he is portrayed in the Gospels bears no theological difference from the Jewish concept as all he does is tempt Jesus in order to test his righteousness. It's one of those weird things that the Catholic church invented probably.
The Book of Revelations conflicts with that theory.
Also Satan was supposed to have 'entered into' Judas in order to facilitate his betrayal.
The New Testament does however strongly consider Satan a dignitary to be respected rather than just a boogeyman, that has to a large extent been forgotten.
Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
Orlanth wrote:Thats refered to as a prophetic type. Something on earth standing in as a substitute for a heavenly matter.
The Old Testament is full of such references, some are clear, others vague. Examples include Hosea and his wife which is a prophetic type for the relationship between God and Israel..
Amaya wrote:The modern concept of Satan didn't come into existence until the 2nd century AD at the earliest. Satan as he is portrayed in the Gospels bears no theological difference from the Jewish concept as all he does is tempt Jesus in order to test his righteousness. It's one of those weird things that the Catholic church invented probably.
No the nuance is very clear. The Satan (used as a title) in Job, is clearly in God's service, takes orders from him, and obeys his will willingly. The Satan from the tempting of Jesus is referred to as a king of lies and a ruler of demons. They're not the same. But then, Jesus doesn't use Satan as a name in the Gospels, he uses it as an adjective.
Amaya wrote:The modern concept of Satan didn't come into existence until the 2nd century AD at the earliest. Satan as he is portrayed in the Gospels bears no theological difference from the Jewish concept as all he does is tempt Jesus in order to test his righteousness. It's one of those weird things that the Catholic church invented probably.
No the nuance is very clear. The Satan (used as a title) in Job, is clearly in God's service, takes orders from him, and obeys his will willingly. The Satan from the tempting of Jesus is referred to as a king of lies and a ruler of demons. They're not the same. But then, Jesus doesn't use Satan as a name in the Gospels, he uses it as an adjective.
Original texts have Jesus saying 'you satan' in Matthew. But apparently that's a 'adjectival noun', according to my friend who is a linguist, so apparently my point is moot anyway.
Palindrome wrote:In other news; why does Santa feel compelled to reward good children once a year? What does he do the other 364 days a year (365 on a leap year)?
Here's what I always had the most trouble with, and no one was ever able to satisfactorily address this for me.
God is omnipotent and omniscient. The bible says Satan rebelled against God and took some angels with him. How did they do this if they have no free will?
And How would this have happened if it wasn't Gods plan all along? Not so much a rebellion, but a very deliberate and desired outcome. God programmed Satan to rebel and take on his new job. He was repurposed.
You can't say God wouldn't have seen this coming, as that would negate the omniscience.
Which is quite disturbing when you stop and think about it.
Cave_Dweller wrote:Here's what I always had the most trouble with, and no one was ever able to satisfactorily address this for me.
God is omnipotent and omniscient. The bible says Satan rebelled against God and took some angels with him. How did they do this if they have no free will?
Best answer I can find for that is that angels have free will, but they also have more knowledge. You might rebel against the town lawman if you never saw him and knew of him only by reputation. But if you knew the town lawman personally, knew he had a big gun and was stronger and faster than you you might not.
Cave_Dweller wrote:
And How would this have happened if it wasn't Gods plan all along? Not so much a rebellion, but a very deliberate and desired outcome. God programmed Satan to rebel and take on his new job. He was repurposed.
Tricky one. Gods plans dont always pay off technically. The allegory of Adam and Eve explains this. Placed in garden, no knowledge of good and evil. Nice solid plan. However that plan 'failed'.
The thing is God is already aware of the failure, but when plan a 'fails'. He doesn't move to plan 'B' he moves to alternate plan 'A'.
One theological example is that in the beginning man spoke one language, so everyone could communicate, it was a perfect plan a for the start. God ordained than men should speak many languages and because divided, however now once we are dead we 'increase in knowledge' and can speak all languages. Thus heaven is not limited to one tongue but many and is thus enriched by their versatility yet not constrained as everyone knows them all.
Best citation for that is the book Visions Beyond the Veil.
Cave_Dweller wrote:
You can't say God wouldn't have seen this coming, as that would negate the omniscience.
Without free will God would simply be a tyrant and we would be automata. Perhaps this was better.
Cave_Dweller wrote:
Which is quite disturbing when you stop and think about it.
It is indeed. But perhaps we should be more disturbed if we did fully understand a being which is purportedly all powerful, all knowing and intellectually grossly superior to ourselves.
if I actually understood 'God', I probably had the wrong god.
Frankly I think we are missing something, I trust God enough to let some details slide until later. The core stuff works out alright and some of that is profound enough.
Cave_Dweller wrote:Here's what I always had the most trouble with, and no one was ever able to satisfactorily address this for me.
God is omnipotent and omniscient. The bible says Satan rebelled against God and took some angels with him. How did they do this if they have no free will?
And How would this have happened if it wasn't Gods plan all along? Not so much a rebellion, but a very deliberate and desired outcome. God programmed Satan to rebel and take on his new job. He was repurposed.
You can't say God wouldn't have seen this coming, as that would negate the omniscience.
Which is quite disturbing when you stop and think about it.
Not too disturbing seeing as though God is supposed to be God and do whatever the hell he wants anyways. Also angels do have free will, nothing says that they don't and the only thing the bible does say is that angels should be happy to do God's will, if they choose to then they can tell God to screw off but it usually doesn't end well. Also maybe that's why God beat Satan in the end, God knew exactly what Satan was going to do and its kind of easy to counter an opponent when you know what they are going to do. Satan is supposed to be the lord of deceit which means he would tempt people into following his will with the promise of reward and then yank the rug from under their feet after they do it. If you've seen any mafia movie then you kind of get the idea, the guy does what they want him to do and they kill him anyways.
Then it comes down to humans then, God knows what we're going to do so its predestination. However most people believe that the end is undecided until the end which negates the concept of predestination. Well again the whole concept of God giving free will comes into play, God is supposed to be all powerful so why shouldn't he just damn people from the start, the answer being God isn't a total dick. He wanted us to have free will so if he decided to not want to determine our future then he doesn't want to and doesn't have to. I know that most people would say that they wouldn't give that up if they had it, then again most people are dicks.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote: Without free will...
What is free will?
Something no one understands completely, not even the most scholarly of scholars nor most ignorant of ignoramuses.
I would argue there isn't free will when faced with the threats Christianity presents, which are extremely severe and beyond anything you could suffer in this life. Hell is scary and no sane person would want to end up there. In fact, you would do anything to avoid that fate. The threat, and it is a threat, of damnation is a powerful 'motivator.'
It always struck me like pointing a loaded gun at your kids face and saying "gee kiddo, I love you and all, but if you don't love me back I'm afraid you'll force me to pull this trigger and blow your face off."
That was what I found after going to church and studying it, and talking to my family, many of whom are extreme Christians, is that they're terrified of going to hell, and will do anything to avoid that. They literally don't think about anything other than not going to hell.
This is different, IMO, than loving God because you love him. It's love generated by fear.
Back to the omniscience thing, I still don't buy it. God already knows every outcome of every event in the universe, and either by direct action or inaction, has sanctioned them all.
It's not that he knew what satan would do, he created Satan to do exactly what he did. And the angels who followed him. There would be no mystery to it. They were created to specifically be the overlords of hell to punish those who reject God.
Anyway, I have been thoroughly undone, congratulations, now I think we can let this thread die.
It isn't about winning or losing, but just about learning stuff. And I think the lesson in here for everyone is that whether you're a believer or not, if you want to comment or hold an opinion on the Bible, it's best you read the thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perkustin wrote:The description of Satan in Dante Aligheri's 'Divine Comedy' is fairly accurate to the bible, or at least a decent intepretation.
Look it up.
Not really. I mean you could say it's accurate in that nothing in Bible really conflicts with the Divine Comedy, but that's only because there is very, very little about Hell in the bible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cave_Dweller wrote:I would argue there isn't free will when faced with the threats Christianity presents, which are extremely severe and beyond anything you could suffer in this life. Hell is scary and no sane person would want to end up there. In fact, you would do anything to avoid that fate. The threat, and it is a threat, of damnation is a powerful 'motivator.'
It always struck me like pointing a loaded gun at your kids face and saying "gee kiddo, I love you and all, but if you don't love me back I'm afraid you'll force me to pull this trigger and blow your face off."
That was what I found after going to church and studying it, and talking to my family, many of whom are extreme Christians, is that they're terrified of going to hell, and will do anything to avoid that. They literally don't think about anything other than not going to hell.
This is different, IMO, than loving God because you love him. It's love generated by fear.
That is a reasonable criticism of many strands of Christianity, but not the religion as a whole, because many versions are not simply about 'be good and love God or go to hell'. Most teach of a much more complicated relationship between loving God and doing good deeds. Some even teach of no hell, or that hell is simply the absence of God's love in the next life.
Or wonder if its a red herring that should be discarded.
The exact nature and definition of free will may be something we cannot quantify from our perspective, we can all work it out in part. When it comes to human will, we are almost definately seeing the bottle from the inside. Something is missing from out perception and that may well cover the question you asked.
Best I can say with that.
You find anyone who can define free will categorically and you have found someone who will be remembered for millenia to come as a giant of philosophy. Sorry to disappoint, but I am not that guy.
Flattered you should ask me though.
Orlanth wrote:
You find anyone who can define free will categorically and you have found someone who will be remembered for millenia to come as a giant of philosophy.
Orlanth wrote:
You find anyone who can define free will categorically and you have found someone who will be remembered for millenia to come as a giant of philosophy.
Then why do we persist in thinking it exists?
Because its perceptively a different state from our perspective of having 'no free will'. We can tell that two states exist, but as a subset of what larger whole?
Orlanth wrote:You find anyone who can define free will categorically and you have found someone who will be remembered for millenia to come as a giant of philosophy.
David Hume?
"this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains"
Just that it's worth a read, especially if you want to consider it critically.
